The Tribune

By FAY SIMMONS

TRIBUNE Business Reporter

jsimmons@tribunemedia.net

A GRAND Bahama advocacy group has filed revised submissions urging the Department of Environmental Planning and Protection (DEPP) to halt further approval of Bahama Rock’s proposed 270-acre Freeport Harbour expansion over alleged unresolved gaps and inconsistencies in its plans.

Preserving Paradise, in a supplemental filing dated August 28, asked DEPP to issue no Certificate of Environmental Clearance (CEC), operational clearance or recommendation, and to permit no early works, until a corrected record has been disclosed and subjected to further public review.

The submission follows the July 29 public consultation on the proposed project, which also involves Bahama Rock’s acquisition of the former Bahamas Cement Company site, and supplements a formal objection filed by Preserving Paradise on July 27 and its first follow-up on August 3.

Among the issues raised in the latest filing is an alleged inconsistency over the frequency of blasting. Preserving Paradise says the October 2024 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) describes blasting adjacent to the property as about once per week, while the July 29 presentation estimates twice-weekly blasting.

The group is asking that the blasting frequency, annual number of blasts, charge assumptions and protections for nearby receptors be reconciled. It also questions employment assertions made in the July presentation, which it says referred to more than 85 direct jobs, more than 200 indirect jobs and “285-plus jobs”.

Preserving Paradise is asking Bahama Rock to identify which jobs are existing, retained, additional, indirect or induced, and to disclose the demand, price and model supporting the presentation’s import cost claims.

The filing also raises questions about the project's footprint, noting habitat categories presented on July 29 total 298 acres, while the project description and notice refer to an approximately 269.39-acre area and exclude the 100-foot buffer. The group is seeking what it calls “one certified, geo-referenced disturbance envelope and reconciled habitat table”.

Preserving Paradise further argues that the project record does not yet disclose one complete, connected harbour plan, pointing to references to turning basins, deep-water berths, a marina, recreation and tourism benefits and “improving the moorings”.

“Reasonably foreseeable connected works should not be deferred while irreversible excavation is approved,” the submission states. A further issue raised in the August 28 submission concerns the reported acquisition of the proposed project property.

Preserving Paradise said that during the consultation process, a Bahama Rock representative verbally stated the company had completed the purchase of the proposed project property and had also acquired adjacent property.

The group says that statement has not been supported by documentary evidence in the public record, and is asking for confirmation of whether the transaction has closed, the completion date, its legal form and the identity of the current legal and beneficial owner of each affected parcel.

It is also seeking documents showing the relevant conveyances, assignments or leases, along with parcel descriptions and surveys.

The request stems from what Preserving Paradise says was contained in the October 2024 EIA, which said Bahama Rock had entered into a purchase agreement to acquire Bahamas Cement Company, identified as the owner of a 515-acre property.

According to the submission, the EIA said closing was conditional upon specified approvals, including approvals for related permits.

Preserving Paradise is therefore asking that every condition precedent be identified, including those it says were satisfied, waived, amended or removed, together with the governmental, environmental, planning, excavation, quarrying, mining, harbour and other approvals relied upon to complete the transaction.

“The acquisition of land does not itself confer authority to excavate, mine, alter the coastline, expand a harbour or obtain environmental approval,” the group said.

Preserving Paradise is also challenging the adequacy of the July 29 consultation, noting the meeting was held at the Foster B Pestaina Centre rather than at a venue in or near communities identified by the EIA as potentially affected.

The group specifically identifies Eight Mile Rock, Hepburn Town, Wild Goose Town and Lovers Beach as among the communities or receptors within what it describes as the project's direct or indirect area of influence.

The group is asking DEPP to produce the consultation outreach plan, evidence of publication and distribution, venue selection records and attendance information by community on an anonymised basis.

Unless DEPP can demonstrate that affected residents received effective notice and a reasonably accessible opportunity to participate, Preserving Paradise is asking for another in-person consultation in Eight Mile Rock or the immediately affected area, followed by a renewed written-comment period.

More broadly, the group wants DEPP to require a corrected or supplemental EIA addressing the project description, footprint, habitat calculations, blasting frequency, harbour components, mitigation measures and post-EIA representations.

It is also seeking an independent current condition review covering hydrogeology, flood risk, flushing, bathymetry, legacy contamination, blasting and connected terrestrial and marine effects.

Preserving Paradise is asking for at least 60 days to review the new material after the corrected EIA, underlying data, permit register, agency comments and response matrix have been published, followed by another public meeting.

The group has also submitted the O2 Grand Bahama Harbor-Edge Innovation District concept as a site-specific alternative for evaluation, saying it could provide recurring enterprise, research, restoration, public access, Bahamian participation and port-compatible activity on land that would otherwise be converted through deep excavation.

It wants the alternative compared against no action/restoration, continuation of lawfully authorised existing operations, the minimum verified harbour footprint and the full proposal, using common assumptions for 30-year public value, revenues, jobs, ownership, natural capital, restoration, infrastructure liabilities and reversibility.