New York businessman, Tom Graham, says he is not opposed to suggestions that there should be an independent review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) he presented in connection with the proposed re-development and mining of the Road Salt Pond.
He made the comment for this week’s issue of The Anguillian following the presentation of the bulky EIA document at a meeting with residents of Sandy Ground and the surrounding areas on Wednesday, October 9. The meeting, at Trinity Methodist Church, attracted a large and responsive audience. The EIA was done by Sandy Nettles of Oceanfront Technologies who presented his findings; and the social impact study was carried out by Camile Dryer of Jamaica who outlined various aspects of the project.
Mr Graham has a longstanding interest in re-developing the salt industry for the production of bath salts on a wide commercial basis by mechanised harvesting. The Sandy Ground meeting followed his submission of the EIA to the Planning Department, and the Government has shown an inclination towards giving positive consideration to the proposal.
But there are serious concerns voiced by a number of residents in Sandy Ground and the bordering villages as articulated by several persons, including the Elected Representative, Edison Baird. David Carty, who has a keen knowledge of the pond,told The Anguillian in part: “I don’t think there is anything massively wrong with the proposal, but my personal opinion is that what the developer wants to do will create a lot of trouble. When he talks about cleaning up the pond, he is interfering with areas of the pond that have little to do with his business and involves dredging. When that is done, then all the mud is stirred up and the issue of hydrogen sulphide molecules, which are basically rotten eggs, becomes a humongous issue. Now this is from my point of view and the guy who did the EIA did not deny this.”
Mr Carty continued: “But there is divided opinion. There are people in Sandy Ground who think it is a good project and there are others who are dead scared of it…I think the biggest contributions were from Edison Baird, Larry Gumbs and I. As far as I am concerned, if permission was granted or not granted that would be fine by me, but I just warned the Sandy Ground community that if dredging was done – there would be considerable discomfort fumes from hydrogen sulphide molecules. I explained that molecules come from decayed organic matter and the unique geology of Sandy Ground shows us that thousands of years of organic matter eroded into the pond.”
Mr Carty, who did not see a major problem of flooding of the pond, stressed that once the hydrogen sulphide molecules weredisturbed by dredging there would be a serious problem. He was of the view that Sandy Ground was no longer a sleepy village dedicated to fishing and salt-production, but was now more and more becoming a sophisticated tourist zone. He noted that there were expensive restaurants along the beach which could be smoked out by hydrogen sulphide fumes, and there could be a displacement of residents, possibly resulting in legal ramifications.
Mr Baird, who, among other matters, has strong views that the project would result in the flooding of the pond, maintained that there was a need for a review of the EIA. “I said that against the backdrop of what happened with the Beal Aerospace project for Sombrero where Beal had planned to fire rockets,” he recalled. “Beal had an EIA done and it said that everything was fine and that there would be no harm to the sea, to the fish; and no harm to birds, the land or the environment. But certain persons questioned the analysis of the EIA including Sir Emile Gumbs. As a result, the British Government hired a company to review that EIA and it showed the EIA to be seriously flawed to the extent that the project was abandoned.
“It was against that backdrop that I felt it was necessary to have the Road Salt Pond EIA reviewed. Based upon what I have read and heard from knowledgeable people, it is flawed. The section on birds and biodiversity is seriously flawed and there are other areas that are flawed. I believe that these flaws will be brought out in the review.
“For example, at the meeting at Sandy Ground, it was revealed that once you start to dredge the pond – in front the houses – that the mud would release hydrogen sulphur molecules which can be very obnoxious. The EIA does not speak to that, so it is a very serious situation where we are dealing with human beings and therefore every precaution must be taken…
“My personal belief is that we should look at all the possible options for the use of the pond, rather than saying this option is the best option. My personal belief is that we should convert the pond into a high quality nature reserve, coupled with an eco-tourism/education centre; and this would fit in with our Master Plan for Tourism. Right now the Anguilla National Trust is working with the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, and the Tourist Board, on plans for eco-tourism.”
Mr Baird added that he had undertaken to write to the British Government about the matter and to express the need for “an independent and professional review of the EIA.” Meanwhile, he was pleased that the visit of the Dr Peter Hayes, the Director of the Overseas Territories, provided an opportunity for him to speak with him (Hayes) about the matter on Wednesday this week.
Responding, Tom Graham gave what appeared to be a balanced view of the matters raised at the meeting. “I thought it was very great that the community came out and expressed their concerns,” he told The Anguillian. “The primary concern that was raised by a couple of people – David Carty, Laurie Gumbs and a number of others – was the idea of the smell that would come out from re-engineering the dykes by disturbing the biological matter – lifting it up and using it to create the new dykes, and by dredging in certain areas. The idea was that the smell would be so awful as to harm the individuals in the community, as well as affect businesses like Mr Gumbs’ business at the Pumphouse.
“That’s a very important issue. It needs to be addressed. We didn’t address it in the original EIA so I am sure that the Government departments will come back and ask that we do some sort of testing on that in select areas to see what kind of gases are released, and see how it smells. It is just basically a test because, basically, there is an answer to this question. I think it is a great question and it needs to be addressed.”
He continued: “Another issue which was raised by Mr Gumbs was that we had originally proposed a museum to be part of the project. His opinion was that he would prefer that we didn’t have a museum since he is operating that function at the Pumphouse. I had told him that I agree with him and I wasn’t going to do a museum but it was raised again in the meeting. Just to clarify, we are going to have a demonstration centre but it would be really from the point that we start the project forward. It won’t be any historical matter about the pond. Mr Gumbs can continue that function at the Pumphouse. I think he does a very good job at it. We are just going to talk more about the ecology of the pond. We are going to help the bird life there and will be bringing back the mangroves, looking at the biology of the pond, as well as salt creation.”
Mr Graham said there were a number of good questions by many persons who were requested to submit them in writing within thirty days to be examined by the company’s experts.
Asked about the request for a review of the EIA, Mr Graham replied: “lastly, but more importantly, is Mr Baird’s request that the EIA be reviewed. He stood up and said to me: ‘Mr Graham would you commit to a review,’ and I said I would. I would support a review of the EIA. In my meetings with the Government the next day, Thursday, I asked them about that and they were very much in favour of that as well. They will be asking the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States to help them because there is a lot of technological and scientific knowledge with that group.”
