History

Altalink announces proposals to build new transmission lines in the Livingstone region. AWA writes to Premier Stelmach to oppose the proposed development: “No justification has been offered for the need for the proposed transmission line. AWA is not aware that this need has been discussed in any public forum. AWA firmly believes that this project should not be approved without any public discussion, including documentation, of the need for the project.”

In a January 2011 interview with the Calgary Herald’s Kelly Cryderman, Ted Morton, Minister of Finance, wades in to the debate over the proposed Micrex Corp. magnetite mine on the flanks of the Livingstone Range. He urges Minister Mel Knight, (Morton’s successor as Minister of Sustainable Resource Development), not to approve the proposed mine, at least not until the Land-Use Framework plan for the South Saskatchewan region is finalized. “It would premature to approve a project like this before the regional plan for the South Saskatchewan region is finalized,” Morton tells the Calgary Herald. “If you look at the policy document for the land-use framework, it identifies the Eastern Slopes in terms of priority uses, as watershed and recreation - not mining.”

On April 11, the Micrex mine decision is referred to the Natural Resource Development Board. The application will now presumably involve a long drawn-out hearing process.

AWA writes to Premier Stelmach to express opposition to the proposed Micrex magnetite mine on the Livingstone Range. “The limited benefits from any development could never outweigh the considerable costs – to the natural beauty of the landscape with its accompanying tourism potential, to the clean surface and groundwater production properties of the land and to the significant wildlife habitat in the region.” AWA also notes that “The local community is quite clearly strongly against the proposed development.”

Responding to a question about the proposed mine in the Alberta Legislature in early December, Minister of SRD Mel Knight comments, “The process going forward would allow for proper exploitation of that resource, and it's a required resource in the region.” Later he backtracks somewhat, telling the Calgary Herald that he had not heard the legislature question correctly. “Magnetite would not qualify as a required resource in the region,” he says. “It is my responsibility to be sure that resources that belong to Albertans should be developed in a way that gives the maximum benefit to Albertans while maintaining a very high standard of conservation and environmental awareness.”

November 2010. The Pekisko Group and the Chinook Institute for Community Stewardship launch the Southern Foothills Community Stewardship Initiative. Building on the earlier Southern Foothills Study, this is a citizen-­‐based process to provide direction to provincial, municipal and non-­‐government organization land use planning and stewardship efforts, in order to protect and enhance the integrity of the Southern Foothills landscape of SW Alberta. A series of community workshops is held to research the values and priorities held by residents throughout the region.

Alberta Environment unexpectedly decides that no Environmental Impact Assessment would be required for Micrex Corp's proposed magnetite mine on the flanks of the Livingstone Range. This is despite considerable local opposition to the proposed mine, which would have significant effects on the local environment, including bighorn sheep nursing grounds and elk wintering grounds, not to mention a spectacular viewscape.

In a Leger opinion poll survey for the Pekisko Group of landowners, 74% of respondents agree with calls for a moratorium on future oil and gas development in the south East Slopes “until the provincial government has finalized a Land Use Framework to plan and balance future development for this sensitive region.”

The 4,277-hectare OH Ranch Heritage Rangeland is officially designated. In an agreement with the Alberta government, owners of the OH Ranch agree to put conservation easements on their own deeded land if the Alberta government will designate the adjacent land (for which the OH Ranch holds a grazing lease) as a Heritage Rangeland. Although it appears that donations by private landowners now seem to be the only available way of protecting new land in Alberta, this is an encouraging step, which will help to protect a large area of relatively pristine fescue grassland for the foreseeable future.

With surprising speed, a draft management plan for the new Heritage Rangeland is made available for public input in September 2008.

When, after a year-long Energy and Utilities Board (EUB) “clarification exercise” over its Information Letter IL93-9 that saw the participation of AWA and three landowner groups, the process appears to be heading toward strengthening IL93-9, the EUB pulls the plug on the process. 

Instead, at a public meeting on December 3, EUB announces its new Early Engagement Land Pilot project for the area. Two hundred local residents listen respectfully to 15 members of EUB introduce the project. Participants then stand up, one by one, and reject the proposals. People do not want to talk about the specifics of how oil and gas development will take place: they want to be involved in the decisions which are made on whether or not to develop the resource in the first place. They call for a moratorium on further development until a plan can be developed to address the cumulative effects of numerous activities on the landscape. John Cross, from the Pekisko Group, calls for the government to “Stop. Think. Plan intelligently.”

AWA joins with a number of environmental and landowner groups (13 groups in total) in sending a letter to Premier Stelmach: “To create space for effective planning we strongly endorse the concept of a pause, or a “time out” for many resource developments occurring now in the Southern East Slopes. If unchecked, the frequency and intensity of these developments will significantly undermine planning efforts and regional ecological integrity.”

Work on the Southern Foothills Study continues. SRD Minister Ted Morton attends a meeting on March 28, 2007. Phase Three of the Study begins. Different groups begin to meet to discuss best practices for the different “sectors” operating in the region – e.g.: oil and gas, forestry and agriculture. AWA is represented on the Forestry Sector group, which has one single belated meeting in November. Government forestry staff fail to attend, and Spray Lake Sawmills send a representative to just this one meeting, stating that they will not attend any further meetings.

The Southern Foothills Study cumulative effects report is released. A series of presentations in seven local communities attracts 600 people. Key projections from the study include:

• Conventional oil wells will increase from 44 wells to 378 wells by 2055.
• Conventional gas wells will increase from 160 wells to 1104 wells by 2055.
• Coal-bed methane wells will increase from 0 wells to 1972 wells by 2055.
• Total length of pipeline will increase from 401 km to 6360 km by 2055
• Total length of roads will increase from 7,136 km to 16,224 km by 2055
• Grizzly bears will disappear entirely from the region.

Following a pre-hearing in April, Alberta Energy Utilities Board (EUB) denies standing to AWA and three landowner groups (Pekisko and Livingstone Landowners Groups and South Porcupine Hills Stewards Association) in an application by Compton to drill two gas wells. EUB ignores its own guidelines, specifically its Information Letter IL93-9 governing development in the southern eastern slopes, requiring full development plan, rather than well-by-well applications.

AWA and the three landowner groups deliver a high profile letter of objection to EUB: “The regulatory system in this province has become irreparable and no longer supports the interests of ordinary Albertans or the rights of surface owners […] The current policy of liquidating oil and gas resources as quickly as possible is destroying rural communities; wildlife; hunting and hiking; tourism and historic landscapes along the Cowboy Trail. Together the Board and the government are erasing Alberta's single greatest brand: its land and heritage.”

EUB later calls for a meeting with these groups and undertakes a process of “clarification” of its Information Letter IL93-9 with selected stakeholders.

A draft management plan for the C5 Forest Management area continues to be delayed due to a failure to consult adequately with First Nations about the plan. Forestry operations continue without a current plan.

The Draft Forest Management Plan is released for the C5 Forest Management area. This region stretches from southern Kananaskis Country south to the border of Waterton National Park and includes the forested parts of the Livingstone area and the Porcupine Hills. The plan proposes to “maintain or increase the net forest (commercial timber harvesting) land base in the C5 FMU” and proposes a 25% increase in an already considerable Annual Allowable Cut (AAC). The plan ignores proposals for protection in the region. AWA comments include: “The plan appears to be very much a ‘Forestry’ management plan, as opposed to a ‘Forest’ management plan…The emphasis of the plan continues to be on the provision of a continuing timber supply, rather than the management of a complex forest ecosystem.”

Compton Petroleum submits an application to drill the first of at least 18 exploratory gas wells. Compton proposes a high density “tight gas” development project in the area.

Despite EUB requirements that “Any company intending to develop a project in the region is expected to carry out a thorough and effective public consultation program consistent with the sensitivity of the area proposed for development” (IL 93-9), Compton consultations with local landowners, including the Livingstone Landowners Group (LLG) are very poor. Compton does not believe that the LLG is required ‘for any of its applications.” (June 23 2005, Compton Participant Involvement Summary). LLG agrees to participate in EUB-facilitated Alternative Dispute Resolution process but Compton Petroleum declines.

The Southern Foothills Study group is formed, consisting of landowner groups, local municipalities, oil and gas and environmental representatives. The group identifies the boundaries of its study region as 1.22 million hectares of fescue grassland, foothills, forest and mountains, stretching from the BC border east to Highway 2, and from Turner Valley south to the Crowsnest Pass. Principle issues of concern are identified as water quality and quantity; fescue grasslands; lack of coherent land use planning; land stewardship; sustainable extensive cow/calf land use; and key megafauna. Brad Stelfox from Forem Technologies is commissioned to undertake a cumulative effects assessment of the region, looking back at the changes on the landscape over the previous 100 years, and then assessing where “business as usual” development will lead to in 50 years’ time.

The Alberta Energy and Utilities Board (EUB) gives WIN Energy the go-ahead to drill a sweet gas well in the Porcupine Hills. This will be the first of a potential 20 to 30 wells, according to the company. The Livingstone Landowners Group launches an appeal, claiming that WIN Energy has made little effort to consult the local community about future plans and that the EUB is ignoring the future cumulative effects of wide-scale development in the area.

Three directional wells are drilled by Compton Petroleum from a pad constructed immediately south of the Callum gas plant in what the company refers to as the Callum play. The company owns mineral leases for 100 sections of land along Hwy 22 between the Porcupine Hills and Cowley. According to Compton’s website, “Callum has the potential to become a very significant resource play for Compton…Compton plans to drill 21 wells at Callum in 2005.” The gas resource in this area “appears to exhibit many similarities to deep tight gas pools in the Rocky Mountain region of the United States, including the Jonah and Pinedale pools of the Great River Basin in Wyoming.”

EnCana has drilled as many as 64 wells per section in the Jonah field; Ultra Petroleum has applied for 128 wells per section.

Bob Creek Wildland (20,778 ha) and Black Creek Heritage Rangeland (7,760 ha) are proclaimed.

Vermillion Resources withdraws its plans to drill in the region after considerable high profile opposition from the Pekisko Group of local landowners.

Alberta government Public Lands Division places a ‘protective notation’ on 27,655 ha of public land southwest of Longview. This states that grazing and industrial use require an access management plan prior to entry, entry only during dry or frozen ground conditions, and access restriction in times of high wildfire risk.

The Special Places program ends, despite the support of the multi-stakeholder Provincial Coordinating Committee for official protective designation. Only 21.1% of the stated target for protection of the Foothills Parkland, and 22.8% for Foothills Fescue are actually protected.

A report compiled for the Alberta government by Sweetgrass Consultants identifies national, provincial and regional Environmentally Significant Areas (ESAs), including Highwood Pekisko Upland ESA and Pekisko Creek ESA.

The Government produces a report on the Parkland Natural Region for the Special Places 2000 Provincial Coordinating Committee. It identifies Highwood Chaffen ESA (including Highwood Pekisko Upland, Meinsinger Lake and Pekisko Creek ESAs). The report suggests that Highwood Chaffen ESA is the area with the greatest potential to meet provincial targets for protection of Level 1 Natural History Themes within the Foothills Parkland sub-region, and recommends that all crown lands in the area should be maintained in their natural state.

Alberta government’s Special Places program sets provincial targets for protection of Level 1 Natural History Themes within the Foothills Parkland and Foothills Fescue sub-regions. There is a target of 228 km² for Foothills Parkland and 270 km² for Foothills Fescue.

• Any company intending to develop a project in the region is expected to carry out a thorough and effective public consultation program consistent with the sensitivity of the area proposed for development.”
• At each stage of development… a potential operator will provide, in as much detail as practical, its best estimate of the overall extent of development. This is required in order to avoid piecemeal proposals and to ensure that the overall scope and potential impacts of the development, if permitted, are clearly understood.”
• Applicants will be required to carry out environmental assessments for each proposed development stage. These environmental assessments will be of sufficient detail to allow the Board to determine whether the project's economic benefits and mitigation programs sufficiently outweigh any remaining social and environmental costs (i.e. that the project is in the overall public interest).”
• Operators proposing developments within this region are expected to consolidate their plans and activities with other operators to the greatest degree practical wherever this may reduce area impacts.

The historical value of the region is recognized by the establishment of the Bar U National Historic Site to “commemorate the evolution of the Canadian ranching industry and the contribution of the industry to the development of Canada” (Parks Canada 1998).

• To recognize watershed protection as the highest priority in the planning area. To maintain and improve water quality, quantity and flow regime for aquatic habitat and onstream and downsteam users.
• To assess, preserve and manage representative and unique examples of natural features, landscape and ecosystems through identification of ecological reserves and natural areas.
• To protect valuable, high quality recreation resources for future use.
• To sustain the maximum level of use of the range resources while maintaining good range condition for the benefit of domestic animals, wildlife and watershed protection.
• To maintain or increase the numbers, distribution and diversity of wildlife species, maintain critical ungulate ranges, protect migration routes and to maintain recreational and commercial uses of wildlife by hunting and trapping.

Approximately 300 people attend public sessions in Nanton, Claresholm, Crowsnest Pass and Lundbreck to discuss draft plans for Livingstone Porcupine Hills Sub-Regional Integrated Resource Plan.

• Protection of Critical wildlife Habitat will maintain those species presently found in the eastern Slopes
• The Eastern Slopes natural resources will be developed, managed and protected in a manner consistent with principles of conservation and environmental protection.
• The management of renewable resources is the long-term priority of resource management in the Eastern Slopes. Non-renewable resource development will be encouraged in areas where this priority can be maintained.

Shamrock Drilling Ltd receives permission to drill test well (LSD 16-25-13-2-5).

Joffre Resources test well in Trout Creek Basin is found to be “a very dubious success” (ERCB). AWA requests that well site and access road be reclaimed to contour as soon as possible and that, in the meantime, the access road be gated and closed to motorized recreational use.

AWA continues to oppose the construction of the 500 kV transmission line through the nationally important landscape of the Whaleback. “This area is a highly significant landscape with superb wildlife and vegetation features. As a landscape unit, it has been described as being of national importance.” The visual impact of the 30.5 metre towers would be enormous in this important Montane habitat. AWA suggests a far less environmentally damaging line down the Happy Valley secondary highway to the east. AWA’s calls are ignored and construction goes ahead.

McConnell Exploration Surveys undertake extensive seismic program in the North porcupine Hills. Program uses portable operations to reduce impact.

The ERCB announces route of final 25 km of power line, through Phillipps Pass just north of the Crowsnest Pass.

The ERCB holds a public hearing to reconsider the remaining 25 km of route of power line, though Board makes it clear that they will not discuss the need for the power line, which has already been acknowledged.

The Municipality of Crowsnest Pass pushes for routes with less impacts on the region. “Those (power) towers would be sticking out like sore thumbs,” says John Kupalka, municipality administrator.

AWA argues that, if the transmission line has to be built then it should use the Phillipps Pass route, which is already a transportation corridor, containing transmission lines, pipelines and other man-made features.

The Alberta cabinet approves most of the controversial 500 kV power line though approval is withheld on a short section near the Crowsnest Pass linking it with BC Hydro.

Alberta Energy and Natural Resources Fish and Wildlife Division (F&WD) produces report on the impacts of the proposed 500 kV transmission line. The report notes that wildlife concerns recognized by Calgary Power are:

• Should construction activities be scheduled during spring months, these activities may disturb and further weaken lean and pregnant animals
• Noise during the periods of construction may cause animals to abandon the disturbed areas, temporarily reducing habitat
• Removal of trees and brush from the right of way will reduce cover for animals, reducing their vulnerability to hunters
• Human access into fairly remote areas may be increased, leading to greater disturbance of animals in the area.

The F&WD report suggests that Calgary Power addressed only first and last points above, but ignored others. The report notes that “some loss of extremely productive native winter range on the right-of-way may effectively reduce the amount of winter range (i.e. native grass forage) available to big game.

Though the July 1980 ERCB decision had recommended the Central Route, the F&WD report highlights the concerns of the three different proposed routes:

• The East Route would affect the largest number of landowners (207) and arable land, and have potential impacts on Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump, but would cross the least critical wildlife habitat (approximately 2.4 km of critical range for bighorn sheep). This route would be the one preferred by Fish and Wildlife.
• The Central Route, the route preferred by Calgary Power and the ERCB, would affect a moderate number of landowners (160), but would cross 29.2 km of critical wildlife habitat, and require 52 km of forested right-of-way to be cleared.
• The West Route would cross the greatest linear distance of critical wildlife habitat, 30.8 km.

The F&WD report also suggests a number of mitigation measures to reduce impacts.

Despite AWA’s proven interest in the area, and ECA assurances (below), AWA is surprised to discover that a new 10 km long, 50 metre wide access road has been bulldozed along the Skyline crest and down to a new well pad (Blocker #1) in the Trout Creek Basin. Joffre Resources Ltd drill a test well at Section 26, TWP 12, Range 1, W5.

AWA also discovers that the Trout Creek Basin has been scheduled for 50% timber harvest over the next 5 years. This is in contrast to assurances from J.A. Brennan, Assistant Deputy Minister of Alberta Forest Service in 1979 that “by working together we hope to arrive at satisfying solutions to the many issues important to both AWA and AFS.” By the winter of 1981, the new 10 km access road has become a mud-filled quagmire.

A lease hand on Blocker #1, Trout Creek Basin remarks: “I’ve worked at quite a few rigs, and I’m sure I’ve never seen one in such a nice area. It makes it almost a pleasure to work here.” Blocker #1 well turns out to be a ‘dry’ well.

The controversial 500 kV transmission line is approved by the ERCB on July 8, 1980, subject to ministerial approval. The Board decides in favour of the Central Route which, according to Fish and Wildlife, would cross 29.2 km of critical wildlife habitat, including winter elk and mule deer range and two critical waterfowl areas. The decision on which route to adopt was based on:

• Cost
• Environmental, residential, agricultural and visual impact
• Electrical considerations
• Special constraints such as the effect on radio broadcasting, airstrips and historic sites.

The Alberta Court of Appeal rules that the ERCB has the authority to decide on the siting of a controversial 500 kV transmission line, from Langdon (east of Calgary) southwest to the BC border. Farmers and landowners along the three possible routes for the 230 kilometre line had argued that the ERCB did not have the constitutional power to decide upon a line which would cross provincial borders and connect to a BC Hydro line (and thence across the US border).

Seaton Jordan receive permission (through Joffre Oils Ltd) to drill on a site 200 metres from valley bottom Trout Creek access road.

Despite an ongoing legal challenge, the ERCB holds hearings on the proposed 500 kV transmission line by Calgary Power (later to become Trans Alta Utilities). These hearings, the longest in ERCB history, last 34 days and include 248 interventions, all but five of which oppose construction of the line.

AWA's submissions states: “In the view of the Alberta Wilderness Association the proposal by Calgary Power to intrude upon Alberta’s “viewscape” with a 500 kV interconnecting power line is currently unwarranted and the arguments for it are unclear and appear to be ill-founded. The environmental effects of the 500 kV power line are not simple, nor are they restricted to the immediate vicinity of the chosen right-of-way.” The transmission line would “significantly diminish the wildland and semi-wildland resources in Alberta’s scenic southern foothills.” The submission questions the assumed need for the transmission line: “The Interconnection proposal was spawned by an unthinking, uncaring, ethic of rampant growth. To allow it to proceed without correcting the gluttony of waste that sired its birth can be considered a criminal act.”

Alberta Environment (AE) rejects Calgary Power’s environmental impact assessment on the 500 kV transmission line. AE's review notes the failure of Calgary Power to “clearly identify the adverse environmental impacts that cannot be resolved by either modifications in the route or by environmental protection plans.” Also, “despite the provincial significance of the existing wildlife populations and the uniqueness of their habitat, wildlife concerns were not treated adequately.” Calgary Power re-submits its report in August 1979.

At an ERCB hearing for a similar project near Edmonton, Bill Fraser, Vice President of Calgary Power claims, “we’re not here as experts on biology or ecology, but we have the knowledge and experience to construct power lines and protect the land."

A Policy for Resource Management of the Eastern Slopes states: “The highest priority is placed on watershed management to ensure a reliable supply of clean water for aquatic habitat and downstream users.

"Land use practices are controlled to prevent stream flow from being unduly altered and to maintain the self-perpetuating recreation fishery of the Eastern Slopes. Watershed protection is a major emphasis through the region and this concern cannot be satisfied by establishing a separate zone.”

The ECA's response to AWA's submission (1978) on the Trout Creek Basin concludes, “Any timber harvesting in the North Porcupines/Trout Creek area should be conducted to maintain pleasing aesthetic environments.” To achieve this, “In addition to keeping cutblocks small, the harvesting system should be modified from the present two-cut system to a three- or four-cut system. This would help maintain an aesthetically pleasing landscape, with a minimum of observable cutblocks at any one time or place, and would still allow for regeneration of the forest.”

J.A. Brennan, Assistant Deputy Minister of Alberta Forest Service (AFS) writes “Having reviewed it [AWA’s 1978 submission], it is apparent we do indeed have mutual concerns and by working together we hope to arrive at satisfying solutions to the many issues important to both AWA and AFS.”

AWA's submission to the Environmental Conservation Authority (ECA) Hearing Committee highlights the value of the Trout Creek Basin for informal recreation and for its huge old Douglas fir trees. AWA suggests that if forestry operations could be carried out in a very sensitive manner (no motorized access; single tree cutting in winter; no upgrading of trail; leaving old Douglas firs untouched etc), the “many Albertans would probably be willing to trade the periodic cutting of several hundred thousand board feet for 50 square miles of ‘almost natural’ Wildland Recreation Area.”

AWA repeats its proposal for North Porcupine Hills wildland recreation area to Environment Council of Alberta’s Hearings on the Environmental Effects of Forestry Operations in Alberta.

Calgary Power and British Columbia Hydro (later to become Trans Alta Utilities) file submissions for construction of an inter-provincial 500 kV transmission line, which would allow the two energy corporations to swap energy in periods of high demand. Opponents, including local landowners, AWA and Alberta Fish and Game Association, argue that the stated need for the powerline – to supply peaking power reserve capacity – could be achieved in a considerably less damaging manner, and at lesser cost, by construction of two standby generators. The groups believe that the prospect of future electricity sales to the US are the real driving force behind these proposals. Calgary Power suggests three possible routes for the transmission line (the East, Central and West routes). Each has its own specific impacts.

The Alberta government produces the Eastern Slopes Policy which provides objectives for integrated resource management in the Eastern Slopes. This Policy identifies zoning of the region, including prime protection (zone 1) and Critical wildlife (zone 2). Stated objectives include:

• “To recognize watershed protection as the highest priority in the planning area. To maintain and improve water quality, quantity and flow regime for aquatic habitat and onstream and downsteam users.
• To mange headwaters in the region to maintain the recharge capabilities and protect critical fisheries habitat...
• To identify very rare, scarce or special forms of outdoor recreation opportunities from wildlife (sic) and to ensure that access to those opportunities continues to be available...
• To maintain areas of wilderness of primitive character.”

The Eastern Slopes Policy does not provide a category by which an area can be classified as both wildland recreation use and grazing. So much of the area proposed by AWA as a Wildland Recreation Area is zoned as Multiple Use (Zone 5), with a small portion of Critical Wildlife (Zone 2). AWA accepts this reluctantly and begins to work for management and timber harvesting practices which would retain as much of the wildland recreation qualities of the area as possible, with a particular focus on the Trout Creek Basin.

Calgary Power begins preliminary discussions with Alberta government on the proposed $32 million Langdon-Phillipps Pass 500 kilovolt (kV) transmission line.

AWA proposes protection of a 130 km² area in the North Porcupine Hills in the 1973 Eastern Slopes hearings on Land Use and Resource Development.

Willow Creek Provincial Park is designated (109 ha).

 A Dominion of Canada, Department of the Interior brochure descriptive of the five divisions of the Rocky Mountain Forest says: “It has been said that one of the primary aims of all National Forests is the production, in perpetuity, of a supply of timber. In mountainous regions the use of the forest may, by necessity, be subservient to another use-that of watershed protection.

"Bare hills and mountainsides offer no opposition to the rapid run-off or evaporation of rain and snow, and it has been found, in cases where the forests have been removed from the mountainsides, that sudden floods are frequent and that, later, drought invariably follow. With cities dependent on the mountain streams for light and power, with dozens of rural communities dependent on stream flow for irrigation purposes, it is vital that the run-off be controlled. Forests are the greatest factor in much control."

The area is incorporated into the Forest Reserve. Fire suppression begins.

Cattle ranching begins with passing of Order in Council, permitting leasing of 100,000 acre tracts of land for 21 years at one cent per acre.

Colonel Peter Robertson-Ross (head of the Canadian Militia) climbs to the top of the south end of the Porcupine Hills and writes: “I had, I think, one of the most magnificent views I ever saw in my life. At a distance varying from 15 to 20 miles, in a sort of immense amphitheatre, lay the Rocky Mountains, towering their giant heads many thousands of feet high; on our left the boundless prairie stretching far to the east; in our front to the south at a distance of 50 or 60 miles lay the boundary line, the Chief Mountain and part of the Territory of Montana.”

The area is mapped by Palliser.

Native presence up to 9000 years ago.