NRA’s Managing Director Provides Update On Environmental Impact Assessment For East-West Highway
Edward Howard, managing director of the National Roads Authority
|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
By Alric Lindsay
During a Finance Committee meeting on October 11, 2024, Edward Howard, the managing director of the National Roads Authority (NRA), provided an update on the progress made on the environmental impact assessment for the East-West Arterial.
Responding to questions, Howard said:
Just to give a brief update on the environmental impact assessment. We are essentially in the final stages of doing the ES, which is the environmental statement.
We plan to go to public, the final public consultation in January of 2025. And then from there it’s just technical review, and then the report will be finished.
Content of the environmental statement (ES)
According to the Directive For Environmental Impact Assessments published in Extraordinary Gazette No.50/2016, the ES should include the following information:
1. Description of the development , including in particular:
a. A description of the physical characteristics of the whole development and the land-use requirements during the construction and operational phases;
b. A description of the main characteristics of the production processes, for instance, nature and quantity of the materials used;
c. An estimate, by type and quantity, of expected residues and emissions (water, air and soil pollution, noise, vibration, light, heat, radiation, etc.) resulting from the operation of the proposed development.
2. An outline of the main alternatives studied by the applicant, including the “No Project” alternative, and an indication of the main reasons for the choices made, taking into account the environmental effects.
3. A description of the aspects of the environment likely to be significantly affected by the development, including, in particular, population, fauna, flora, soil, water, air, climatic factors, material assets, including the architectural and archaeological heritage, landscape and interrelationship between the above factors.
4. The basis for the evaluation of impact significance must be clearly set out for each topic in each section of the environmental statement and supporting documentation listed.
5. A description of the likely significant effects of the development on the environment, which should cover the direct effects and any indirect, secondary, cumulative, residual, short, medium and long term, permanent and temporary, positive and negative effects of the development, resulting from-
a. The existence of the development;
b. The use of natural resources;
c. The emissions of pollutants, the creation of nuisances and the elimination of waste, and the description by the applicant of the forecasting methods used to assess the effects on the environment.
6. A description of the measures envisaged to prevent, reduce and where possible offset any significant adverse effects on the environment.
7. A non-technical summary of the information provided under paragraphs 1 to 5 of this Schedule.
8. An indication of any difficulties (technical deficiencies, data gaps or lack of know-how) encountered by the applicant in compiling the required information.
9. All of the above shall be read in conjunction with guidance published by the DoE.
As a part of the public consultation process for the ES, the Directive states that a public meeting must be held least 7 days prior to the end of the consultation period. The venue is to be agreed with the Environmental Assessment Board to present the draft ES.
The Directive adds:
The proponent shall respond to and address as appropriate representations received during the consultation on the draft ES. These representations and responses shall be appended to the final ES.
An Environmental Management Plan will also be developed to “form the basis for environmental monitoring and mitigation during the implementation of the project.”
The Directive continues:
It is open to both the proponent and the EAB to engage an independent third party with the appropriate expertise to review any component of the EIA or ES if they so choose. This option may be particularly useful if there is disagreement regarding the scope, findings or conclusions set out in the ES. The reviewer shall be selected in a manner to be agreed by the EAB and proponent’s consultant. The review shall be funded by the proponent. Once the third party report is received it shall also be made available to the proponent, EAB and public.
The Directive concludes:
In the case of consultations pursuant to Section 41(3), decisions on the assessed proposal will be made by the Central Planning Authority, Development Control Board, or Cabinet or other authorizing entity; while taking into account the Council’s recommendations.
