East End port EIA released
(CNS): The developer proposing to build a commercial sea port in East End has published the results of a privately commissioned environmental impact assessment, in full, on his website.The EIA reveals potential risks to the water lens, the need to remove six acres of coral reef and the destruction of more than 500 acres of land habitat which is home to some of Grand Cayman’s unique flora and fauna, including the endangered silver thatch and indigenous orchids. The report points to a number of other negative impacts on the local community and the country at large as well as hazards and dangers. But because the authors claim the developer can mitigate the negative impacts it dismisses a number of issues, likely to cause controversy, as negligible.
However, all of the details of the report are in the public domain and the developer is inviting those who are interested to contact him directly for copies of the appendices, which include the water flow charts and other data.
The full EIA, written and conducted by Hesperides Group, of Florida is over 240 pages long and examines the impact of the proposed development on the land and marine environments, the ground water supply and the local community.
It looks at potential dangers from the hazardous materials that will pass through the commercial port, should it become a reality, and the danger of spills, as well as the impact of noise, construction, transport and myriad other points.
In each case, however, even where risks have been clearly noted, the report’s authors have dismissed them by proposing mitigation, have said the losses are outweighed by other beneficial issues or have suggested moving plants to the Botanic Park, live corals to other reefs or replacing lost habitat somewhere else.
The report reveals that the terrestrial habitat that would be destroyed “supports the highest vascular plant diversity of all the island’s vegetation zones” and went on to reveal that there are several rare tree species “along with a variety of epiphytes (orchids), including a number of imperilled taxa.” The EIA states that there has (until now) been limited invasion by exotic species and the habitat value was described as “quite high due to the maturity and diversity of the native plant community.”
The authors state that during the observation period no imperilled vertebrates were seen, though officials here have previously indicated that there are possible signs of blue iguana inhabiting the area. The EIA did admit that the critically endangered and iconic blue iguana may inhabit the area, along with the country’s national bird. The Cayman parrot is already locked in a battle for survival as a result of over development, and because of the loss of wild habitat the national bird has been forced into further conflict with farmers as it searches for food.
The report also points out that the Vitelline warbler and the West Indian whistling duck, along with a wide range of flowers, including endangered indigenous orchids, as well as other unique plants and trees are in the 500 acre location, which will be ripped out in order to excavate a port basin.
The report states that the impact will be significant to the natural resources but suggested that the developers could “offset impacts to these habitats and plant formations” by collecting endangered plant material for preservation.
“Select trees and shrubs may be removed and transplanted offsite wherever possible. Epiphytes such as orchids may be harvested and transplanted or propagated to enhance genetic diversity,” the authors stated. “Seeds will be collected and propagated to enhance native plant populations. If possible, the Development Corporation will use materials originally harvested from the project site for EES landscaping and buffer creation.”
When it came to the ocean environment, aside from the obvious and significant impact on the reefs that will be destroyed, the report said that turtles would also be at risk. It suggested that the developer could help re-sand Half Moon Bay beach, which was a nesting site damaged in Hurricane Ivan, as a way of offsetting the impact the port would have on their environment. The reportalso spoke about moving corals that would be otherwise destroyed to create the channel that would be required for the port.
One of the most controversial issues surrounding the project has been the potential threat to the area’s fresh water lens. The report stated that the proposed development would bring seawater further inland and overtime would increase salinity of levels. The authors said that groundwater modelling was performed as part of the EIA to evaluate potential impacts. “Predictions based on the model show that excavating the EES basin may cause the southwest boundary of the lens to migrate further inland and the thickness of the lens to decrease within a small area of the lens,” it warned and suggested that the situation would have to be consistently monitored.
Meanwhile, the report by Deloitte focuses entirely on the financial aspects of the development and came up with a total direct impact on the Cayman Islands’ economy of US$133,300,000. This included US$108,200,000 on materials and services from local suppliers, US$13,100,000 on payroll for persons employed by the developer and US$12,000,000 on royalties, stamp duties, and work permit fees paid to government.
The consultants also said pre-excavation expenditure, including the purchase of land and design, engineering, legal and other professional fees, have already had a total direct impact of US$12,500,000. Indirectly, Deloitte said, the excavation phase would benefit the economy by almost US$50 million.
The project would create 204 jobs during the seven year excavation period, Deloitte claimed, 179 of which the consultants said would go to Caymanians. While indirectly, it said an average of 86 jobs will be created each year between 2011 and 2017,
“This estimate is based on calculations made by Deloitte of the average ratio of additional number of employed persons to additional GDP between 2005 and 2009. The ratio suggests that for every US$1 million invested in the economy, 12.24 more persons are employed in the Cayman Islands,” the report states. The report also anticipated a direct boost to the construction sector and money for government coffers if the project was to go ahead.
The EIA is available in full here and anyone who wants a copy of the appendices is asked to email: info@eastendseaport.com
The Deloitte survey is available here
All reports and documents relating to the East End Seaport are here.
Category: Science and Nature
This port idea is way too big. No post Panamax ships are going to come to the Cayman Islands because it makes no sense to send one to Grand Cayman to drop off a dozen containers. You are going to have about the same size ships you have now, just like all the other small ports in the world.
Humm! where were you when Cayman Brac was doing oil transhipment, back in the 70s.
these were super tankers transfering oil to the smaller ships to enter ports in the USA. These ports were constricted to the large super tankers.
Knowledge is power and information is the key.
There's no getting rid of this lunacy of a idea!!!!! Hesbreed''''s? Your going to be boycotted & the petition against this fallacy is still adding signature's. 'A seaport in East End'! We've certainly heard it all now. Is this why the cruise port project is being fiddled & fondeled?? Six acres of coral reef!!!!!!!!!!!??????? For those who struggle to quantify,that's approximately a mile & a half!!!!!! You wont get away with it Mac Impo. Arden,none of us in fact has missed the 'big picture'.
Actually 6 acres is 511 ft x 511 ft!
How can they speak of "moving" native plants and coral reefs and expect any significant percentage to survive? If it is actually attempted (doubtful) it will be a token amount and not successful. This is pure arrogance and fraudulent empty promises. And how can anyone even contemplate cracking the water lens? The whole East End of the island could dry up. What might that do to our farms and National Forests like the Mastic Trail? But the prospect of the "big hole" being really just a quarry and the country footing the bill in the end ought to be enough by itself to derail this terrible idea.
This proposed quarry….errr port develpment is a terrible idea….and shortsighted.
And we will NOT allow it!
Yeah yeah yeah, lots of things happen on this island and the persons who CAN do something about it, Caymanians, talk but don't. The only person I know right now making a stand against something is Capt Bryan Ebanks in the save Cayman campaign. Caymanians have the power to stop this bul**it but do nothing but talk. The people can win the fight, just look what happened in Egypt recently.. It's time for the people of Cayman to take back the country, politicians work for YOU!
Here is the bottom line regarding the Big Hole project (and I do hope the name catches on):
Clearly there are risks to the environment involved and some of them are identified in the EIA report. "Mitigation" of those risks are mostly after-the fact: relocating plants and coral, monitoring the water lens, etc.
I would want a solid project completion guarantee and bond in place relative to both the excavation and the mitigation of negative environmental impact before the first shovel of earth is touched.
The scenario of just the Big Hole being started or even completed and the developer not going through with the entire port plan is a risk too great to allow the project to start without the risk being mitigated. If the Big Hole is completed and the environmental factors addressed, even if we are left holding the bag, at least we may evbe able to find other developers capable of proceeding with the remainder of the project.
If I had my way, I would want an additional bond or escrow funds held – in the event of non-completion of the port facility. The additional bond should cover conversion of part of the Big Hole's shoreline into a protected sandy beach, landscaping around the hole, and a parking area built near the beach. I would demand the developer's consent to public access to same. And I would negotiate an agreement that if port is not completed by a certain drop dead date, the government has the option to purchase the land at original acquisition cost plus cost of whatever material development is completed. That way if the developer goes "poof" and the project does not proceed further than the Big Hole's excavation phase at least the island will have a major and valuable tourist and public asset it did not have before. If the port project is abandoned, the Big Hole and beach would make a great international competition area for jet skis, water skiing, wind surfing and other such sports.
Condo and commercial developers would clamour to buy land surrounding and proximate to the Big Hole.
(Hmmm?? DId anyone ever consider that maybe this is the developer's ultimate motive? Who knows? Someone "big" in government might even be in on it.)
Here is the plot to the story: The government and Gina E. would never consent toexcavation such as the Big Hole for a resort area. But what if a really really lofty proposal came through…like a seaport?! Yeah! The developer gets permission for the Big Hole but things somehow go belly up and the port never gets built. The developer sells fill to offset excavation costs. After excavation of the Big Hole is completed the land surrounding the hole is potentially worth a king's ransom as a resort site. Much as Caymana Bay eclipsed George Town as the commercial centre, Crescent Bay village and Crescent Beach could eclipse SMB as the islands upscale 5-star resort centre. A whole resort city could be developed surrounding the Big Hole. And consider this: the whole hole would not have to be complete to greatly enhance the value of the land! It is a win-win situation for the developer. The island has assumed all the risks and the developer reaps the rewards without risking a whole lot for the hole. (Not a bad scheme, eh? It would take me to think of it, huh?) Maybe Mac should hire me as a consultant. Put in a good word for me, nah.
With my plan it is a win-win situation for the island. Heck, forget consultant, maybe I should run for the office of Premiere.
In major projects such as this a completion guarantee is not uncommon. In this case we do not necessarily have to have a guarantee relative to the entire project, just completion of a well done Big Hole. If the developers are so meagre that they cannot come up with such a completion bond then they can take their slick spiel and their poor indigent baxides elsewhere.
The biggest issue that I see is that the developer is NOT developing a PORT. A port would have the piers and surrounding infrastructure required for use by cargo, tankers & pleasure craft. Even though that is shown in the nice diagrams these do not feature in the words.
This infrastructure, including improved roads to GT, would have to be undertaken by the country at Government's (our) expense to make this excavated space usable. That aspect also needs a study to determine the immediate & longer term costs of pursuing this proposal.
Yes, jobs & income would be generated during the excavation activities, but then what? All proposed projects need to be thought & worked through to their operational state to determine if they are worthwhile.
I think we should but the dock on the bluff over in the brac and shuttle the cargo and passengers by cat boat to Grand cayman.
Ohhhhhhhhhhhh. What a marvelous idea. Now why could'nt I think of that.
Cayman people still don't get it yet. Look at what has happened in the last two years. It does not matter what the people want. It only matters what your voted in leadership wants period. Until your ready to do the hard thing just keep on complaining(if it makes you feel better) and watch as one uneducated and uncareing individual turns Caymans future into his own personal money maker.
Posters and supporters of save Cayman please see BBC news article in the Science/Enviroment section in reference to the of mining of coral reefs written last weekend. Read carefully and understand what dangers our politicians and these developers like Mr Imparato and his local consultants are exposing us to.
Mining to blame for islands to sink beneath waves
A message to the Premier and to the developers.. stop the talking, stop trying to appease people, just build the darn PORT! let the doom sayers march, petition and even join Arden in his attempt to stop to bulldoozers..we desperately need this project and we need it now.
Dont worry dear, Arden will have many of us "doom sayers" as u put it, joining him in his attempt to stop this project. Yes the country is in an economic crisis, but will it be worth it if we, like the lil islands in South Asia end up in the bottom of the ocean because it suits one persons pocket? You all brag on and on about it providing jobs and what not, what you fail to realise is that the jobs it will provide, wont be for the people that need them most! Cant the government find other means of fixing our economical crisis? What people fail to realise is that East End, much unlike other districts on the island is the only place that has untouched natural beauty. Place cargo ports and passenger ports and we will lose what lil culture this island has left. Its ok for you to say, we need it and we need it now, but would you like someone to place a 7 story building in your front yard? And can you imagine the extra 20min drive us "doom sayers" would have to make around this development in order to get to work and back home. It may be easy for some of you to jump on the band wagon and say YES, BUILD THIS PORT, because not many of you know what its like to live in peace and tranquility, and to observe such beauty day by day, the very things us "doom sayers" are trying to protect.
Blah Blah Blah Blah, and then the world will end on May 21st 2011……see ya in the after LIFE!
It means nothing…it is the equivilant of having your best friend write up a valuation report for your house and trying to get a bank loan with it. WAKE UP PEOPLE…you are being dooped!
The EIA report is typical for a project of this scale however it has it's flaws as does our system vague or absent environmental legislation. Couple this with the lack of government and authority resources to properly assess, monitor and enforce the developer's environmental management plan and you have the potential for environmental distruction.
This is a monumental project for Cayman, but as it stands the complex engineering required to mitigate the negative effects on the environment will be cost prohibitive to say the least. Once the damage is done it will be next to impossible to stop this becoming a monumental environmental disaster.
When do we start diggin?? Let's go !!!11
Furthermore …
1. This is NOT an "East End" or "Eastern districts" issue … this affects every individual who calls Cayman "home".
2. No EIA could ever assess or report on the degree of obscenity such a proposal poses in the hearts and minds of many a Caymanian today.
3. Most Caymanians are distresed by the current state of SMB / West Bay Road when contrasted to yesteryear and such a proposal (EESP) would only signal the begining of the erosion of yet another sacred part of Grand Cayman.
4. The technical mumbo-jumbo of the EIA means absolutely nada to me and possesses not the persuaion or power to change my heartfelt opinion against this proposed development.
5. At the end of the day, the "warm and friendly" nature of our people is the lifeblood of our economic success in all of our industries and we ought to feel no shame or reluctance in hoisting "heartfelt" objections to unwanted proposals on such a basis as well as others.
My Fellow Caymanians,
We are now witnessing the strategy (aka "the newest trick in the book") designed to confuse and divide the masses.
A rough outline is as follows:
1. Propose a controversial concept (East End Seaport in this instance)
2. Test the waters for presence of "choppy seas".
3. Upon discovery of said choppy seas tell the opposers something … anything to simmer the tensions and uprising – voila, the promised, and now released, EIA. (The passage of time is an extremely powerful tool in such a process.)
4. Present the "great pacifier" (EIA) to the masses.
5. Disclose and relay all negative factors therein. Crucially, this casts the impression of a sympathetic and or concerned entity. In other words, some of the original opposers will now feel they are able to trust you.
6. Publicly declare your own concerns regarding said controversial concept – however, express faith in and reliance upon the mitigating options proposed in the very pacifier (EIA) forwarded by YOURSELF to the masses – for which, by the way, you have footed the bill.
7. Stand back and wait – for if the tactic is successful, and this is usually the case, there will develop incidents of in-fighting amongst the people and masses. (Sounds familiar?)
8. A divided people is the easiest type to dupe and manipulate.
Wake up Cayman.
Sincerely,
Whodatis
This is a fact:
Removing 6 acres of coral reef and 500 acres of cliff land quarried to the depth required to construct a Port will take so long that the developers and all of us will have passed on long before the Port could be constructed. Leaving our children and grand children with a white elephant that they neither deserve or created. Therefore a Port on this site would never become a reality in our life time.
Allowing this to even start is a no brainer.
If we are serious about a Port the almighty provided us with a natural area to construct it. Unfortunately that area is so sacred that it would never get built there either.
So the alternative is to seek new ideas and stop wasting time and money on what seems like a quarry project that will never become a Port but will cause irrepairable grief to future generations.
Couple of things re this report.Glad to see that the developer has had the EIA done but in my experience of these reports done in the past all over the world most if not all are always in favour of the one footing the bill.I looked through 242 pages this am and a lot of it is very technical mumbo jumbo that is clearly designed to confuse the average Joe (including myself).What we really need is a report that states very clearly (in laymans terms)what is really being said.so that EVERYONE can understand it and make a clear concise decision on what all this could lead to in the future.I urge that all Caymanians whether you are for or against this project to try to read and understand what impact such a large project could/will have on the infrastructure of this island.I want to also add that I am NOT against development but it has to be done in such away that it benefits the people of these islands BUT also does not harm our fragile environment.A balance MUST be found.
I heard an email to the Talk Show this morning and have to agree 100% as it said, "who pays the piper calls the tune" and whoever is paying to get the environmental impact study done will always have favour fromwho is doing it, this is only natural, so I would not look too much into this study paid for by the developers of The East End Port.
I am not sure how an honest and neutral study can be done but it should be done as when East End is destroyed, which will affect all Cayman, there is no returning to how it was or trying to repair the damage already done.
Please Government, just this once think of Cayman and the Cayman people before you give the approval of any development that may negatively impact the future of These Beloved Isles Cayman.
Thankyo Mr.Milburn
You all asked for the EIA and now that you got it you don't like what it says or concludes….really funny but sad also!
What we are all calling for is INDEPENDENT assessments for this an all such projects such as the idiotic oil refinery proposition and the moronic dredging of the North Sound proposal, not reports commissioned by those wanting to do the damage (as on any view, this project if allowed would destroy what's left of Cayman).
Then government (you) will have to pay for it.
Keep in mind that all you get is a hole in the ground. Building a port will be a cayman's expense.
yep you are correct… no cargo facilities just the deep water…..the cruise port and mega-yacht marina is all that they are building….however not a bad start however for third leg of economy.
Where is this information coming from, As far as I understand the whole project is to be financed by Imperato. Why do you say building the Port will be at Caymans expense?
The you understand incorrectly. Mr. Imparato hasmade it clear publicly that he not going to be building the port, at least without other investors. That is why he is not prepared to put up a financial bond.
There is no such thing as a free lunch.
Note to all potential investors in the Cayman Islands -Please note that you will face oppostion and criticism form the locals no matter what project you propose and how sound it is, yet you will still hear the cries – Where are the jobs? Where are the jobs?
Better off taking your money elesewhere where you will be welcomed with open arms, and where people actually have some idea about how jobs are created and standard of living improved. I may have to move my family to the same place because there ain't going to be any jobs here for my kids and grandchildren anymore.
I have $50.00 to contribute towards your ticket.
You are so true…We Caymanians want our cake and eat it too. for the last 40 plus years we have been openning our arms to these investers, why do some people want to stop now?
This report tells us nothing about what would happend to us in case of a hurricane. Iguanas, turtles,orchids, and parrots are the lest of our concerns. Please tell us what will happen in case of a hurricane.
This is the what they recommend regarding huricane and Storm Surge, adn it actually sounds like it could posible offer better protection then what's there now.
From EIA Report
Another major concern of the East End Seaport has been that the creation of the basin would eliminate a portion of the high ridge that separates the sea from the East End interior, which could allow easier access of storm surge waters inland during a tropical cyclone event.
To mitigate against that, a perimeter berm around the basin will be built to a height of 12 feet above mean sea level. That perimeter berm will be topped by a roadway that will provide access to the seaport and serve as the new route for east-west traffic along Sea View Road. This berm and roadway would be constructed before the natural ridge is breached.
The report also notes that a canal could be constructed around the seaport basin and used as a storm water storage and to create a hydraulic barrier between the basin and the 
freshwater lens.
Nothing would happen more than would happen now. It depends on where the hurricane is, direction of movement, and its intensity.
All lowlands adjacent to a coastline in the Cayman Islands are subject to wave action and resultant flooding. Just because the basin is now inland is irrelevant to the wave action. Basin shape, channel design and material as well as channel orientation are critical however to minimise waves entering the basin.
The area of this port was breached in Ivan destroying the coastal road at the proposed channel location. The breakwater protecting the channel entrance may actually improve the wave action situation here, ironically. Tidal rise in the basin is more important in this case than wave action as a result and the proposed 12 foot berm should deal with that.
ps: I am not involved with project, still neutral on it for other reasons other than environmental but comments like this need to be rationalized. It also shows the amount of mis-information has been released on this development.
To 10:59. Yea Right!!!!!!!
To NJ2K and the other response in regards to what would happen in case of a hurricane. You are correct we need real dialoque and explanation when it comes to this matter. I am an East Ender, a woman at that, and although as a woman we are not educated to these types of development as the men would be. Therefore, it would be a good idea that instead of the report that they now hold a meeting in East End and explain in layman terms what this is all about. As for development I am not educated towards it enough to voice my opinion, although after hear what others (men in particular) had to say, I signed the petition against it. On the other hand if it is good for us then our petition would be stupid. I agree that the cart was put in front of the horse here, but that is what happens when one panics in the absence of educational information in the precise matter.
I now urge Mr. Imparato and Mr. McLean to hold a meeting in our district and let us know the pros and cons of this development. Here is a time when we all need to put our differences and our self opinions aside and get the real facts to the people. Please Mr. Imparat we urge you to hold a meeting so that the people will be educated toward this development that will bring much needed revenue and jobs to the island.
We cannot stop the project for the sake of stopping. We willuse our good ol Caymanian Common Sense.
I believe there is a public meeting being organised in East End next week. I'm sure we'll see an annoucement for it soon.
It would get very windy
Were'nt you here during Ivan? the whole ocean/sea raised up in some places 9 feet. this means that no matter how much canals we have already cut into Cayman, it did not matter, the water covered practically 80% of the land, and these were not waves, the waves battered the coast lines where we had no barrier reef, example Spotts Condo.
The advantage of us having the canals cut throughout the West bay peninsula, prospect, red bay and as far up as Savannah, caused the flooded water to drain off rapidly…thank God and the developers for those canals.
In regards to the turtles, Iguanas,orchids and the parrots, they are part of God's creation, He always takes care of nature. Lets put Ivan to bed, he only taught us to be prepared, just like we have to be prepared for our Lord? whenever He comes.
alot of hypocrites around here…i wish they would look in the mirror….
did they ever consider the environmental impact of the homes they live in or when they were constructed…..or the roads they use everyday……or the shopping centres they use….
another way to look at it…the whole watersports/diving/fishing industry offers nothing but a negative impact on the environment….do you want to stop that?
I have neither been a supporter of or a person against this project, I have always said that I would make my decision on whether or not to support this project once the EIA was released. First of all I would like to thank the Cayman Compass for putting out such an unbiased report on what the EIA contains when other news services obviously offered information in a format that is clearly written to bias folks against the idea in lieu of letting them make up their own minds after reading the facts.
My thoughts are that the EIA sounds on the surface like it may have covered all the possible issues surrounding the project and as for as it stating that all possible negative impact can be mitigated, I am still not completely convinced especially since the report was commissioned by the person who will be benefiting most for the development. Although he claims to have a high regard and concern for Caymans environment and echo system that remains to be seen.
I will need to take my time and read the complete report before I can even attempt to make an educated choice. Overall I think the idea would be good for the East End economically but I have to admit I am very concerned about the reality of all the risks being safely and completely mitigated. So at this point I still cannot say that I support it but I am still willing to entertain the idea.
As far as the issues brought up so far, these are my feelings.
Possibility of Coastal Flooding, I believe that what the report proposed will actually offer more protection against this then what currently there.
Impact on the east End Water Lens, this is still a major concern and I am not comfortable with doing anything that will put this resource at risk, for me to accept this there would have to be concrete evidence that this could be mitigated to show no risk or effect to the fresh water lens ever.
Terrestrial and Marine Resources, I believe that plants can be saved moved and used in the landscaping of the project such as what was done with Caymana Bay. As well as redistributed around the island, I am sure that there will be plenty of land owners willing to care for some of these native species. I also think he should be asked to create a protected area such as the botanical Gardens where these plants can flourish, this will also become a nice tourist attraction where folks can observe native flora and fauna in its natural environment. For the Coral reef habitat that will be effected the 20 Percent of living Coral will have to be safely relocated. And I do agree that the basin itself will provide a new habitat for fish and corals.
I am a believer that progress is a good thing as long as the cost in the long run is not too high. What it would take for me to support this project is concrete proof that the people and the environment will benefit in the long run. This I haven’t seen as of yet. I’d like to see specific plans on what they will be doing to mitigate each risk as well as proof it will actually work. So my current position is, I remain neutral although neutrality would mean I am not convinced to support it as of yet.
I think this port is actually a good idea. The existing port is just not big enough to sustain Cayman's growth in the decades ahead and it's in the wrong location. Hog Sty Bay was good in the 50's and 60's but it has outlived its practical usefulness.
It's one thing to shout this project down because of a some damage to a hundred feet of reef and some silver thatch palms (i don't like that either), but when the food and diesel stop showing up on store shelves because of rough weather we'll wish we had this port. I think it was good of the developer to post the environmental impact in its entirety .. I think the port is a good idea in general and I genuinely hope it goes ahead, in spite of many of the many negative comments here.
I completely disagree that this one project will somehow destroy the island. There's some jealousy here and some NIMBY instincts. The people most hurt by this will be the existing Marl pit operators who will need to compete with their less-valuable fill for sale. I don't think this project should be ruled out. Lets let those willing to take risks and stick their financial necks out for more jobs and progress here — let's encourage them and let them thrive.
If you have read the report, they state that there “may” be a reduction of the water lens. One of our most precious and scarce resources is Fresh Water. To dismiss the water lens that we have in such short supply as “mitigable” is beyond belief. Any reduction in it’s size is unacceptable. End of story.
Note the phrase in the article: "privately commissioned environmental impact assessment".
How stupid these people think the people of the Cayman Islands is? If he paying for the report then it not going to NOT be in his favour.
From the CNS article, note how it say that "But because the authors claim the developer can mitigate the negative impacts it dismisses a number of issues, likely to cause controversy, as negligible."
Of course they are going to first state what the potential dangers are to make the report look credible and then they going tell you how the developer going to fix them things to make him appear credible.
So I have no faith in this report. Reports can say anything the person paying for it want it to say. Anyone remember to famous "Miller report"?
You should know that while the Developer pays for the study the DOE actually sets the requirements and then the DOE reviews the result including the base data collected.
As these EIA/EIRs always have a third party reviewer (DOE in this case) few professionals would write something that may end their career just for one client. More so, the lady that headed this study has just been selected for one of the top Environmental jobs in Florida- surely her reputation is worth more to her than a $250K study.
As long as Government (you and I)is not prepared to pay for the studies, this will be the system.
And for the record, there have been EIAs that when completed the authorities have said the damage vs. reward was too great and the project was stopped. The developers had to pay for those also.
Those that always supported the project will continue to do so and those that always opposed will also continue to oppose. The rational middle ground are those who may have supported it before and do not anymore based on something in the report or those who were neutral, maybe even negative, who will now support. Read the EIR, question EIR but make an informed decision based on facts.
Not today, Bo Bo.
This will have such a HUGE environmental impact that surely this will not go through. A terrible proposal for the Cayman Islands.
All I gotta say is don't let the door hit ya where the………Well you know how the rest goes.
The only thing that scares me about this report is that it's too clear cut. I mean Big Mac never seems to be able to see things that is right in front of him. Maybe we shoudl ask them to redraft it and add a bunch of ambiguities in it. Make it vague and meaningless. Maybe he might understand it better.
Of course the report will mitigate. This is a completely biased report. Realistically, should the government not have insisted that the report was by a neutral party?
Don't bite the hand that feeds you, that's why this report is mitigating and downplaying the risks.
sorry, but you are going to disrupt the coral reefs, the plant life. exotic and endangered species of plant and wildlife.
please, please…think about this.
100% madness this will never go through, this project is taking too much from the environment. This project is a lemon, just say no to a port with petrochemical facilities.
You say it will never go through, but Mac has a way of doing whatever he wants and nobody around him seems able to slow him down. What say you to that, old friend?
The people are able, they just don't seem willing.
Caymanians, residents, PR holders and even government officials. . . if this looks like a "positive" for the beloved Cayman Islands. . . think again.
As a PR holder, and one who has had an interested in The Cayman Islands since the early 60s, removing 6 acres of coral reef and over 500 acres of land is only the beginning (much more is outlined in the story).
In the long-run, think of the environmental impact . . . everyone who is not "pocketing $$$ " for this deal, should "stand-up and be heard". NO! NO! NO!.
CNS: Sorry but we now require people to register if they are using a real name, partly so that no one else can use it. You can use the link below the comment box or the log in box on the LHS column to sign up. Thanks!
Where is that petition?
The petition will be at all the major supermarkets on Saturday the 28th, so will the North Sound dredging petition. They are also at the PPM office on Crewe Road.
Well… there ya go… East End Port is not a good idea… Let's move on…
Who would monitor to ensure corals, plants and animals are actually moved? And monitor changes to the water lens?…right….. Wouldn’t it be too late by that point?
This sounds like a very large environmental impact to me. They just seem to scoff at it.
They are being paid by the developer, remember? This is forever the problem with environmental impact assessments.
Could be a large monetry impact to me. In the right direction, bring it on.
Dear Mr. Developer,
That was an awful lot of money spent on your behalf just to hear a clear and resounding;
"Thanks, but NO THANKS!"
* Who the heck is about to sign off on and "okay" this destruction to their beloved homeland?? Surely not this Caymanian.
Try again buddy.
** "Negligible" they say … (smh).
* Who the heck is about to sign off on and "okay" this destruction to their beloved homeland??
But surely, one specific West Bayer and his band of followers I might think.
He wounldn't even bother with his followers, he would just sign off on it himself as he does every time.