The Tribune

BY ANNELIA NIXON

TRIBUNE Business Reporter

anixon@tribunemedia.net

OPPONENTS of Bahama Rock’s 270-acre Freeport Harbour expansion and excavation yesterday ramped up their campaign ahead of tonight’s public consultation on its environmental approvals by asserting nearby communities will be exposed to “15 to 20 years of blasting and industrial disturbance”.

Preserving Paradise launched what it describes as a wide-ranging environmental, economic and government accountability campaign aimed at preventing regulatory approval until critical unanswered questions are resolved.

The campaign comes ahead of the public consultation on Bahama Rock’s proposal to excavate approximately 269.39 acres of the former Bahamas Cement Company property at Southwest Point, Grand Bahama. The project, outlined in the company’s Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), would involve demolition, land clearing, blasting, dredging and aggregate extraction to create a basin that is converted into an expanded section of Freeport Harbour with additional turning areas and deep-water berths.

C Allen Johnson, senior spokesman for Preserving Paradise, said the organisation’s campaign extends beyond opposition to mining and instead seeks to determine whether the project represents the best long-term use of one of Grand Bahama’s most strategically located coastal properties.

“Our policy position is not that every industrial or harbour project should be rejected,” the organisation said in its campaign statement. “This campaign’s test is whether a proposed development is lawful, evidence-based, independently scrutinised, environmentally responsible and demonstrably capable of producing measurable, durable and broadly shared benefits for Bahamians.”

At the centre of the campaign are four questions that Preserving Paradise argues must be answered before any irreversible approval is granted: Whether environmental, groundwater and public health risks have been independently assessed; whether the complete legal and regulatory approval process has been fully disclosed; whether the public value of the country’s natural resources and expected economic returns have been quantified; and whether mining has been compared with other potentially higher-value uses for the site.

The initiative follows growing public concern over Bahama Rock’s proposal, which has already prompted an online petition calling for approvals to be delayed until independent environmental and economic reviews are completed.

Preserving Paradise has now formally objected to the Department of Environmental Planning and Protection (DEPP) issuing a certificate of environmental clearance (CEC) based on the current record. Among the remedies sought are a revised or supplemental Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), independent technical peer review, publication of the complete administrative record, disclosure of all permits and agency comments, at least 60 days for public review following full disclosure and a new public consultation in Grand Bahama.

One of the campaign’s principal concerns relates to the size and scope of the proposed excavation. While the DEPP notice and main EIA describe the project as covering approximately 269.39 acres, Preserving Paradise says other technical documents reference areas ranging from roughly 238.7 acres to 282 acres, while an ArcGIS image circulated during the campaign depicts an area measuring approximately 326 acres.

Although acknowledging that the image is not a legal survey, the organisation is calling for survey-certified boundaries and reconciled mapping before any final approval.

The campaign also raises questions over what it describes as inconsistencies in the project’s timeline. Although the EIA states aggregate extraction will occur over 15 to 20 years, Preserving Paradise argues that one project schedule reproduced in its formal objection appears to show Phase Three beginning in November 2024 and ending in June 2025, while simultaneously referencing the much longer operational period.

The group says regulators should seek clarification because project duration affects environmental monitoring, community impacts and closure obligations. Preserving Paradise also points to environmental impacts acknowledged within Bahama Rock’s own EIA. Those include permanent land conversion, removal of pineland and coppice habitats, blasting, vibration, dust, groundwater impacts, storm surge and flooding considerations, coral relocation, waste management, erosion and potential effects on nearby communities including Eight Mile Rock, Lovers Beach and recreational marine areas.

Rather than disputing that impacts exist, the campaign argues the central issue is whether available studies, mitigation measures and monitoring requirements are sufficiently robust and independently verified before irreversible excavation begins.

Preserving Paradise is also questioning modelling contained within the EIA relating to harbour flushing, flood risk and groundwater. Its objection cites a harbour flushing study that reportedly found only 11.2 percent of harbour water is flushed within one month under existing conditions, rising marginally to 12.4 percent following expansion, while describing both outcomes as “very poor.”

It is calling for an independent review of those findings, including modelling assumptions and long-term water quality implications. Similarly, Preserving Paradise argues flood modelling referenced in the objection achieved about 65 percent accuracy, did not incorporate future climate change scenarios and suggested post-excavation flooding could increase by as much as 10 percent in some circumstances.

Groundwater also features prominently in the campaign. The group says only two private wells were tested, and that drilling encountered cave and cavern formations typical of Grand Bahama’s limestone geology, prompting calls for a comprehensive hydrogeological assessment and expanded groundwater monitoring before any approvals are issued.

Beyond environmental issues, Preserving Paradise is challenging the project’s economic justification. The EIA states Bahama Rock’s operations currently support around 84 employees and contribute $25m annually through employment, contracts and support services. While acknowledging those benefits, the group argues job retention alone is insufficient to justify the permanent conversion of hundreds of acres of coastal land.

Instead, it is calling for a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis examining new versus retained employment, export revenues, taxes, royalties, infrastructure costs, environmental losses, disaster risks, natural resource values, Bahamian ownership and potential alternative land uses.

Another major element of the campaign focuses on public disclosure. Preserving Paradise has submitted four separate requests seeking around 30 years of environmental, operational and regulatory records relating to the property from Bahama Rock, Bahamas Cement Company, DEPP and the Grand Bahama Port Authority. The requests cover environmental studies, groundwater data, blasting records, ecological surveys, permits, monitoring reports, enforcement actions, remediation plans, production records and historical correspondence from 1996 to present.

The group said the requests deliberately follow the site’s history across multiple corporate owners, including Bahamas Cement Company, CEMEX, Martin Marietta and predecessor entities, to ensure historical environmental information is not fragmented.

Preserving Paradise is also urging the Government to consider an alternative vision for the property. Rather than large-scale aggregate extraction, it has proposed a concept known as O2, which is ‘Opportunity & Ownership’. This envisions a mixed-use innovation district focused on technology, marine industries, education, advanced manufacturing, climate resilience, tourism and Bahamian entrepreneurship.

The proposal also includes evaluating parts of the wider property for renewable energy infrastructure, battery storage, smart buildings and clean energy technologies. However, the group acknowledges that O2 remains a working concept rather than a completed feasibility study or approved development plan.

“Our defensible claim is therefore that alternatives should be developed and compared before irreversible consent, not that O2 has already been proven superior,” the campaign said.

Preserving Paradise argues the debate should evolve beyond a traditional “jobs versus the environment” discussion into a broader assessment of natural resource management, long-term economic development and government accountability.