AEP calls for statements of concern

By Sharon McLeay Times Contributor

Alberta Environment and Parks (AEP) is currently reviewing the storm water application for the Badlands Motorsport Resort and an advertisement has been placed calling for parties affected to submit a statement of concern.
Those who have concerns about the application have until May 25 to get their concerns into the review panel. Jamie Hanlon, AEP communications coordinator, said there are some parameters for submissions and he outlined the process applications make on their way through the review.
According to Hanlon, a valid statement of concern is one wherein the filer is considered to be directly affected. A directly affected party must demonstrate the effects of the proposed activity would affect them more than the average Albertan, through such factors as proximity of the filer’s residence to the site, water management impacts, personal impact effects on livelihood or lifestyle. Further, the concerns must be relevant to the application. The statements of concern are then reviewed; where necessary, reviewers will seek more information from the filer. AEP notifies all filers to identify whether they are considered directly affected.
Hanlon said relevant concerns are considered in the review, even if the filer is not directly affected, but only directly affected filers have standing to appeal any decisions made.
“Each file faces intense internal review from a number of environment and parks staff, including specialists such as engineers, limnologists and biologists,” said Hanlon. “All aspects of the application, from technical reports to plans for all stages of site use, are thoroughly reviewed. Where applications are found to be administratively or technically deficient, department reviewers may request additional information. Prior to a decision, all statements of concerns must be addressed by the applicant to the satisfaction of the designated director under the Water Act.”
After a decision is made by the board, all directly affected persons who have filed a concern will be notified of the department’s decision.
If the application is approved, directly concerned parties can appeal the decision; however, it does not necessarily halt the process.
The AEP website outlines that an appeal does not “stay” the decision of Alberta Environment and Parks. A request for a stay must be made to the board. The board will then decide whether or not to grant the stay. Hanlon said under the Water Act a person directly affected may appeal the decision to the Environmental Appeals Board within seven days of notification of the board’s decision.
The type of circumstances that an appeal may be considered include the issuing, cancelling or amending approval to operate a process or water licence, the issuing or failure to issue a remediation certificate regarding reclaimed land, the issuing of an enforcement order, environmental protection order, the designation of a contaminated site or the issuing of an administrative penalty.
Failure to have filed a statement of concern with AEP may affect the right to file an appeal with the board.
When the appeal is received the board gathers information and applicants can bring a preliminary motion before the board to determine if they are directly affected. The board will decide whether another hearing is necessary and determine if the information had been dealt with under the Natural Resources Conservation Board, the Alberta Energy Regulator or the Alberta Utilities Commission.
Then the board may choose to move on to mediation. If the mediation process is unsuccessful, the board may decide to hold a hearing. They may choose to ask only for written statements, an oral appeal or both. At the hearing, the board will allow the participant to give an opening statement, state their case, question those with adverse interests and give a closing statement. They may also support their case with another person’s testimony. The board is charged to conduct a fair hearing without bias, presenting an opportunity to hear both sides of the issue, but the burden of proof lies with the person making the appeal.