The Environmental Assessment Board (EAB) on Tuesday upheld a decision of the EPA not to require an impact study for the construction of a new bridge over the Demerara River, relying in the main on a 2017 study which had concluded that the impacts of the project were “medium and manageable”.
Environmentalist and geologist, Simone Mangal-Joly had appealed a decision by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) not to require the study, arguing among other things that without a bridge design being finalized no decision on this matter could be made.
Unmoved by these arguments, the EAB – which hears appeals of EPA decisions – ruled in favour of the agency and said that an Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) was not required. It however recommended that an Environmental and Social Management Plan be drawn up and a listed a number of areas that it should address.
The EAB decision was issued under the signature of its Chairperson, Pradeepa Bholanauth
In a letter dated 26 April 2022, addressed to EPA Executive Director, Kemraj Parsram, the EAB stated that it “upholds the decision of the EPA that no ESIA is required for the Project,” The decision, it said, was attended by the condition that there be “no significant change to the conceptual design presented.” Further, “… any significant departure from the design presented should trigger a further review by the EPA on the necessity of an ESIA.” The letter was copied to the appellant, Mangal-Joly.
An actual design for the high-level, four-lane bridge is yet to be presented as the government is still in negotiation with a contractor.
The EAB noted that it had arrived at its decision after having allowed due process and considering all of the concerns, comments and responses made during the public hearing. It also stated that it conducted a “thorough” examination of the EPA’s assessment of the application, including the feasibility study done on the project, as well as the issues raised by Mangal-Joly and the information provided within the applications made by the developer.
The letter to Parsram however, recommended that an Environmental and Social Management Plan (ESMP) be compiled for the project pre-construction and should include the following areas:
– identification of impacts, methodology for assessing their magnitude on receptors, and mitigation outcomes of the final design;
– detailed monitoring plan developed and finalised with stakeholder feedback;
– Assessment Reports, for both construction and operation that address knowledge gaps on the influence of the bridge on sediment dynamics, river flows/velocity (inclusive of backwater effects), establishment of hydrological baselines, air quality, surface water quality, and noise levels on the main roads that will receive traffic leaving the bridge, resettlement needs;
– complete updated analysis and projection of future road and marine traffic loads and patterns;
– comprehensive inclusion of all feeder roads and bypasses reflective of current development plans in the national infrastructure programme;
– information on the proposed location(s) selected regarding the susceptibility to flooding (special focus on contributions/impacts to drainage adjoining communities), the impacts of any increase/decrease in surface run-off and the intended mitigation measures;
– handling and disposal of waste generated during construction and operation;
– measures to address any relocation of residents within the nearby communities;
– river dynamics analysis and information on dredging required at the proposed location and mitigation measures especially for sediment discharge.
It was also proposed that these actions be informed by a comprehensive stakeholder engagement programme.
The EAB referred to the feasibility study conducted by Lievense CSO Engineering Contracting BV in August 2017 which included an initial environmental and social impact assessment for the bridge project. The EAB said that this initial ESIA had examined several alternatives including the current proposed location against the autonomous development (current bridge) and its potential environmental impacts. The Board stated that this document along with a preliminary drainage analysis report done by National Drainage and Irrigation Authority, the project summary, IFC-World Bank Group Standards, US EPA, GNBS Standards, and other relevant information were “pertinent in advising EPA’s screening decision.”
It is not clear if the Lievense study examined the proposed location for the new bridge over the Demerara which is Nandy Park, East Bank Demerara to La Grange, West Bank Demerara. Public references to the Lievense study adverted to a Houston to Versailles route which is entirely different from what is currently being considered and would therefore require different parameters to be addressed. The Lievense study is also now five years old and has not been updated.
The EAB said that it was also informed that the project has been categorised by the International Finance Corporation (World Bank Group) as a Category ‘B’ Project – Category B being business activities with potential limited adverse environmental or social risks and/or impacts that are few in number, generally site-specific, largely reversible, and readily addressed through mitigation measures.
The EAB pointed to several factors that were addressed by Lievense’s feasibility study which together concluded that impacts to air, water and soil were mitigable. These were: Hydromorphology Impacts, Geomorphology, Feeder Roads, Bridge, Connecting Roads, and siltation. In its analysis, the Board conceded that although the impacts from these factors were not significant, there were areas where there will be impacts on the environment which would need to be addressed. Also, updated information would be required on road and marine traffic as well as full consideration of the final design elements of the Bridge.
The EAB ‘s decision came in the wake of a formal appeal dated December 20, 2021 in response to the EPA’s public notice dated November 24, 2021 notifying of its decision not to require an ESIA for the new Harbour Bridge project. A public hearing was convened on March 29 this year by the EAB at which presentations were made by the Ministry of Public Works, Mangal-Joly and the EPA.
Arguing for the EIA to be required, Mangal-Joly had said that the purpose of the study is to identify specific impacts on different receptors in the environment and different categories of stakeholders (differently affected), assess those impacts and then determine their acceptability and any mitigation measures. She added that by waiving this, the EPA is denying those who stand to be affected, a guaranteed right to inclusive participation.
“The key reason we are here today is whether or not the EPA made a rational decision when it waived the requirement for an EIA for the new harbour bridge and whether the EAB should reverse that decision…
“I am going to show you that the EPA was not in a position in November 2021 and is still not in a position to waive the EIA on the grounds of sound reasoning and scientific rigour. The fact that this has happened underscores the need now more than ever for an EIA to identify and assess the impacts and those impacts are not overall, they have to do with specifics,” Mangal-Joly had argued.
The environmentalist questioned whether the EPA acted properly in the execution of its mandate noting that with the absence of a design, the Agency is “putting the cart before the horse.”
Fatal gaps
Mangal-Joly reminded the hearing that this was the third application for the project that was submitted by the Ministry of Public Works. She noted that it took the EPA only two working days to conclude that an EIA was not required after it received the last application back in November.
In a letter dated March 26, 2022 to Executive Director of the EPA, Parsram, Mangal-Joly said that the information provided to her for the appeal was grossly inadequate since it was just a copy of the Ministry of Public Work’s application for the construction of the bridge. At the March 29, 2022 hearing, she told the EAB that any new information that the EPA provides would essentially amount to an ambush since they would have withheld that.
Nevertheless, she premised her argument on two “fatal gaps” and pinpointed three examples of the lack of scientific reasoning for waiving the EIA.
“I am going to look at two fatal gaps, one is the failure to look at the hydromorpho dynamic impacts which is when you build a bridge, the most critical area and the second has to do with the phantom feeder road,” she informed.
The geologist said that the Demerara River is one that sees very high siltation and when piers are placed in the river it affects the flow of water, explaining further that it is a profound impact and in the absence of a bridge design this conclusion cannot be drawn.
“When you look at the EPA reasoning it does not address the likely hydrological impacts on the Demerara River. The EPA cannot know these impacts without an impact assessment and you cannot have that without a design for the bridge. This is why the cart is before the horse and why it cannot waive the EIA. It needs to have a married assessment with the design,” Mangal-Joly submitted.
She also argued that the EPA did not consider the road links in its study, citing a 2018 Ministry of Public Works study on the substantial increase in vehicular traffic on the Demerara Harbour Bridge. The environmentalist submitted that the EPA cannot know the impacts or assess them in the absence of road designs.
Mangal-Joly said that the EPA failed to deal with the impact of traffic-related air and noise pollution as well.
The EAB letter to Parsram of April 26, 2022 addressed some of the issues raised by Mangal-Joly.
Hydromorphology impacts
The EAB said that from the simulated influence of a bridge extension on the river flow, an expert judgement is provided for the expected influence on morphology. Simulation results establish two options for bridge extension that will have little to no significant influence on the local river morphology, it said.
Feeder roads
The EAB said that the feasibility study concludes that the configuration of the bridge does not have significant impacts to the traffic volume.
“It is noted that the bridge is not an isolated measure, but is taken in combination with other measures such as the implementation of additional north-south connections (the bypass roads), crossing between the ‘old’ and the new roads (the so-called links) and adjustments to the intersections that are located directly at the junction of the bridge”, the EAB said.
Siltation
The EAB said it has noted from all studies completed that the combined effects of low wave energy and the inland tidal effects increase siltation along the coast and in the estuary of the rivers such as Demerara River. “This has the effect of reducing both the capacity and rate of flow of the drainage systems, especially during periods of heavy rainfall. The EPA has reported that there is medium impact on sedimentation though the potential impacts not significantly different from current situation since the Demerara River has experienced legacy contamination”, the EAB stated.
The current administration has made it clear that it wants the new bridge built speedily but this has seen a number of delays and gross inconsistencies by the EPA. The EPA first said in November 2020 that an EIA was necessary and then inexplicably reversed itself nine months later.
