Impossible to draw conclusions on new Demerara River Bridge in absence of key details – Environmentalist

Mar 27, 2022 News

---

“You must appreciate that the absence of the basic information on the bridge design and works that I noted in my letter to the EPA makes it impossible for anyone, including the EAB, to draw conclusions on the likely significance of the impacts of the proposed bridge and whether the EPA’s decision is acceptable…at the very least, it would be an abuse of public time if this information were not available to yourself and the appellants before the hearing.”- Simone Mangal – Joly

By Davina Bagot

Kaieteur News – With a public consultation set for Tuesday on the placement of the new Demerara River Bridge, Environmentalist Simone Mangal-Joly has written to the head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Mr. Kemraj Parsram, highlighting the need for relevant data to be provided to residents, who will potentially be impacted by the project.

In a letter sent to the EPA yesterday, Mangal-Joly, who has been very vocal on issues pertaining to the environment, contended that the Ministry of Public Works’ application for the construction of the new bridge lacks basic information on the proposed development.
Not only that, but she also pointed out that under Section 18 of the application, the only document the Ministry attached was the Project Summary, which has long been made public and is also devoid of relevant facts.
Mangal-Joly was keen to note that no proposed design was attached, while the application also fails to provide information on the scale, geographic placement, and relative layout of infrastructure, access roads to which the application refers, drainage systems that would have to be modified as stated in the application, or properties in the right of way that would have to be demolished.

Additionally, she also brought to the attention of Parsram that information on the locations, sequencing, and duration of proposed construction activities, including assembling works required for the bridge, access roads, the extent and location of dredging of the Demerara River, pile driving, or demolition works to which the application refers, was also not listed.
“There is no information on the traffic capacity of the bridge, traffic projection or projected noxious emissions by type and amount during the operation of the bridge,” the Environmentalist added.
In this regard, she concluded that the absence of these details makes it impossible to draw conclusions on the likely significance of the impacts associated with the proposed bridge.
To this end, she told the Executive Director of the EPA that, “It would be unfair to hold such a hearing without prior disclosure of the relevant information upon which the EPA relied in making its decision to waive an EIA (Environmental Impact Assessment), especially as this basic information ought to have been part of the application for an environmental permit and formed part of the Public Register since November 19, 2021, the EPA’s stamped date of receipt of the application.
I note that the EPA’s decision to waive the EIA was remarkably swift, issuing a public notice of the waiver on November 23, 2021, only two working days after receipt of the application. You therefore must have been in possession of all relevant information at the time the application was made.”
Mangal-Joly in her letter also reminded the agency that copies of the application as well as other particulars of the project that the EPA used to arrive at its decision to waive an EIA for the new bridge were requested but not provided. As such, she urged that Parsram provide the relevant information the agency is in possession of, as she also brought the matter to the attention of the Environmental Assessment Board (EAB).
In a separate letter to the EAB, seen by Kaieteur News, the Environmentalist listed her concerns regarding the upcoming hearing on Tuesday.
“Firstly, in fairness, the relevant information required for an intelligible discussion and rational assessment of the EPA’s decision must be available to appellants before the EAB’s hearing, as by nature this information cannot be properly assessed and verified in real time,” Mangal-Joly reasoned.
“Secondly, this information must have been before the EPA at the time that it made its decision and triggered the 30-day statutory appeal process under the Environmental Protection Act, which was November 23, 2021. The EAB’s hearing by law must be based on that decision, made at that point in time, with information the EPA had before it then,” she added.
Moreover, she told the EAB that the international best practice standards for such hearings are 14-21 days after the statutory appeal period closes, but three months have elapsed since the 30-day appeal period expired on December 23, 2021.
In this regard, she said, “I would like to remind the EAB that any decision the EPA makes to waive an EIA is significant because it denies the public and frontline stakeholders statutory rights provided by the Environmental Protection Act to directly participate in the environmental impact assessment process at several stages. The decision before you is a weighty one. It is not only about fairness to citizens but also the integrity of democratic checks and balances on the conduct of public affairs, and the rule of law.”
The Environmental Protection Act gives the EAB the statutory authority to determine whether the EPA acted rationally in waiving an EIA and whether that decision should be reversed. Therefore, Mangal-Joly said that the EAB cannot merely assess whether the technical decisions were sound, but must also assess whether the EPA acted properly, given the relevant facts it possessed at the time it made the decision to waive the EIA requirement.
The Environmentalist in her letter to the EAB highlighted Section 11(2) (a) and (b) of the Environmental Protection Act, which specifies that an applicant must submit information that makes it possible to determine whether its proposed activities can significantly affect the environment, and thus require an EIA.
“You must appreciate that the absence of the basic information on the bridge design and works that I noted in my letter to the EPA makes it impossible for anyone, including the EAB, to draw conclusions on the likely significance of the impacts of the proposed bridge and whether the EPA’s decision is acceptable…at the very least, it would be an abuse of public time if this information were not available to yourself and the appellants before the hearing,” she contended.
Last week, Kaieteur News reported that the new Demerara River Bridge consultation, scheduled for Tuesday is already flawed as no design for the structure was submitted, which would determine potential impacts of the projects.
Weighing in on this matter was former Minister of Public Infrastructure, David Patterson. In an interview with Kaieteur News, Patterson said a design of the structure would determine the noise, traffic and other key impacts the project will have on nearby residents. To this end, he concluded that a design must be submitted first for one to effectively measure or quantify the impacts residents can possibly brace for.
Last August, the EPA said an EIA was not required for the construction of the structure, as it will not “significantly” affect the environment.
However, according to the regulator’s Screening Decision for the project, published on its website, it was explained that impacts to air quality can be expected, coupled with noise and vibrations and surface water quality. Some 24 lots are expected to be acquired to facilitate the new bridge as well, while approximately 2,360m2 (47.2m x 50m) of mangroves will also be removed on the Western end of the Demerara River to facilitate the bridge.
The public consultation will take place at 14:00hrs (2pm) on Tuesday, March 29, 2022 in the conference Room of the Cara Lodge Hotel on Quamina Street, Georgetown.

---

---