The buffalo jump perched on the edge of Bighill Creek serves as a powerful metaphor for a looming decision on which direction government officials will take when it comes to an approved gravel pit adjacent to Big Hill Springs Provincial Park.
There are essentially three options – to go full speed ahead, proceed with caution, or stop and reconsider the project’s merits.
The consequences may be as dire and irreversible as they were for the buffalo.
The Bighill Creek Preservation Society (BCPS) received a little unexpected good news in the first week of June, thanks to a May 31 letter from Alberta Environment and Parks advising the society would be allowed to submit their Statement of Concern to the province.
The gravel pit project is currently going through the regulatory review process and would only be allowed to proceed if it meets all legal and regulatory requirements for water and the environment.
The application from Mountain Ash Limited Partnership to mine gravel from an open pit – to be located northeast of Cochrane at the corner of Highway 567 and Range Road 40 – was approved on March 2, 2021 after the company’s representatives presented their proposal to Rocky View County (RVC) council at a special public hearing.
The proposed surface mine is located on 131 hectares of land overlying the aquifer, which creates the Big Hill Springs and sustains Bighill Creek. The pit project area is 300 metres from the headwaters that feed the springs.
At that meeting, council voted 6-3 in favour of redesignating the project area as falling under something called “Direct Control” as requested by Mountain Ash. That essentially means council will decide at a later date how stringent the specific development conditions will be.
At that meeting (which had to be adjourned and eventually ran for 14 hours in total), members of local environmental advocacy groups, area residents and park preservation interests presented arguments opposing the pit. There were 31 pre-recorded audio/video submissions in opposition to the proposal, including those from BCPS, Friends of Big Hill Springs Provincial Park (FBHSPP), and Trout Unlimited Canada. COVID-19 protocols prevented in-person presentations.
Alberta Environment and Parks (AEP) wrote emails and letters to RVC expressing concerns and advising that more studies were needed. Council approved the application in spite of that opposition.
Jumping ahead to last week, on a field trip highlighting the geological and environmental significance of the Big Hill Creek area on June 4, professional geologist Tako Koning pointed out some unique local features of the site, including the buffalo jump between Cochrane and Big Hill Springs Provincial Park.
Koning said archaeologists from the University of Calgary have found a number of interesting artifacts in the valley along the creek.
He described the origins of the tufa deposits found at the springs, and the need to preserve the park in its pristine condition.
“It is a unique little micro geologic park,” he said.
Ken Stevenson of the BCPS also spoke to the assembled group on the field trip, which The Eagle was invited to attend.
“If they ever disrupt this creek, it will never recover, and it’ll be gone forever,” he claimed.
At the base of the buffalo jump, nearby homeowner Lyse Carniganon pointed out a pair of great blue herons circling their nest on the other side of the creek. She then pointed to the former site of a nesting pair of prairie falcons near the top of the buffalo jump.
It is now a former nesting site, as Carniganon explained they haven’t returned in a couple of years, “ever since the motorcycle riders came and drove all around there,” she said.
Some of the voices raised in opposition to the gravel pit are concerned about disruption of wildlife other than aquatic species.
Both Dr. Jon Fennell (on behalf of BCPS and FBHSPP) and AEP recommend 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 is proposing to leave a one-metre separation.
Fennell is a professional geologist, hydrologist and geochemist who specializes in water security and climate resiliency. He penned a 57-page report that was submitted to RVC prior to the March 2, 2021 meeting. (Mountain Ash presented their study as well. To read about Mountain Ash's project and mitigation measures the company says it is taking, including air quality, dust, noise, habitat preservation, sediment and erosion control, visit bit.ly/3hnDK0G or watch a video of the project's phases at bit.ly/3qC8Fui).
Middle ground
Council debated at that lengthy 2021 meeting whether it was their responsibility to weigh the opposing viewpoints described in scientific studies and reach a middle ground, or at least a decision point.
Former RVC mayor Daniel Henn and deputy mayor Kim McKylor voted in favour of the proposal moving forward, saying they felt a middle ground should have been reached between the studies.
“I don’t buy either one of these reports. A hired gun is a hired gun. The truth lies somewhere in the middle,” McKylor said at the time.
Henn agreed.
“There was ample opportunity to find a middle ground on these reports,” he said.
Voting against the proposed pit and in stark contrast to Henn and McKylor were councillors Samanntha Wright and Kevin Hanson.
“I don’t believe it’s the residents’ job to find a middle ground. I think that’s council’s job. We failed,” Wright said.
Hanson agreed it was a failure. “It’s council’s job – otherwise why are they paying our salaries?” he asked. “We should seek an independent review.”
If council doesn’t want to rule on the credibility of competing scientific reports, then they shouldn’t ask for them, Hanson said in an interview this week.
None of Alberta Environment and Parks minister Jason Nixon, MLA for Airdrie-Cochrane Peter Guthrie, RVC Mayor Don Kochan, and RVC Deputy Mayor Crystal Kissel returned calls from the Cochrane Eagle this week. A representative of Mountain Ash who presented information at the March 2, 2021 meeting also did not return calls.
Whichever direction is ultimately chosen by the province, one thing seems certain – not everyone with an interest in the issue will be satisfied. And it seems politicians currently involved are not keen to wade into those waters.
If the environmental concerns are alleviated, mitigated, or removed, there will still be those who remain opposed to having gravel pits so close to a very popular provincial park – period.
There are three provincial parks within the county: Bragg Creek, Glenbow Ranch, and Big Hill Springs. Big Hill Springs sees about 250,000 visitors each year, making it one of the more popular destinations for area residents and tourists alike.
Many of those visitors may not even be aware of the nearby buffalo jump, as it’s not within the park’s boundaries.
But Hanson’s comments from the end of the 2021 public hearing gave an ominous tone, and may yet reflect the significance of looking before you leap when it comes to long-term consequences.
“We have the potential to be making a huge mistake here,” he said. “I cross my fingers we don’t screw up this park.”
It’s all about perspective. If you approach a buffalo jump from the top, it looks harmless. The view from below, not so much.
