Full scale EIA not needed to address environmental questions about new Demerara Bridge – EPA Head restates
Despite the absence of a design for the new bridge across the Demerara River, Head of the EPA Kemraj Parsram is maintaining that a full scale Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is not required for the project to be approved.
However, he was quick to point out that the project’s approval is still not yet decided on.
Over the past weeks, Stabroek News has been pressing Parsram for answers in relation the Agency’s controversial decision to rescind its December 2020 decision to require an EIA before approval for the project is granted.
Numerous calls, two cancelled interviews and several messages later, Parsram said “…the key thing is that we don’t need a full scale EIA to answer these questions...we have asked for other information to further guide our decision to approve or not to. If we approve, the permit will have the necessary and appropriate safeguards to ensure the impacts are not significant, long term, irreversible etc.”
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been receiving a lot of pushback for its decision not to pursue an EIA by environmentalists and other stakeholders. Geologist Simone Mangal-Joly has been one of the key voices against the EPA’s decision and has since raised questions about the effect of the project on the hydrology of the river.
She had pointed out, and recently submitted in her objections to the Environmental Assessment Board (EAB), that the absence of the project design makes it hard to have a comprehensive analysis of the environmental impact of the undertaking. The EAB adjudicates appeals of EPA decisions. The upgrade from the current floating bridge to that of a fixed high span structure would have significant impact on the hydrology of the river since it would require piers to support the upper structure. The number of piers, according to the geologist, would determine the impact to river and as such MangalJoly has been calling for hydrological and hydraulic studies.
“Our (the EPA) role in screening is to determine if impacts would likely be significant. The screening report identifies the key impacts likely and our reasons. From a layman, practical and commonsense perspective, the bridge is not expected to significantly alter, affect (the) hydrological regime. Who in their righted sense will do so or allow such?” Parsram questioned.
The EPA head said that the Agency, prior to approval, can inform its decision based on the information provided or may require some specific issues be assessed and mitigation measures proposed through the preparation of an Environmental Management Plan (EMP). He added that the EMP typically considers baseline data, monitoring requirements and mitigation measures which would ensure that the project, once approved, is undertaken in an environmentally-sound and sustainable manner.
“There will always be some amount of impacts on the environment where development is concerned. The question is whether the impacts may be significant or not. What the Agency does is assess these proposed activities, identify and take into account potential impacts and require information to guide its decision on granting or refuse to grant an environmental authorization,” he explained.
He reiterated that where the Agency determined that no EIA is required, it is in no way communicating that there are no impacts on the environment, neither is it communicating that the project is approved. He further stated that the non-requirement of an EIA basically translates to the agency saying that “in the specific instance, taking into account the size, the scope, the location, the design, or environmental assessments already available to the Agency and its competent evaluation etc, we were able to determine that a full scale ELA study as set out in section 11 of the Act is therefore not required to guide our decision.”
It is interesting that Parsram said that the design and
previous EIAs are taken into consideration when, in the case of this project, those documents are non-existent. Parsram told Stabroek News that in some instances, the EPA may be provided with sufficient information from the project summary and other studies such as technical and sci- entific studies and internal or external expertise. However, he did not speak specifically to this project and what was some of the information/data that led the Agency to backpedal on its decision on an EIA.
Explaining the screening process, Parsram said that the project summary would first be evaluated followed by site inspections by the Agency’s staff where they use satellite and GIS data to see what ecological and social components may be potentially affected, and also where feasible, physically go on the ground. Additionally, the Agency would engage, seek guidance and information as necessary from stakeholders inclusive of government agencies and residents.
Upon completion of the screening, the Agency may find that there is uncertainty of impacts which may see the need for more information.
“These impacts may affect an area broader than the sites or facilities subject to physical works, and as a result, the project may significantly affect the environment and therefore will require the conduct of an EIA (“EIA”) i.e. a full scale El as provided for in section 11 of the Act,” he said.
“In essence, the proposed project can have potential environmental impacts, but less adverse than those requiring an EIA. These impacts are site-specific; few if any of them are irreversible and in most cases mitigating measures can be designed more readily or the proposed project is likely to have minimal or no adverse environmental impacts. Beyond screening, no further environmental assessment is required,” the EPA head added.
The new bridge is expected to land in the vicinity of Nandy Park on the eastern side of the Demerara River and at La Grange/Meer-Zorgen on the West Bank. Based on the information provided, the bridge is expected to land some 700 metres inland from the eastern bank of the river and will be elevated 50 meters at the beginning of the channel – which is closer to the east bank. The descent is slated to be at a rate of 5 degrees.
The Scope of Works in the design/build contract included the complete design and construction of a twolane dual (four-lane) carriageway, hybrid cable-stayed centre-span bridge with concrete box/T-beam girder approach bridge structures, and must include bridge collision protection, a navigation span to accommodate Handymax vessel navigation aids, lighting, signage, and all other ancillary works, an access road with a minimum of 50 meters up to abutments, toll-collection buildings and ancillary buildings on the West Bank of the Demerara River.
In early November, the Irfaan Ali government announced the selection of China State Construction Engineering Corporation (CSCEC) to build the bridge for US$256,638,289. In its tender document, CSCEC submitted the cost based on the Design, Build and Finance
(DBF) option, or Design, Build, Finance, Operate and Maintain (DBFOM). The company is yet to accept the award of the contract and enter into negotiations with the government.
The entire process for the construction of the bridge has been heavily criticised since the government is yet to consult with the residents of Nandy Park, East Bank Demerara. Some of those residents would have to relocate because of where the bridge would be landing. The Regional Administration of Region Four has held off on giving a ‘no-objection’ to the project owing to the lack of consultations.
However, Public Works Minister Juan Edghill has since said that the ‘no-objection’ is a mere formality and that the project can go ahead without it.