In late December property owners and interested parties opposed to gravel pits operating in their backyards on Highway 567 got their answer from the provincial government tribunal they had submitted presentations to Oct. 3 and 4 of last year.
The Land and Property Rights Tribunal (LPRT) was called to hear the appeal of the decision by Rocky View County (RVC) to approve a development permit to McNair and Buckley Ranch Aggregate Development Inc. (BRADI) to extract 300,000 tonnes of gravel per year from a site east of the Shell station on 567.
Keith and Carolin Koebisch, who live beside the site of the proposed pit, launched the appeal, and were joined at the hearing by neighbours opposed to the new pit and the Bighill Creek Preservation Society.
The Koebisch’s land is 825 metres north of the project area.
The December ruling of the tribunal wasn’t the answer the Koebischs were looking for.
Although there were some small concessions to the landowners in the ruling (mostly to do with requirements to monitor dust and noise levels) in it’s entirety, the ruling means it will be essentially business as usual for the gravel companies.
The LPRT found the conditions of the original approval largely addressed the concerns raised on appeal.
Koebisch and the other presenters were hoping for the panel to agree with their arguments, and put development of the pit on hold, at least until a new aggregate resource plan (ARP) was completed. A committee is currently working on recommendations to submit to RVC.
Their October appeal centred on: cumulative impacts, noise, air quality, road safety, property values, groundwater, surface drainage, wildlife, and the aggregate resource planning process.
Koebisch’s submission read in part: “These issues must be addressed by the LRPT. They all negatively impact our deeply seated love of our rural lifestyle of outdoor activities, farming, closeness to nature and animals. It’s our religion and why we live here.”
Koebisch, a retired wildlife biologist, said he was disappointed in the ruling, but not surprised, especially after talking with others familiar with the tribunal process.
“I’m still kind of shaking my head,” he said. “I’ve heard from other people – lawyers and such – that this tribunal thing is kind of a joke,” he said.
Koebisch was not under the illusion that the tribunal might put a stop to the project but was hoping for something more.
“I was hoping they’d say, ‘OK, these guys (McNair) are going to have to comply with the ARP which should be imminent,” he said.
The new ARP is projected to be drafted within a year and a half.
Koebisch remains upbeat, but tired of fighting gravel companies for upwards of 20 years.
The day he spoke with The Eagle, it was – 34 C, with windchill values as low as – 50 C.
“Well, they won’t be starting any of their machines today,” he said with a laugh.
One of his frustrations centres around how persistent the County is in repeatedly asking stakeholders detailed questions to prove they qualify as “affected stakeholders” under the legislation.
“I had to write to them four times now, with big, elaborate reasons why I’m an ‘affected stakeholder.’ I was really getting tired of it,” he said.
“When I can smell, see, and taste it, I guess I’m close enough to be an affected party.”
The process
On May 2, 2023 the County approved the application for Phase 1 of a sand and gravel operation for a limited term of five years, at the SE¼ 01-27-04 W5M in Rocky View County, about 9 km north of Cochrane. The site is on the north side of 567, across the road from three other pits, one of which (Hillstone) is active and another (Mountain Ash Summit) is surface stripping as of a few weeks ago.
One of the guiding documents involved is what’s known as the Municipal Development Plan which has a stated goal to: “Support the extraction of natural resources in a manner that balances the needs of residents, industry, and society,” and to “Support the environmentally responsible management and extraction of natural resources.”
In its application for approval, the proponents of the pit submitted a biophysical impact assessment (BIA) which was completed by Ghostpine Environmental in January 2015. It concluded the potential impacts of the project would result in limited local loss of species biodiversity, habitat connectivity, natural features and aesthetics.
A sign of the times
The landowners disputed the conclusion during the October hearing, producing numerous photographs of wildlife in the area.
Hodgson also took exception to the wildlife report done by Ghostpine Environmental Services Ltd. on behalf of McNair. That study stated that “the project area contains limited biodiversity, in terms of wildlife and vegetation.”
Hodgson countered that claim by producing a number of photographs of wildlife in and around his land, and listed wolves, deer, moose, bears, cougars, falcons, eagles, and shrike, among others.
He said that many of these animals could not navigate the steep berms in place at existing pits, and were therefore forced to cross the busy 567, where they were frequently hit by vehicles.
In their October presentation, the appellants (those appealing the granting of a permit to remove gravel) stated that the Biophysical Impact Assessment (BIA) submitted by McNair was “inaccurate in not assessing the project site as a wildlife corridor as they find their property is frequented by a range of wildlife.”
They further argued that as a result of this shortcoming, “a new BIA with appropriate mitigation measures is required.”
In their December ruling the tribunal sided with the gravel company on the wildlife issue, explaining that the appellants’ argument that the area was indeed a “wildlife corridor” wasn’t conclusive.
“There was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the development will negatively impact the ecosystem and wildlife in the area. The BIA presented by the Applicant is accepted as evidence,” the report stated.
Ironically, just a couple of days after the October hearing closed, a new sign was erected on Highway 567 in the middle of the area under discussion, warning motorists to drive carefully, as they were in a “Wildlife Corridor.”
The company that installed the sign told The Eagle that all those types of wildlife corridor signs are installed at the request of Alberta Transportation.
