i x 10 U9/240% AL b + Response wat. the report ofthe committe for inspection of Ms Adani Port and Sk Limited, Mundra Gujarat Ministry hud granted Environ Mis Adani Port and SEZ, Limited (Formerly Mon the development of Port fecilities at Munda, Disitiet Kutch, Gu Limited) fr i 2. On representat Bharat Patel, General Secretary, Machehihi ‘Mat Adbikar Sunga istry conducted a site inspection on 06-07" December, 2010, n revealed certain violations related 49 construction of aixport, township, and hospital without prior HC/CRZ, clearance and destruction of mangroves, On 15.12.2010, a show eis: notice was issued fo the project authorities. Further, the Ministry issued direotions on 23° Febranrs, 2011 to project authorities not w undertake any reclamation activity and wot i> initiate any new construction work inthe CRY, area, 2. Meantime, Kheti Vikas Sowa ‘Trust have fled a PHL, 12 of 2011 in the High Coutt of Gujarat alleging, violation of Kavironnac Adan Port and SEZ. Limited. The Ligh Court passed an order dirceting inquiry Yo the allegation of destruction of mangroves by projet suit and imposed on development works, The inquigy was condicted by Member Secretary, Gujarat Coastal Zone (GCZMA) and PCE. Based onthe report of the conmitte, dhe High Court passed an interim order according b \whieh project authority can cary out development in certain portions. The arew in which work can be eared out and the areas in which prohibition will remait ‘were marked on a mp, mentioned in the Ligh Court order, “ 4. Inthe affidavit filed by the Ministry in the Hon'ble cout of Gujaat, it was Stated that “the issues rvlated to mangroves destruction, shore-fine change dc to reclumnation, seismic/tsunami events, socio-economic implications ete. noed to be ‘examined by a multi ~isciplinary committee of experts relevant institutions S. Complaints have been received from Kin severe impact upon environment safely and Limited in Mudra, Kuteh eo Vikas Sewa ‘Trust regarding sity in Mnadra Port and SEZ, mitted by Mas Adlani Port snl SEZ. Ld, 6. In view of the severity of the issuce involved in the mater, Ministry had constituted a committee under the chaiepersouship of Ms. Sunita Narain 10 1¢ the allegations and submit a report. ‘The Committee has submitted Hie Fepont on 18.04.2013. Chapter 7 of the report provides Summary of Observations and Recommendations under this Chupter, Section 7.1. deals with, overal observations ane! Assessment and Section 7.2. provides Recon fective deterrence for nomcompliance and! remedi nmendations oF the report, responses of M/s APS! are given below: The nel sugested action 7A Overall Observations and Assessinent 7.Aali Cases of procedural lapses Observations “..jn Phase IT of TPP, the company’ asked for exemption saying that the project is within a notified power SIZ, This is even thouh the power SEA did not have EC clearance, which woud have allowed this exeanption® Suggested Action Pan: May be seal to LAI (1) for further Observation: “Ihe EAC on April 23-24, 2009, exempted the hearing, but put a strict condition that the project coming in 8 undergo procedure as. per projects constructed withi The C in fate shall VA notification 2006. This wowd imply. that all the SH should have HC 4s per ELA notification 2006, mpany has not adbered to this eanition,It is clavitied that though the HAC hal insisted public hearing and PP conducted the PH. nended the exemption, Ministry ‘he sirstripfacrodrome is HZ having an HC part of SEZ and it was constructed 1k is cavtied that the non-commercial airstrips are not covered under the BIA Notification, Hence, do nt require prior RC. DP has informed that Necessary NOC for the Airstrip has been obtained from Pollution Control Bos 74.2: Cases of violations and non-compliance Qbservation, i Blocking ot er Committces which have visited the site during construction, have noted violations by the company in the matter of blocking. of crecks. In 2006, the GC/MA committee bat recorded that the company had built bunds in intertidal region and blocked many erecks. Is important to note that in the period that the 3C/MA committee visited the site, the company had not received any environmental cearantee, other than the development of Navinal port aod related infrastructure, This could even mean that the company hed slaeted work prior to ving environmental clearance. But it ecrtainly suggests Ut there was work Ding done at the site, which was affecting creeks and mangroves. Similarly, the 2010 Mol¥ inspection Commitee had also found obstruction of ereck system and obstmiction of natural Now of seawater because of reelan this Committee earied ont based on satellite imagery Gandsat 5 TM) and Google arth imagery froma efferent years elearly shows: + Bovadi Mats ereck has witnessed « distinet change at its mouth where the creck meets the sca, In 2005, the ereek mouth had natural outfall into the sea. In 2010, the ereck opening, shifled andl got constricted. This is clearly beeause of construction for the Water Front Dovelepment Project. Under the EC conditions, no changes in ereek or ercck mouth ave allowed. If no medial action is taken urgently, there és danger of closing of the creek south due to aceretio branches is the proposed Noxth port site have completely ed over the years. ‘This is bound to have sa impact on the tion in the area in addition to the ehiuge in hycrologieat regi + goneral accretion is observed in Koti Creek, which could be due 10 construction in the nearby inter-tidal area, ‘This has led to widening of the inouth, ‘There does not however appear to be any major change in the Kodi eveck network. Su has teen mentioned in the report that shifting of ereek ‘opening and its constrietion has been ubserved on comparing the imagery of 2005, h that of 2010, It has besn recommended by the committee to take remedial action, as there is danger of closing af the ereeke mouth die to accretion and also. that the opening of Baad) Mata creck should be kept protected so that it is not damaged or blocked. His therefore recommended that PP should camry out regular inspeetiowimonitoring, of the site through a dicated monitoring. cell 1 keep cheek on the accretion of sund/silt at the mouth of the ereek. Inno ease the aceretion should take place at the: mouth of the ereck. GCZMA shall also on, ‘The analysis of £© development at any location may have sone impacts on environment which are considered in the. studies and Envitonnent Management Play Is-prepared accordingly to mitigate the impacts. Additionally some compensatory measures ase also suggested by MoBIE, APSHZI. has so far curried nr mangrove afrestation in an ates of more than 1550 ia out ofits commitment of 1800 tt at arious coasalJocations within Ciujara. APSE had signed a MoU with Gujrat Heological Commission for carrying out mangrove pli the area of 250 I inthe year 2013-14, * APSHZL. has also born the tolal cost for plantation of 300 ha mangrove area in we Forest urea oF Munda region. © While granting diversion of 1840 ha of forest lund for the purpose of development of SEZ, MoE has given a condition of protecting Baradimats Lill which is biodiversity hot-spot. Fencing work had been eampleted for Baradimata hill covering total length of 13 Kr. © Px-situ stady ha iphery of 1840 hi of fand for assessment of flors-fauna und its preservation, The same bis been already completed und subynitted to sate forest department + APSE. has signed a MoU with Cente for Environment Hducation ( GPCH for the project "Paryava regerding marine ecology and bring sustainability in schools kan eoas of Gujarat and 1600 Km coast of Queensland, Australi ‘and © Committee ha required in thi not observed any blockage of creck and no restoration work are regard Which is to be carried out by AP # APSHZL. is carrying out its CSR activities theough Ack Foundation has been actively working in association community, + In addition to this Adani Four ively working in four thematic areas i.e. Community Health, Pducation, Rural Infrastructure Development & Sustainable Livelihood development. Therefore, in view of the above, APSHZAI. believes that there ix no need lo create separate fund. However APSLZL. is proposing the framework oP action as per below: ‘© Haumark fds on a yearly basis with timelines for earrying aut activities to improve and proteot the environment through its current environment inxutagement practices as well as corporate socal responsibilty * Submit detailed plan of action for implementation te sirengthen the aves to address environmental / CR7, concerns in the project arces as woll as programmes to enhance the support for community by ereuting, nocd based infiastructure and livelihood facilites, ‘© Allocating Rs, 10 crores por year for the period covering next 10 years to exceute the plan for improvement in the environmental and ecological conditions at Mundra, Suggested Action Plan: ‘The recommendation of the commnitice may be aceepled. A connmittee under the Principal Seey Hnvt, Govt of Gujarat may be set ‘up by Govt of Gujarat including the representative of MaBF(RO, Bhopal). ‘Comittee should work out the action plan and modalities to operate the fand on the above recommendation and periodically report of te action taken / progress to the Seey (P&P), GOL 7.2.2, Cancel environmental lear se of North Port There must be an inerease in the mangrove conservation area to ensure ological balance in this coastal zane. To do this, North port, whieh hasreceived cayiroamental clenranee under the waterfront project, should be cancelled. The proposed North port ison the other side of Bock island. Already. ship movement to and fo Navinal post, which borders the island, has had serious deleterious impact on the protected mangroves. ‘This is visible, both in terms ot the loss of mangroves in the vivinity of the Navinal port as well as the loss 0 ‘voyetation and land area of Bocha island, APSI -L submission: Suggested Action Phin : Separate SC GMB to submit their explanation and ma and 12.4 Specific recommendations by the Committee on key remedial aetion 1 Creeks and inter-tdal sy The North port area, adjoining, Boch has counceting erecks, eritieal fr maintaining inter-tial getion of the region, ‘This area should be protected and xt cerecks and waterbodies restored and brought to pre-200S status including, thet reclaimed by GMBIAPSEZL. ‘he entire area should be declared x a o ‘vane, 16 it is contiguous to Bocha iskmd and its important nangrove system. This conservation zone should be glearly earmarked ani demareated using tat-long,so that monitoring is possible, ‘The opening of Baradi Mata ereck should be kept protected so tha slarnaged oF blockeal This must be done forall other eruek systems, AUS: Formed that «© “The observation of committee with respect fo spread of material was due 0 incomplete work of breakwater which would not allow any spread. ‘The remaining breakwater bund alignment work is already completed as per the 5° ‘which is now fully protceting the seea from any feakage of the material used for reclamation, ‘Therefore, there is no danger of blockage of mouth of Baradimata IT ereck and the aren adjacent to South Port, + ILis evident that APSEZL has not filled up any ereck and has taken required measures by providing breakwater, culverts and bridges to proteet the credk system andl keep the erecks flowing, The ereeks are open and flowing naturaly without any obstacle. In add APSEZE, has made all efforts ty providling to Keep the ereek flowing, Suggested Aetion Plan: Declaration of conservation zone may be agreed. FP ‘may be asked fo ensure that the opening of Baradi Mata Creek is and other creck systems is Kept protected and it isnot damaged or blocked, Bocha island ancl its eonservation zone mvust be pi re is a possibility of further degradation of the remaining, conservation zone, ‘The Committee has identified Oe contiguous conservation area, which includes portions of the North port. ‘This ssiggested increased conservation arca hs bon plotted oa a map (see seetic mangroves). Based on the maps prepared by the Committee, the area of Buck should be geo-referenced with Iat-longs, This should be put in the pubie should be regutar monitoring on the status of the land mass and tation ofthe island, ted at al eos.e@ The mangrove conservation area near the mouth of Baradi Mata must be protected and regenerated, An embankment fo slop soil deposition into the erech ‘with buller between the mangrove area and reelaimed land, should be made. All identified mangrove conservation areas as per the EC of January 2009 rust be protected with adequate measures against erosion. These areas should be Tat-long so that regular monitoring for comptianee, based an high: marked wi resolution maps, can be made publicly available. An aetion plan for proteeting, of all mangrove conservation areas ineluding the proposed mangro tea may be prepared and put in public domain, wi ‘monitoring, conserva months, for thr cervation as per EC of WEDP. ‘the loss of 68 hu of ea near Noxth port which is not part of identified for sparse mangroves inchides the conservation area as per WEDP I © However, we are committed to protect the Bocha conservation arca and we are prepared to take all the required preeautions to protect the same as per the ‘guidance of MoBE ‘+ In rospoct to the area near North Port, APSLZL had clarified during the visit of ‘committee that the Ian proposed for the development of North Pot does not bolong to APSEZE and it has not started any activity inthe North port area. © AC South Port Baradimata mangrove conservation area, the observation of ‘committee with respect to spread of material was due to incomplete work of shwater which would not allow any spread. The remaining breakwater bund minent work is already completed as per the EC which is now fully protecting the area from any leakage of the material used for yeclamation, Therefore, there is no danger of degradation of mangroves wear niouth of aradimata Il ereck and area adjacent to South Port # A 400 meter vide mangrove belt is ereated west of Navinal ereck which wns shown (o the committee during, the site visit. Therefore, this is not a case of ‘non compliance with the EC condition granted in the year 1995. «IC important to mention that mangrove cover in Mundra as per CHESS 2011 ‘mappings is more than 2000 ha as compared to 1800 hit which was reported by [NIO in their study 2008, ‘This shows increase in the overall mangrove cover a Munda, APSEZL, is also engaged in mangrove afforestation activit the coast of Gujarat and so far we have completed mangrove plantation in more than 1550 ha area. ‘Suggested! Action Plan : recommendation may be agreed. at Fly ash Manag ad Disposal GPC should set up a robust monitoring systom, which is in the public domain that tacks and reports on the quantunt of fly ash generated by all the phases of the Adani thermal power plant, which vill vary based on the source and ‘quality ofdomestie coal snd verily andl auc the atl iy ash ‘the Company should submit a revised fly ash utilization plan to Mo, ‘which doesnot provide far its use in reclamation, This is because iis not possible ‘to monitor and verify that domestic coal fly ash is not being disposed or used for reclamation in low-lying areas, jions fron transport and disposal of Ny er near the fly ash dyke ancl pond must be fugitive mda The concern abou ash ancl eontaranation of the gx 7takeu seriously by the regulating agencies anal buble monitoring systems aust he ‘volved to check for contamination anon the sek Pond in particular, APSEZL submission: * Site inspction of GPCI wax canied out on April 8, 2011, when none of the Suche se were in operation, The frst ont oe Phase-IIT (Unit?) was ryt monized on October 2, 2011, The conditionet Phase-tIt on ash uti a sees should not be compared vn Arey 8, 2011. Reclams vols og tovement of matra, dedicated water aera for spraying water on ’sh transportation and dicated mobil ical road snchine for cleaning the area, * Till March, 2012 there was 100% ize fly ash Cor disposal in a lization of Ay ash and thece wat no ‘dyke. Disposal of unuttized fy ash inte 2012 and same has been submitied to n the complianee reports, Therefore these 0 mismatch of data, * [ate ae le unis at Munda ‘Thermal Psser Out of Which three nits (Uni ‘Unii9) are in Pluase-Hl, AM ning unite Provided with aUliaate LSP aud separate Fly Ash Silos un) dry disposal facility for Phase units are topether on the wen Sido of the Power Plat, I 2 Rewible and easly posible to oles he Fly Ash Silos of Phase-ill and IMNintan separate records for Phase, which wil ba Verifiable and auitahe, * IRE lation of fy ash from Phase and Phase AU by way of reclamation of low lying urcas should not be prohitlied sures 10 Aly and contamin By tee Plan: GPCI and PU may be asked to take necessary aetion 9 ‘comply the recommendation, rthuake/ suman Droject clearance {ie Hosue OF coastal safety is @ mater of great concen. Tsunami ant farihauakes ste threats tothe area owing toe geological settings. But there hae {wen no comprehensive assessnent oe ns ofrisk+hazard analysis, me gcivetnment should carry out an pact Study especially in tight of the apam tsunanoi fo 2011, Also, the Ug tanagement plan of the differom Manageretinents of MPSEZL should he twee the ‘Distiet Disaster Mavagervat Pia. This wil be inthe heat of the vulnerable people in and ‘round the project arca to carly warning pructices, The Committe also recommen earying cus Petiodic mock dkills along with district ‘wdovinisteaion in and around the project ae Suggested Act nnocessaty action, Flaw: we may agree and State Govemment m WY nsw % Sal of storage pond/intake snd outfall "he intake and outfall eham has impervious Ti oud mm must be reconsiructed/eepaircd so dal it '8 at the bottom and sides, "The YAW Water reservoir/guard also be recoustructed/repaired so that it he impervions lining atthe@ bottom and side. ‘The Company should install network of piezometers with coordinates in the project arca for monitoring of groundwater quality ane! water levels in all the seasons. These reports should be put in public domain, inehudin its poriodieal submissions to GPCB and RO, MoliF, Bhopal. An independent study should be undertaken every five years to study saline water intrusion and to Suggest remedial action. ‘he Company should continue with elased eyele cooking, system and recycling of FGD wastewater so 4s to rechice diseharge and remain in the discharge eapaeity of the outfall channel APSEZL submissior + The Clearance for Intake and Outfall Channels were granted as part of the Waterfront Development Project (WFDP) and Raw Water Reservoir was obtained as a part of Phase-I TPP. These is no condition of providing any lining in the HC: ‘Thus, there is no violation of any condition in this repard. However, the outfall channel has been stone-lined and the Reservoir has been provide! with Shéet-Pitng all around and elay King at the bottom. ‘+ API_ has already initiated the process of installing network of piezometers with ‘coordinates in the project area for monitoring of groundwater quality and water levels in oll the seasons, ‘Suggested Action Plan : Intakefoutfall channel/Rescrvoir shall Tining amundra/Sterting, Mol should review and reassess ly take up this matier with GCZMA and ask for nt of the matter. This assessment should be bused on Fess collection of coordinates, through a joint team. GCZMA should he dirceted to (ake necessary actions based on this visi. The map should be available in the public domain so tha it ean be verified and the matter closed satisfactorily, Suggested Action Plan : recommendation may be agreed vii, jermen livelifwod snd access to fish ls Ero here must be a specific plan for Cishers: access ankl their Tivell addeess all these concerns, APS prepare this settlement.vvise pi {6 months with a clear schedule of implementation and monitoring. The exclusive fishing harbor proposed at Bhadreshwar should be built so that there is fueility for livelihoad support. This faitity shoud be built within a time period of two years. | addition, all fishers settlements located in the Waterfront (port) area iudequate facilities For earrying out their ceonomic netivity APSEZL submission: + APSEZI. has provided four (4) accesses to the fish sea for fishing aetivity at Juna Bandar, Luni, Bavdi Bandar and Zarpara. his ‘was finalized through fishermen consultative process, + APSHAL is actively working with all the fishermen community at all locations ‘nd providing all required support for their livelihoods axl other concems which have ben already presented to the committee daring their visi + Committe has visited Juna Bandar and interacted with fishermen community, Community had! explained the committee about the support received through ‘dani Foundation and told very clearly that they don’t have any problems with respect to access to the sea and other developmental aetivities by the company. + No grievance made by fishermen at Juna Bandar, | | |+ APSIZ has not stated any activity at Bhadreshwar and therefore, there is npact to fishermen at Bhadreshar duc to APSKZ. *® ‘The instance of blockage of uecess to sea is near outfall ehannel of COPL, (Fata Power) which is far away from APSEZ snd APL axea. ‘* As per the provisions of SRZ. Act and Rules, any person enteting into notiied ‘SEZ, area has to take appropriate authorisation from the office of Development Commissioner, Ministry of Commerce. The DC office is even providing Permanent identity cards to the pedestrians who are frequently entering ito / passing through SHZ, area, This being a compliance issue of SEZ. Act and ules, APSIZ. is not empowered to relax this requirements and everybody t the personals of APSLYZ are required to comply with it © ‘The report regarding developmental activities proposed for upliftment of fishermen community is already submitted tothe committee. issue is not belonging only to APSRZL.. However APSI:ZL, has already prozetively suggested for the ezeation of fishing harbour For livelihood support through PPP model. ‘The said facility can be developed under the support fiom Central Government, State Gover Local community ant Corporste. APSEAL. will provide necessary support of its part for the same * All the information with sespeet to creation of fishing hactour thro ‘model with technical details have been sleeady submitted to the commie Suggested Actin to prepare the selilement-vise plan wi implementation and monitoring. AUl fishers settlements located in the Waterfront (port) area mast got adequate facilities for carrying out their economic setivity ‘State Government may initiate necessary ation 10 built exelusive fishing harbour for the livelilwod support of the fishermen of Bbadreshwar in a period of 80 years. Plan: recommendation may be agreed. APS 6 months with a clear schedule of viii, Village common ta hae) ‘The state government should roview the poliey of wequisition and transfer ‘of village common fands, not just inthe specific ease of APSHEZL, but also in ober Wand aso APSEZI. should consider the veluntary relum of grazing la wvest in improving precuetivity of this land with villagers. APSEZL submission: + After discussion with local people of Zampara village, APSLZ. has decided 1 sive back 400 acres of land to Zarpara village for gauche purpose, in spite of Ue fact that the Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal of villagers challenging the allotment of gauchar land. ‘These 400 acres of land has been already identified in the presence and confirmation with Gram Panchayat ad necessity procedure to give back the said land is in progress, + There isnot a single instance that Stage Govt. has alloted the land to APSH:4L ‘without following the preseribed procedure. Such allotment has also been held valid by the Courts of Law repeatedly. However, being a responsible Corporate, APSI:ZL is also in the process of voluntarily consideting the request of some villages and identifying the land which ean be given back to other villages for the purpose of gauchar, The said process is on in aetve consultation with village people an necessary procedures will be done as cacly as possible, formation on fodder management and suppor is already submittedgested Action Plan: We may aggce and State Government ma necessary action, kG ative impacts of power plants and port projects Mo should commission a comprchensive study on the cumulative impacts of prajects, which have already been granted clearance, This study should be uscd to assess and mitigate impxets inthe region, All future port and power plant projects should be assessed for clearance based on cumulative impacts APSHZL submission + 1 is important to mention hat APSEZL. is the only company who ts developed master plan for its both projeet i.e. WRDP and SEZ for the next 25 years and have assessed impact accordingly. Public Nearing, was also ‘conducted for both the projects separately for its entire area as per master pl ‘+ We believe that development is essential at the seme Protection is also important. ‘The MoEP while granting environmental clearance imposes certain conditions which are always keeping in mind the baseline conditions and likely impacts due to the upeoming, project and therefore environment management plan is prepared and implemented accordingly, iegested! Action Plan: we may agvee and may ask the PP to e mpact assessment studies under the supervision of the il as per the TOR approved by Mol yout 7.3. Specific recommendations on reform of CRZ regulations Theve should be an urgent review of the functioning and. scientific protocols used by the agencies authorised by Mole 49 undertake CRY demarcation. There should be common guidelines for their operations so that there is uniformity and reproducibility of the work that ig done. All gades of ‘operation, including rates to he eharges should be reviewed and mate uniform Fox all agencies New authorised agencies should be added to undertake this work, inchiding state remote sensing agencies. All reports wl maps prepared by the ‘agencies should be put in the public domain. We would recommend that ll digitized maps at 14000 scale prepared by the agency for a project proponent should be sent to te National Centre for Sustainable Coastal Management, ‘The Centre should collate all specifie project maps on a national map, based on the lat Jong andl publish this on a national CRZ. map inthe public domain, The project-level ITLL demateation, paid for by the proponent should be replaced by state level exer Ib is fnded by the ‘govemment. This will require greater clarity about the seales that will be used to do the lncatiproject level map and the CZMP map. ‘The current mapping guidelines, al vo very different seales (1:25,000 nel :4000) will nt allow for verification ofthe FITTALTL maps, 1also does not allow for assessment based! on al" HITLALTL and cheek for deviation or distortions. ‘There is a need to decide on the issue of the “original” HTT A101. and hove policy ca and should reflect the dynamic nature ofthe coastline MoLE shoul relook at_the current mapping work being done i i the country, in terms of the need for this poliey elarity. Under the Matt Survey of India has mapped the country's coasts aan aecnracy of 10 ems for the hivard line demarcation, In addition, there ave current exercises being, iIe ‘undertaken at the state level for prepatation of coastal zone management plans. But because these ate being done using different methodologies and Uifferent seates, the use of these efforts for uniform national poliey aed p is not possible. I is critical at this stage, when allthis is being done, than there is eatefi! potiey guidance so that the CRZ maps eam he used fn both the statewise napping an! classification and the project level HHT. dexareation, Mol should ensure that dese maps are pat in the pa Currently, there is enormous resistance fiom defence and estublishments to the public use of these maps. But given the fact that C a regulated zone, its critical there is transparency about developments on the coast. Regulation and monitoring is not possible without this, domain APs We may agree and NCSCM 10 examine the above issues ant work oxt the unitorn methodology for demarcation of EVELINTL 7A Recommendations on clearance br me 7 11 is our assessment that the cument regulatory system i not able hnundie the complexity and size of projects of this nature, There is an urgent il (o strengthen the monitoring abilities and to bring in public aversigh, The monitoring and auditing of such a large project is anly possible, if the clearance conditions are specific and detailed, geo-referenced snd there is a lonelsat imagery analysis to benchmark the project acca, pre-consteueti Without these bencinaeks, it fs not possible, to ascertain the extent and sade 1d operation phase, Mere at all monitoring, data is vessible by local communities to use anel comprehend in terms of importantly, a systems should be developed $0 widely impacts there is « need to ereate a monitoring system to ensure that corrective action suggested by this report is taken within a time- bound manner. Abs may be agreed. duly 6, 20.3 Donte 9) ‘Phis Plann: en he etn Og ee eee ena : eet veel bmg, nga 7 DitoR aeNotes of IS(MS) at pro page refer: Regarding the suggested monitoring system it may be mentioned that a monitoring ‘system comprising of joint quarterly visits by GCZMA, ‘and RO, Bhopal may be ppt in place for a least 2 years or as per requirement, ‘The aetion points are encapsulated in the following table: jon/Itecommendation ‘Scetion of the report [ Observ: "Tit Gases af in Phase W oF FPP. the company] May be sent to TATU) procedural lapses | asked for exemption saying that | for further ceo the project fs within a notfed power SEZ, This is even though the power SEZ did not have ee, which woul have ved this exemption” AL prajees constructed the SEZ should have EC EIA not Ministry insisiod aublk Hearing and Phas cconuucte the PH, The sirstripvactodrome is yeut of | The won” Commercial SEZ and it was constructed | airstrips are not cover without SE Funder the BA, Notification as amended 2009 ence >not require prior PP has. informed that Necessary NOC far the Airsirip hay boon obtained from Pollution EE IEEE ic Control Board. litocking of ereels, including | No action bas bee kona | sugpested wart | changes + Bardi Mata creek witnessed a distinet change at ils | order to protect the mouth where the ereck meets the mouth, it has beer sea. fn 2005, the ereck mouth fuel | suggested tot | natural outfall into the soa. In | remedial action against 2010, the creek opening shifted | likely accretion. and "got constsicied, This is | clearly because of construction |'To ensure thi, PP for the Water Front Development | should carry ant regular Project, 1f no remestial action is | monitoring, of the site taken urgently, there is danger of | through a desbeated Closing. of the ereok mouth duc to | monitoring. cell and aceretion. lake remedial action as and when required to prevent accretion of ndfsitt atthe mouth of sek. GCZMA shallthe creek site to ki Watch on the aceretion ‘nd direst the PP, if required, for removal of anne age yoy =n - | Me nercted sans Tnerease of salinlly because of ‘may be asked to Tine suard pond/intake and outfall | the channels, 12.1 Moki Sh | substantial — deterrent for effective deterrence mmplinnce and violation fry emcomplianes | rough. the ereation of «an | Secy (am) Geen 3 remedial Gujarat may bes -asures by Govt of Gujarat wiltee recommended | inctutin that the #nvitonment Restoration | representative of Mot und should be 1 per cent of the | (RO, Bhopal) to work Iroject cost (including the cast of {out "the ction plan, the ‘thernal power plant) or Rs | modalities and oversee 200 crore, whichever is higher | the operation of the fund and chermte, under the | and periodically repmet Chairmanship of Sceretary (&F). | the progress. to the Secretary (L&E). A committee under the Pr Caneel ” cnvironmenial | Separaie “shaw case nee of Novth Port notices may be issu to both APSIZ/L. and GMB. to submit their ‘and F23Specitic ~~} 5. “Creeks a linet aysie eonservation zone may The cmlite area should be | be agreed. PP may be Ney remetiat netion declare! as « conservation zone, aked te casire ty tte itis contiguous to Bocha istand | opening of Barc’ Mate Hand its important mangrove | Creek and other croek system, systems is. kept Drotected, not damaged The opening of Baradi Mata {or blocked. k should he kept protected s0 ot damaged or blocked, This must be done for all other ‘reek systems, = rove conservation fon” may Bocha Island and its conservation one must be protected at ‘The mangrove conservation near the mouth of oust be| around the project area, regenerated. ‘An action plan for protecting all mangrove conservation areas including the proposed mangrove conservation area maybe prepared and put in public domain, within three months, for iquake/ tsunami wna project elearanee ‘The disaster management plan of the different projeet proponents of MPSZL, should be linked to the 'Distict Disaster Management Play. The Committee also recommends eurtying out periodic mock drills along with district administration ian because of storage “ponul/ntalee and outta The intake and outfall channel ‘ass impervious lining atthe bottom and sides. Mol should urgently take up this matter with GCZMA and ask Jor review and reassessment of) Fly ash nl Disposal GPCB should setup a robast monitoring system {0 track and teport on the quantum of fy ash fpenerated by all the phases of the Adan’ thermal power plant. “The Company show sabmit a revised fly ash ui MoEF, whieh does for its use in oelamation, The concern about fugitive emissions from transport and disposid of fly ash and contatnination of the proundwater rear the fly ash dyke and pond must be taken seriously vik Fis hermen -fiveiiond| PP may “be asked to provide lining. Recommendation “niay be agroedd and PP may be asked to like necessnry action to comply. the recommendation73. Specific recommen reform of regula livelihood to a cancers, APS! inyplementation and_monitor The exclusive fishing . harbor proposed at Bhadreshwar should for | be built so that there is facility livelihood support, ‘This. fai should be built within a time ppesiod of two years, In ak all fishers settlements located the Waterfiont (port) area im ") The state goverment should review the policy of ac ‘and transfer of village common specific case bat also in other lands, of APS justin th APSEZI. should consider voluntary retuen of grazing hand fest in. improv projects MoEP should commission ive study on compet cumulative which have already been gran clearance, ‘This study should used to assess and mi impaets in the region. All future port and power plant projects should be assessed for clea based on cumulative impacts. 1 must prepare this settlement-vise plan within 6 | oniths with 1 clear schedule of ty of this land with imutative Topas of povwer plants and port impacts of project ty must pet adequate facilities for enerying ‘out their economie activity, the the ned be K be agreed. APSE: ust prepare the settlemontwise plan within 6 months with & clear schedule of All fishers nents located in the Waterfront (port) ‘area must_get_adequate facilities for earrying out their economic. activity. © Government may le necessary action to built exclusive fishing harbour for the livelihood support of the men or Bhadreshwar in « period of two years, may agres and State Government may ensire newessary action. bP nay be asked to carryout cumulative impact assessment studies under the supervision of the State Government and ws per the Tol approved by MoER, ‘As decided in tho 37" Meeting of NCZMA, NCSCM has been asked i i i | { i : I i i |i ~~ etna for domaeaton of HITLALTL so as to mike the domawcation 7 procedure un i 74 a need to erate al A | | Recommendations on | monitoring system to ensure that | comprising of joint | J project” clearance | corrective action suggested by | quarterly visits by | | eouditions and post | this report is taken within a time- | GCZMA, GPCR and | | elearanee monitoring | bound manner RO, Bhopal may be put ' in place for al kat 2 vat i Submitted please (Lali Kapur) Director (LK) , July9, 2013) Sins) ian The observations and assessment of the Report of the Committee for Inspection of M/s Adani Port and SEZ Lid., Mundra, Gujarat-may be perused from pages 1 to 11/n. at The observations/ regommendations and * nts rave been tbulteotSet pag 12 to 16/n. 3. Put up for directions/ approval of the sugse the suggested action ested action plan. Lge rote Bog Joint Secretary 10.07.2013 Cutt 17 Is: Notes from page 1 nay pease be seen We may accept the recommendations ofthe Committee subject t the fllowing ly brought out major violations of conditions of ingot (‘The Commitee cnvionmental clearance suchas blocking of reeks. ine! rd consivicton of mouth oF Baradi Mata ereek aryl Blocking of other 4 Sir te consrae al Talat nevie deesoonce aT a oi Brito rte popes Nonh Poe i a ak ee ee 5 ne Aegradation of mangroves near Baradi Mata mouth, nites as male specific recommendations thot the Nom Port area aud Bocks Island sould 90 Alelared a conservation zone and thatthe are sill be protected axl al “Greeks, water ies and retained lal shoul be restored pre 2005 status. The Commitee has supgosted clearance of Newt Por a “i sin view the recommen! ‘cluded inthe Janaary 12, sme and also. 01 account tampa. volatons Spread ver & large en as rioly rer to above, the nee del January 12, 2009 granted to MU Mun Be kept in aboyanes, Simulloncoy, we may dicot ths p suit ind pln, slong, wih cost esti Imangiowe, ceeks, Wate bles and recall “This Reiow plan should also contain provision’ for conservation and ‘maintenance ofthe restored ecosystems The vetion pla wy by sratnive by the concemed EAC in Mel nd, upon approval, monitored during, iupplerentation by the concerned pial office of Mal Fi i Gi nese oF procedural pss, cos pine oat tht the projet Bes proponent ha clsimederomplicn fem public bering based on er aa reson tt Pye ofthe poe plat would eects mated po as: Siz Wo may ie ayaa wk the pues ee HG gota br pase 19 ie Thana Poe further in 1A Die. for appropriate action the projet proponent may he dtected to tke actions as supgsstedl by Committee Gx) In respect of salinity caused by storage pon ava (Ranga Seetaantt) sa 201Office of the Minister of State (VC) for Environment & Forests | accept the recommendations of the Sunita Narain Committes. In | additions to the specific recommendations already referred to at "x" Page 48, the following is important to highlight. | hereby record that | have carefully examined the representation made by the project proponent APSEZL, in response to the Sunita Narain Committee report, and thal | {ind no mori in their contentions. 4) The Committee has found that the Project Proponent has "been less than serious about reporting on compliance with the conditions set at the time of clearance. In many cases, non compliance with reporting conditions has been observed, For eg it is an EC condition to monitor tho effluent discharge temperature to ensure that it does not exceed 7°C. Itis stated that the inlet and outlet temperature should bo measured daily and the difference be within stipulated limits. Temperature records onclosed ‘as an annexure with the compliance report are not avaliable. ‘Fishermen in the area allege thal hot water released into the sea io affecting thoir small fish catch”, Thus itis important that reporting by the company which is perfunctory and non committal, should now be governed by regular and transparent monitoring, and EC conditions stictly adhered to: Tho Committee has stated as follows. | quote “Recommendations for offective deterrence for non-compliance and remedial measures. In the Committee's assessment there is incontrovertible evidence of ation of EG condition and non-compliance. It must also be recognized iiiat the Company has by passed environmental procedures in certain cases. ‘The question bofore the Committee is to determine the fulue course of action. One option would be fo recommend the cancellation of clearanees, where procedures have been bypassed. In addition, lega proceeding could be initiated against non-compliance and violations of EC conditions. But itis also cloar that these steps, however, harsh they may sound, aro in the nature of baing procedural and would only lead to delay without any gains to the environment and the people. ‘The Committee is cognizant of the fact that large scale development has already beer Undertaken and It is not possiblo or prudent at this stage to halt or cease its operations, | | therefore, the Committee has docided to recommend a differen: | couse of action, which is both intended to be an effective deterrent and {also suggests the way for future remedial action to improve the nvironment. i Given this the Commitee recommends the following: 1 MoEF. should impose a substantial deterront for non: | compliance and violations through the creation of an Environment | Rostoration Fund. It The Commitee is aware that it is practically difficult to assign | tangibto and intangibte costs to non-compliance and violations. However, | the inability to quantify these costs should not deter us from setting | precedence for the fulure. This will only result in the issue remaining i unresolved and conflicted and will delay action to improve the environmert ‘and the livelinoods of people.>) * Considering the scale of the project, the Committee would fecommeng that the Environment Restoration Fund should be 1 per ent of the project cost (including the cost of the thermal power plant) or Rs. 200 crore, whichever is higher. + Tho Envitonment Restoration Fund should operao under the chairmanship of the Secretary, MoEF and be used specifically for Femodiation of environmental damage in Mundra and also. for strengthening the regulatory and monitoring systems. * The purpose of the Fund should be the following: Protection of marine ecology; Protection and conservation of mangroves, including development of new mangrove conservation area ©. Restoration and conservation of creeks; Independent studies and monitoring of the entire project areas, including cumulative impacts and public data disclosure systems, ©. Social infrastructure and livelihood support for fishors community, including developmont of access of fishers from thelr temporary settioments to villages”, Further in view of the committee recommendations file noting at (i) Pq 18, show cause notice may be given to the Project Proponont why EG siven fo the North Port should not be cancelled, 2) Orders should issue to GPCB regarding fly ash manage disposal as follows: Ely ash management and disposal + GPCB should set up a robust monitoring system, which is in the Public domain that tracks and reports on, one, the quantum of fly ash generated by all the phases of the Adani thermal powar plant and two, that can verily and audit the utilization fly ash, + Tho Company should submit a rovised fly ash ulilization plan to MOEF, which does not provide for ils use in reclamation. ‘This is because it is not possible to monitor and verify that domestic coal fly ash is not being disposed for-used for reclamation in low lying areas, * Tho concem about fugitive emissions from transport and disposal of fly ash and contamination of the groundwater near the fly ash dyke and pond must be taken seriously by the regulating agencies and public monitoring systems must be evolved to check for Contamination around the ash pond in particular ‘nt and 2) Regarding Samundra/Stering the recommendations of the Committee are accepted and GCZMA directed to review and ro-assexs the maltes. New and vorifiable coordinates should be mapped and ‘Supplied to MOEF, and also put in the public domain for verification, 4), Reaarding fishermen and their livelihood, APSEZL should prepare a clear statement wise pian within 6 months, which contains a specific plan for fishermen, their access and protection of their livalinood. ‘The plan should include a clear schedule of implementation and monitoring, Further the exclusive fishing harbour proposed at Badreshwar should be built fo ensure facility for livelihood support, and adequate facilities (or fishers to carry on their economic activity 5) Regarding the policy of Gauchar or village common land, the Stato Govt. is advised to review this policy in general with specific roference to environmental impact and livelihood,~ 22) 6) Pata 7.1.1 of the Committee roport dotalls procedural lapses particularly in respect of public heering and obtaining statutory clearances The Committee observes that while on April 23-24, 2009, the EAC exempted the SEZ from public hearing ON THE STRICT CONDITION tha: projects coming in the SEZ in fulure shall undergo procedure as per the EIA Notification 2006. This means that all projects constructed within the SEZ should possess EC under the EIA Notification of 2008. ‘The Projec: Proponent should be addressed in this regard, and details vorified. If any lapses are found, action under law should follow, Ihe Committee also observes that an airstriplaerodrome, a part of the SEZ was constiucted without FC. Here too, the Project Proponen: should be addressed, details verified, and action under law initiated, in the vent of violation. The Committee has made specific recommendations regarding‘ ‘work thal needs to be undertaken by MOEF with regard to reform of CRZ regulations and recommondations on post clearanco conditions and post cleuranco monitoring (7.3 and 7.4 of the report) I direct that the Gepartments of MoEF responsible for these areas should implement the recommendations in a time bound fashion. In view of tha above, | direct the following, in addition to the directions already mentioned in the file notings above and at ‘X’ Page 18, ) Show cause notice be issued to the project proponent for cancellation of EC given to the Nosh Post. Until then, the EC given {o the North Port be kept in abeyance with immediate offect b) Show cause notice be issued to the PP, why EC granted for Phase of the Thermal Power Piant, based upon wrong representation by the project proponent and exemption from public hearing should not be cancelled, ©) The Project Proponent be directed to forthwith propare an aotion plan to protect the livelhood of fisheimen whose marine ecology, and catch, and accass to the sea have been seriously affocted by the violations commilted by the Project Proponent, 4) As a deterrent for non-compliance and violation, the PP should sel up on Environment Restoration fund ~ distinct and separate from CSR activities under Company Law ~ amounting to Rs. 200 crores or 1% of project cost, whichever is higher, to be used for remediation of environment damage in Munda. The Fund will be operated under the Chairmanship of Secretary E8F, and will inclu es enumerated by the Commities, “ yun’ h pan (saya Nataraa Mosic) EBF 27" August, 2013 8 Aree een? ie (MS) Fat Llosa ites) lee be oe TieK.No.10-47/2008-18-T11(00) Subject: Recommendations of the Committee cor ‘examinati = Reg itated for Insp of alleged violations by M/s Adani Port and SEZ, Pvt I. FRI and FR2 are the reply submitted by M/s Adani Port and St Pet had ‘and GMB with respect fo Show Cause Notice issued based on the recommendations ‘of Ms Sunits Nerain Committee. 2. Mis Adani Port and SEZ Pvt Lid has stated that no reasons freve been disclosed for accepting the recommendations of the committee and also the grounds fon Which our cespanse Ins not been accepted. Also expressed willingness to mea land answer the grounds on which the response has not been accepted. However submitted point wise response. consider fo allow M/s Aduni Port and $122 ie yesponse are given below: 3. Regarding the above issue, Pvt Ltd to visit the documents. The Point_No._(i) North Port aren and Bovka tsland should be declares ‘Conservation zone aad the aren shonkd be protected. All the ereeks, water boties fand reclainted tand in these avens shonld be restored and bronght hack to pre- 2005 status within six months. Respon ‘Racha Island and area proposed for North Port is notin the possession of APS! 'APSEZI. committed to conserve 88 Ha of mangrove area of Pacha Island as per the NIA studies carried ont by NIO in terms of HC dated 12/19.1.2009 for Waterfiowt evelopment Project. on the airstripfaeradrame including the location ins ete,alony, with the details of clearances projects constructed within the SEZ should sn, 2006 ae applicable, ‘Vive details shall be Poin possess submitted, Response: AP: fm that all the projects constructed! within the SEZ will ‘onment Cleatnnee if applicable under ECA Notification, 2006. J). Prepare a specific aetion plan to prateet the livelihood of ne ecology, and entelt and aecess t the sex have been Serlonaly affected by the violation committed hy dhe Projeet Proponent within @ Months with a specifig plan for fishermen, thelr access and) protection of ‘hood, Further, APBEZ 14d, shall provide necessary support for the development of exclusive fishing arbour as Bhadreshorar, Response: APS! never restricted or created any hindrance (© amy authorized fishermen for approaching the sea For their fishing related getivities, There is 99 Tinpect on fishermen aS, APSEZ. us provided specific approach eordors, for Rermen movement though APSBZ acca, Additionally APSIEZ hs been sorting hormen groups in Mandra for providing then fivelihaod support for Their socto economic uplifiment, APSEZ. is also providing support for Healthcare Fucation ant nftasteucture facilities for ishermien eoramunityOle saving land and also invest Responses After diseussion with local people of Zarpara village, APSEZ. hs voluntarily given back approx. 490 acres of land to Zarpara village Tor gauchar purpose, in spite of the fact that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has dismissed the appeal of villapers eballenging the allotment of pnuchat tad, APSEZ will always} ‘eager to help them in the best possible manner. APSE nd do the nvedfi pZ Ltd stall subnalt { projeets to the State Gov to put in place a Distriet Dis und the project wren, Response: APSEY. has alteudy prepared Disaster Management Plan for its all the nda. The sane has been ulead submitted to Stale Disaster ment Authority vide our letter dated 18" January, 2013, for non-complia ronment Restoration fund dist ny Law a ngs 10 Ls. 200 crores oF 1% of projeet | ichever is higher, to be used for remesliati 1 ‘The fund will he operated cluding activities as enume ip of Scevetary ed by the Committee. Response: As can be seen from para (i) to (vi) of pra-10 of the captioned show cause siotice that there is no non-compliance of violation of the terms of the environmental clearance dated 12/19.1.2009 by APSEZ. Therefore respectfully request the Ministry to reconsider the setup of environmental restoration fund for an. amount of 88.200 crores whieh has been subjectively arrived at, We have spent substantial amount in various aetivities for socio environment develepment. | i | 1 1 | I Ht Without preiefive to this, we are open to eretion of development fund afany substantially reduced atount voluniaily kesping i mid our CSR eontibations as well as the elatfenge fied Wy the infastactre sector in he eucent ceonomie seenaro, We will nak the fn available on yet basis spr the plans that may ! i ! i | i { i ' bbc sanctioned by the Ministy for improvement of socio-enyironment condition, We are opeu! (o suggestions of objets and purpose of ny conerete projects and proposals which may meet the iconment and well being of people at large 4. Further GME hus also submided its response. Brief response is given below: Issue: plan along with cost estimate for restorat of mangroves and ereeks in North Port site to their original status, The acti plan should also contain provision for conservation and maintenance of the stored ecosystems including dectaration of Bocha Island as conservation zone. Pending decision on the Show Cause Notice, the statws quo ante f coustructions/development in the site as an date should be maintained, Response: Wochit tslandl, didn't have much vegelation in the eat Toposheet No, 4119 aud F/10 of the Survey of India, Growth of such coastal vegetations and manyroves expand over the period and also entor in the aren of acquisition process takes long time. Such stray mangroves are sometime found luxuriant? vanished over the period along the navigation channels, wings of exis berths and anywhere where port development and oper ‘on account of impacts oF port! fishing aetivities in the vieinity creck and surrounding creck lets are extensively under necessitate maintenance dredging from 1590 as per ing, activities are prevalent Boch Island, Bocha Fisherman’ which me to time, :Board woutd like to study the said scientifie study report i? commissioned by MoLF in addition to Current Visit Report of the Committee so tha: fone can implement its recommendation as engineered solution for holistic implementation of the preventive measures. ut of 718 er of Bocha land, 211 acres (88 ha) is already reported for mangroves conservation by APSI ng about $00 acres Fad can be considered for forest lared as “Conservation Area” However, considering its importance, in addition to above, GMB is willing to carts ‘out compensatory afforestation at othcr suitable location (s) based on the findings 0° the Committee Report proval of MoLP and in consultation with Gujarat Reology Commission wi the nodal agency of Government of Gujarat for mangrove afforestation activities. ‘The existing reclamation of 396 acres is resourees which may be utilized fr permissible activities for Port after seeueing fresh Hnw/CRZ Clearance in future. con issues Tike linking Disaster submitted that the response of the State Gov ‘of exclusive fishing harbours at Bhadreshwar Management Plan of the different project proponents of APSE), to the 'Distrit, Disaster Management Plan’ and roview the policy of acquisition and transfer of ‘auchar or village common funds ete are yet to be received, Further, response fro GCZMA on reassessinent of the matter relating, to Samuda townshipserh Hospital is awaited 6 We may issue reminders to the Principal Secretary, Forests and Environmert Department and GCZMA to expedite their reply so that matter ean be examined fer issue of final order. 7. Draft Jeiters are placed for perusal and approval please, Qs (Uathirunavuldarase) sev? 30 November 2013 a) Ahoee roles of peer) omy he seen ’ beeecd upon He ve cormendadons of ny Suni} Norain! Gur) led Shea Covere, MaibeeS rere ised? to my doris PYbceud sere (el (11st ze) Ctud GHonal Martrae Bort cud Leber Jo CCEA cme Stale Cu mls Apseel dud Gm have cobupteal hen yeplrcs Jo the Choe cee At poe? bere 8 vephea fam écems cil Stele Cov} anc ‘ShN cuodbeal. oh mrp ke reerbmenh teadt reply Cosel aa2 ~ “fom CCCP i lov yw rafal “fox ckcrdanky aebor ¢ Teeons) youre) SJerling My sported 03° fo uhelfea 9 , feat) \n & Re ard por vd . A cea vnay fe taken ante Krol dey fo Mls nite atl GW baged on otha veyshes, Doron on We rssees relabeef fe “Teed > ati) Slearby HoypPal coer he taker once veplics eb, ECC MA cud. Shale Cont} aye Yeodiecel ) for uluck coe may Vsere v4 riedeng sabueltead pre eae, 1518) tg er JS (ye :) i. ufo Shs DIBA Mk, Powwnch w tsaeod fo 6C2mA ced ce d fe 6 ced Shue Coch hed al oe wud Chute 45 (oyK) ee ay ae Bofn/y DIRE CK, eof) Ae ta advedey oletals?l wot uj bebo = Oo flee C : feb ee9 - F.No,10-47/2008-1A-11(01) Subject: Recommendations of the Committee constituted for and ex jon of alleged violations by M/s Ad SEZ Pvt Ld - Reg, spect Port aud ‘Noting on the pre-page may please be seen, Reminders sent to the Principal Scerctary, Forests and Environment Department and GC/MA fo expedite their reply. The analysis of the reply of the Mis ‘Adiaii Port wad SEZ. Ltd and GMB are given below: North Port aren and Rocha Island should be declared as + conservation zone and the area should be protected. All the crecks, water bodies il in these nreas should be restored and brought back to pre months, Response of PP: Bocha Island and area proposed for North Port is not in the possession of APSEZL APSEZL committed to conserve 88 Ha of mangrove area of Bocha Island as per he BIA studies earried out by NIO in terms of EC dated 12/19.1.2009 for Wiiterfia Development Project Response of GMB: Acquisition admeasuring 1114 acres having, 88 cers mangroves inhabited athe front of the Bocha Island has been done for the purpose of port developinent. i didn’t have mich vegetation in the early 1990 as per Toposheet No. 41F/9 and F10 of the Survey of India. ‘Tho growth of such coastal vegetations axl an expire over the period! and such stray manggoves arc sometime foun tus vanished over the period along the navigation channels, wings of exist anywhere where port develop of impacts of ord fishing activites in the vicinity. Mocha Isand, Pacha er snd sunrounding creck lets are extensively under by Fisherman which necesstue maintenance dreiging fr time to time. willbe unwise to do restoration for thase Sitay mangroves which didnot exist prior to 1980 since fish production in this area |" has increased, However, for rostoration of the same stray mangroves, itis advisiole 1 to-eany out Environmental Impact Assessment Stuies though a nationally repre id under thee guidance, restoration activities can be eartied out as the axa falls in CRZ, Gujarat Maritime Board would like to study the said scientific commissioned by MoFP in addition to Current Visit Report of the Cor aly report if ittee so fat fone can implement its rgeommnendation as engineered solution for hobsic | implementation of the preventive measures. ‘Total area of 1114 acre of land consists of (a) Rocha Island admeasuring 71 acres Out of 718 aeres of Bocha land, Lad nd ion and and (b) the adjoining land adoeasuring 396 act 211 acres (88 ha) is already reported for mangroves conservation by APSI remaining, about 500 acres land can be considered for mangroves affore be declared as “Conservation Arca”. However, considering its impor addition to above, GMD is willing to carry out compensatory allestation at other suitable location (8) based on the findings of the Conmittce Report. Same may be implemented after approval of Mol5F and in consultation with Gujarat Beolegy Commission which is the nodal ageney of Government of Gujarat for mangr afforestation activities. The existing, reclamation of 396 acres is resourees which niay be uilized for permissible activities for Port after securing fesh Finw/CRYZ Clearance in fue. Comments: GMB has not commitied on restoration of ereeks, wanted the Ministry | commence a scientific sty, requested to utilize 396 aeres for foreshore facilites. ‘Also requested fora personal discussion . A decision to be taken on all these isstsni 28 8 details on the airst neluding the location with coordinates, facilities, dimensions ete. along with the details of clearances obtained. Response: details submitted, ci focation of Sanmmelrs townshipystesting hospit the same is ansated The GCZMA was asked for reassessment of the matter relating to fal with respect to CRZ. boundary and Point No. Gil) possess KC under su L wre that all (he projects constructed within the SEZ. should |A Notification, 2006 as applicable. ‘The details shall be Response: APSPZ. e possess im that all the projects constructed within the SEZ, will 1A Notification, 2006 nvironment Clearance if applicable under ts: Nil plan to protect the livelihood of ly affected by the violatio specific plan for fishermen, their access and protection of ther, APSBZ Ltd. shall provide necessary support for the ent of exel months with livelihood, develop SEZ, has never restricted or ereated any hindrance to any authorized fishermen For appraaching the sea for their fishing related activities. These is no jermen as APSEZ. has provided specific approach corridors. for fishermen movement through APSEZ area, Additionally APSEZ has been working with all the fishermen groups in Mundra for providing them livelihood support for their socio-economic upliftment, APSEZ is also providing support for Healthcare, Edueation ane! Infiastruetare facilities for fishesmen community Comments: PP has not submitted specific action plan as sought. PP has submitted the details of the approach corridors developed for fishermen along with the year of construction and east Point No. in improvi i grazing, land and also invest 4) Shall consider the voluntary ret 1 productivity of this land with villnge Responses Alter discussion with local people of Zarpara village, APSHZ has volintitly given back approx. 400 aeres of land to Zarpara village for gauchar purpose, in spite of the fact thal the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has dismissed xs challenging the allotment of gauchar land, APSEZ.will always in the est possible manner, APSEZ. will consider the suggestion the appeal of v eager to help the and do te need Comments: Since PP agreed, time limit may be specitied 10 the PP to comply, Point No. (vi) APSEZ Ltd shall submit Disaster Management Plan of the different projects to the State Government so as to enable the State Government to put in place a Distriet Disaster Management Plan to ensure hnuman safety in and around the project area. Response: APSEZ, has already prepared Disaster Management Plan for i's all the fopenitional area at Mundta, ‘The same has been already submitted to State Disaster ment Authority vide our letter dated 18" January, 2013. ments: Nil200 crores ov 1% of project is higher, to be used for remediation of eavironmental damage cost, n Mundra, ‘The fund wit! be aperated under the € iship of Secretary RAE, and will vities as enumerated by the Comuittec, Response: As can be seen from para (i) to (yi) of para-t0 of the e: etse notice that there is no noi-compliance oF violation of thet yee dated 12/19,1.2009 by APSEZ, Therolore respecitilly ust the Ministry (0 reconsider the setup of environmental restoration fund fos sm nowt of Rs.200 crores whieh hs heen subjectivel al, We have spent ibstantial amount in various activities for socio eavironment developme Without prejudice to this, we are open to creation of development find of any substantially reduced amount voluntarily keeping in mind our CSR. contributions as well as the challenge faced by the infiastructune sector in the current econoni scenario. We will make the fund available on yearly basis ay per the pans that bbe sanctioned by the Ministry for improvement of sacio-enviconnient conlition. We are open to suggestions of any concrete projects and proposals which may meet the objects anc purpose of environment and well heing of peopte at Co: ments: PP aprecd (o create fund of substantially reduced amount - A decision to Submitted Please, vise Als etbcce. “the yeplies eetved fam ns nests tue] Pie EMR vov'F fhe shocacnc repec. ‘reseed to thot ip onl a Its recommendahony of Sania Meadin Coseev}fen haye beer) eeamined, plea fran 6CzmA, duel sfete Grave aaverica wd reed rssweel A vned may be deuteron Ite faced adoro 2 6 Ve cthoce reptcd - wala APSEZL cud EMIS heared (pery cthoce r< ila op [sates sich ad Rrorfslup cute) Skvty bop Core he lakers ove replicas Rom Clem) aud Hale bed @ erved, Feneneie shafed peeoe USES) pipet oo he wuaw «f fhe Din : ab pipe fie) vafefes7)em i ‘The vi sof the division wer replies submitted by M/s AUSEZ1 ! GMB (0 the show cause notices issued to th Point | "Action Points i, | Novth Port arca and Boch Island should — be — declared as i conservation zone and the area i should be protected. AU the i creeks, water bodlics and reclaimed land in these areas should be ‘restored and brought back to pre-2005 status within six ' months. ii” | Submit details onthe aitstrip/aerodrome including the location with cooxdinaies, frcilities, dimensions ete. along with the details of clearances obtained, SPE Ensure that all” the projects construct! within the SLZ should possess RC under BIA Notification, 2006 as applicable. ‘The details shall be submitted, Prepare a specific action plan to proteet the livelihood of fisherman whose matine ecology, and catch ‘and socess to the sea have been seriously ullected by the violation committed by the Project Proponent within 6 months with a speeifie plan for fishermen, th access and protect livelihood. Further, APSEZ Ld. provide necessary support | i 1 i i | i i | i GMB has not giver initnent for the rest stead has supgested the Ministry ‘commence a seientifie study so as to implement its recommendations as, engineered solution for holistic implementation of the preventive measures. It has further requested t0 allow utilization of 396 acres for port after ing, fresh ECICRZ, elearance, Also requested for a personal discussion, I is suggested that GMB. may be asked {0 earry out the scientific study fiom its own resources in order implement the said dircetion related to conservation of North Port Area and Boch Island in a seientific and holistic manner. GCAMA was requested Tor reassessiient of the matter relating 10 Jocation of Saundra township sterling hospital with respect to CRZ. boundary and the same is avvaited, APSEZ has agreed that all the projects constructed within the SEZ, ‘will possess Envirwnment Clearance, if applicable under FA Notification, 2008 | PP has not submitted samy specific action plan as sought instead has submitted the details of the approach corridors. developed for fishennen along with the year of construction aud cost We may ask the PP 10 submit the specific action, in this regard, without further delay. Since BP aged, time limit may be specified (0 the PD" to, comply this direction,‘submit Disaster tan of the 9 @ 1 asa it ep ha thas atealy submited the BNI for is Operation ten tothe Sine Dist Doster Managemen Authority. [vi PP agree substantially reduc that there is fund distinet activities under Tay amounting to Rs, 200 erores or 1% of project cost, whichever to be used for of environmental compliance/violation of HC dated 12.1.2009 which is not acceptable. - Fe S53 Director (LK) 20.12.2013 ssc / Ds ae uth TS chet Libfer fo mls fala! asking ter fo sab} Abo 4 proleskn BIR Qcman curd Creahen VP Cone feakncdo Kurd [Ped for ccrmwval Plea. wins TA RY “kydh 0.10-47/2008-1A-L11(p0) ‘Subject: Recommendations of the Committee cor and examination of alleged vioki SEZ Pvt Lid - Reg. is by Mis Adani Port and This relates to the recommenda Inspection and examination of alleged vi Lad by M/s Adani Port snl SEZ Pvt sty had granted Environment and CRZ, clearance on 12,01,2009 10 Mis Adani Port and $122 Limited (Yormerly Munda Port and § development of Port facilities at Munda, District Kuteh, Gujar There are various representations against the project regarding, destruction of mangroves, non compliance of EC conditions, etc. Ministry based! on site on on 06-07" Decomber, 2010, noted certain violations related © nd hospital and destruct show cause notice was issued on 15.12.2010 to the project ther, the Ministry issued directions on 23" February, 2011 to project, authorities not to undertake any reclamation activity and not to initiate any new ‘construction work in the CRZ ares High Court of Gujarat in a PIL No, 12. of 2011 fied alleping destruction of mangroves in violation of EC, directed for an inquiry and imposed stay on development works. ‘The inquiry was conducted by Member Secretary, Gujarat Coastal Zone Management Authority (GCZMA) and PCE, iased on the report of the inquiry committee, the High Court vide interim order psrmitted project authority to carry ont development portions snd prohibited devetapoient in contain areas, Ministry in the affidavit filed in the above matter, proposed to examine the 1es by a multi ~diseiplinary committee in view of the seriousness of the issues involved in the matter. Accordingly, Ministry constituted a five member committee to make a site visit and submit the report to MoE The Committee submitted its report on 18.04.2013 with various recommendations. In the Committee's is evidence of violation? Non-Compliance of EC conditions. Based on the report of the ssponse of the APSKZ, Mol? issued a Show Ca nent Departinent, Government oF Oujara actions on 30.09.2013, APSEZ, submitted its reply on 14.10.2013 in response to the Show Cause Notice of MoEP. GMB Department, Govt of Gujarat / Member Seeretary, GCZMA hus sub 13.02.2014. the issues and responses are given below: Port avon and Bocha Island should be declared as the area should be protected, AMl the id in these areas should be restored six months. Paint_No._(i) Nov hhodies amd reetaimed I to pre-2005 status withi Response of APSHZ: Rocha [stand and area proposed for North Port is notin the possession of APSEZI., APSIZ1. committed to conserve 88 ha of mangrove arca of Bocha Island as per the KIA studies carried out by NIO in terms of HC dated 12/19,1.2009 for Waterfront Development Project.Response of GMB: Boch Island, Bocha creek and surrounding ereck Lets are extensively uncler by Fisherman which necessitate maintenance dredging from time to time, It will be unwise to do restoration for those stray mangroves which did not prior to 1980 since fish production in this area has increased. However, for restoration of the same siray mangroves, it is advisable to carry out Environmental Impact Assessment Studies through 4 nationally reputed institute and under their guidance, restoration activitios eam be carried out as the area falls in CRZ, Total area o€ 3114 aeres of fand acquired for port developmer ts (@) Dochs Island admeasuring 718 aeres and (b) the adjoining land admeasuring 396 ‘eres under reference. Out of 718 acres of area, around 211 acres (88 Ha) of area is mangtove conservation area for Adani Ports andl SEZ Ltd. GMB propose the remaining area of approximately 500 acres for mangrove afforestation and the same ‘can be declared as conservation area, Existing 396 acres of land may be wt permissible activities for port after sccuring fresh Environment and CRZ, clearance, ‘GMB also requested for a personal discussion « Comments: GMB has not committed on restoration of creeks and wanted the Ministry to commence a scientific study. Request of GMB may not be aecepted .0i1 i against the recommendation of MS Sunita Narain Committee. Action pi 1. North port to be cancelled. 2. 211 acres (88 ha) of mangrove area shall be converved by APSEZ. 3. GMB shall declare batance area of 903 acres (114-211) as conservation one shall evolve action plan for conservation. 4. The Action Plan for protection and conservation of ereek system in North port area shall be submitted by GMB within 3 months. neluding the loeation of elearances obinined. Ald submitted. Response of APSE! Comments: ‘The GCZMA was asked for reassessment of location of Saundra township(sterting hospital with respect to the samo is awaited, matter relating (© 1RZ boundary and GCZMA replied on 13.02.2014, Accor consisting GCZMA, Director, BISAG, Gandhinagar, Officer from Space Application Centre, ISRO, Ahmedabad, District Inspector of Land Record, Collector, Kutch, Town Planning Officer, Kutch, to review and make reassessment of the matter relating to Samudra Township/ Sterling hospital. ‘The Committee made site visit, collected coordinates, prepared map in 1: 2000 scale and pvcrlapped on CRZ. map prepared by CESS by DILR. The report of the committee ‘was discussed in the Gujarat CZMA meeting and decided to forward to MORE. Ibis noted that the township and Hospital are located beyond CRZ, boundary, to GCZMA, a Commiitice Action Point: Nil, sizce the structures ave located outside CR area and prior BC cas required wider BIA Notification, 2006 has been obtained from SEIAA, Gujarat 2) g(3y- n the SRY, should ‘details shall be Point No. (il) Fusuve that all the projects constructed wi possess J2C under EIA Notification, 2006 as applicable. “T submitted, ed within SEY, h, two projects Response of APSEZ: APSEZ has submitted details of projects to along with the requirement of EC and date of E., According to w! jeation, 2006 and on got NC from SEIAA, Gujarat and EC for “dl, Further APSEZ, confirmed that all the projects constiucted ant Clearance if applicable under HLA Action Poi Nil. Point No, (iv), Prepare a specific action plan to protect the livelihood of fisherman whose marine ceology, and catch and access t0 the sea have been seriously affocted by the violat cet Proponent with 6 months with a specifi ner livelihood. Furth provide necessary dovelopment of ex ng harbour as Bhadreshwar. Response of APSEYZ: APSEZ, has never restricted or created any hindrance to any authorized fishermen for approaching the sca for their fishing related activities ‘There is no impact on fishermen as APSBY. hes provided specific approach ‘corridors for Fishermen movement through APSHZ, area, Additionally APSEZ, has been working with all the fishermen groups in Mundra for providing them Fivelihood support for their sogio-cconomie upliftment, APSE, is alse providing, support for Healtheare, Faducation and Infrastructure facilities for fishermen community. ‘Comments: PP has not submitted specific aotion plan as sought, PP has submitted the details of the approach corridors developed for fishermen atong, with the year of construction and cost, APSKZ, stated that they are working. with all fishermen groups in Mundra for providing them livelihood support for theit Sox upliftment Action Point: APSKZ stated that they are working with ail fishermen groups in ‘Murxéra for providing them livelihood support for their Socio- economte uplifment APSEZ shall submit an specific action plan along, widh budget Point No. (v) Shall consider the voluntary return of gr invest in improving productivity of this land with villagers. t land and also cussion with local people of Zarpara village, ven baek approx. 400 eres of and to Zaspara village fox of the fact thet the Llon’ble Supreme Court of India hallenging the allotment of gauehar land. APSEZ the best possible manner, APSEY, will consider Response of APSI APSE, has voluntarily, ‘gnuchur purpose, in s dismissed the appe will always eager to help them the suggestion and do the needful, Comments: Since APS! it may be specifies tocomply. greed the recommendation, timePoint No. (vi) APSUZ Ltd shall submit Disaster Management Phin of the iffereat projects to the State Government so as to enable the State fevernment to put in pliee a Distriet Disaster Management Plan fo ensure Ihunain safety in and uround the project area, Response of APSE: APSHZ, has already prepared Disaster Management Plan for it’s alt the operational area at Munda, The same hus been already submitted to State Disaster Management Authority vide our letter dated 18" January, 2013, Comments: Nit Pojnt No. (vil) As nt for non-compliance and violations, ARSHZ, Lid ‘hall set up an Environment Restoration fund distinet and separate from CSR activities under Company Law amounting fo Rs, 200 crores or 1% of project is higher, to be used for remediation of environmental damage “The fund will be operated under the Chairmanship of Secretary H&E, and! will including aetivities as enumerated by the Committe Response of APSKZ: As ean be scen fiom para (i) (0 (vi) of para-10 of the ‘captioned show ease notice that there is no non-compliance or violation of the terms of the environmental clearance dated 12/19.1.2009 by APSEZ, ‘Therefore respectfully request the Ministry to reconsider the setup of environmental reslosation find for an amount of Rs.200 crows which has been subjectively marived at. We have spent substantial amount in vatious activities for socio environment development wwe are open to ercation of development fund of any substantially reducss! amount voluntarily keeping in mind our CSR contibutions as well as the challenge faced by the infrastructure seetor in the tanrent economie seenario, We will make the fin available on yearly basis as per the plans that may be sinetioned by the Ministry For improvement of socio- environment condition, We are open to suggestions of any concrete projects and Proposals which may mest the objects wd purpose of environment ane well being ‘of people at large Comments: The Sunita Narin Committee apart from violation on Notth Port area, hhas pointed out changes in the creck systems, degradation, in the mangrove conservation area near the lighthouse at the South port, It ean be seen from the satellite imageries for the years 2001, 2013 and 2013 submitted by the PP that there are certain changes Jk system (marked as A,B, C and D). ‘The Specific comtition No. (ii) of the clearance dated 12.01.2009 read as “There shall be {illing up of the ereek und reclamation of the creck’, uther, the High Court of Gujarat in PHL 12 of 2011, vide order dated 20.10.2011, imposed stay on carrying constuction in an specific area on the observation of committee constituted by the Court that there were dead mangroves ant sipes of movement of heavy machinery in many sites In view of the above, we ean conclude thatthe response of the PP that “there is no nion- complianes or violation of the terms of EC” ate incorrect. Action Points: + PP shall get detaited bathymetry done for all the creeks and rivers in the area ‘along with mapping of co-ordinates, running tengih, HTL, CRZ boundary, ‘mangrove areas including buffer zone through NCSCM / NIOT. PP shall also ‘get prepared a detailed action plan for conservation and protection of creeks! mangrove area etc through NCSCM / NIOT within six months and submit the sane fo GCZMA jor their examination and recommendation,26 - + PP, in accordance with the OM dated 12.12.2012 and 27.06.2013, shalt submit 4a written comniiment in the form of a formal board resolution to MoE to ‘ensure that violations will not be repeated. + The State Government will be addressed 10 initiate credible action on the violation by invoking powers inder Section 19 of the Environment (Protection) ‘Act, 1986 for taking necessary legal action under Section 15 of the Act for the period for which the violation has taken place and evidence provided to Motil ‘ofthe credible action taken 1+ Issue direction under Seetion 5 of E(P)Act, 1986 10 APSPZ. uot to take up and allow any further consteuetion activity ill the submission of toard Resolwion ‘and eredible action by State Goverument and decision on extension of validity afelearance dated 12.01.2009 +The extension of validity of HC dated 12.01.2009 will be decided on receipt of board resolution from PP and credible action by State Government Joint Monitoring Committee: It was recommended 0 set up a joint monitoring committee of GC/MA, GPCB and RO Bhopal to earry out monitoring, of opment / compliance of the conditions and directions for two years. 2013 that it was devided to GCZMA replied vide letter dated 24.1 constitute the commitice as suggested. ite to fuatize the Ta n und: It was yended to set up a committee pal Seeretary (Hnv), GoG ng representative of Mol:t (RO, Bhopal) to finalize the action plan and ‘modalities of the Knvironmental Restoration Fund and periodically report the progress to Seey (P&P) GCZMA replied vide letter dated 13.02.2014 that a Committes has been constituled on 07.01.2014 under the Chairmanship of ACS, F&ED, GOG, representative of MoH, RO, Bhopal, PCCK(WL), GEC, GPCB, District Collector, Kutch and Direotor (Environment) to finalize the aetion plan and modalities of the Environmental Restoration Fund and periodically report the progress Seey toy) Construction of exclusive fishing harbours at Bhadreshy recommenced that the State Government to initiate necessary xc exclusive fishing hurbours for the livelihood support of the Cishernien of period af to years, Acconing to the Director, Pavironment, GOG, the Stale Government hits taken decision to ask the Fishereis Commissioner and GMB to take necessary w harbours al Bhadveshvvar in a period of (wo years. Review the policy of acquisition and transfer of Gauchar or village common Innd ¢ tas recommended that the State Government should review the policy of ‘acquisition and (cansfer of Gauehar of village common Tand with specifie reference to environmental impact and livelihood, According to the Director, Environment, GOG, the State Government has tuken decision to ask the Revenue Department to review the policy.Cumulative {mpact Assessment studies: It was recommended that the State Government shall guide and supervise the Cumulative Impact Assessment stxlies to be undertaken by the APSEZL. for the project already granted so that future developments ean be assessed for clearance based on cumulalive impacts. According. ta the Director, Environment, GOG, the Committee constituted to finalize the action plan and modalities of the Environmental Restoration Fund icluding GMB will supervise the Cumulative Impact Assessment studies. Draft rORS would be asked fiom APSKZL. to examine and finalised the same after including suggestions of the Committe. ‘Submitted for approval oF above action points. Submitted for approval please CRY? navulkarasn) eae! 1 aps38. Above notes of DD(ET) at pre-page may be seen. ‘This relates to the recommendations of the Committee constituted under the chairmanship of Ms Sunita Narain for Inspeetion and examination of allegee violations by M/s Adani Port and SEZ Pvt Ltd In view of the replies to the Show Cause Notices/etters as submitted by APSE GMB, Environment Department, Government of Gujarat and GCZMA. Following direction and GMB: ition points are suggested ass final oner to Mis A\ Point No. (i) North Port ar conservation zone und the area should be protected. All the erecks, water bodies and reclaimed land in these areas sl and brought Dacte to pre-2005 status within six months, Action points J. Clearance granted to the North Port vide clearance letter dated 12.1.2008 10 be canceled. 2. 211 acres (88 ha) of mangrove area shull be conserved by APSE: 3. We may not agree with the request of GMB to permit development in 39 acres as its against the recommendation of Commitee, GMB shal, therefore, declare balance area of 903 acres (114-211) as conservation zone ‘and evolve action plan for its conservation. 4. The Action Plan Jor protection and conservation of ercek system in North port area shell be submited by GMB within 3 months. Point No. (il) Submit dotaits on with caurdinates, facil i clearances obtained. Action Point + No action is required since as per the report of GCZMA the structures are located outside the CRZ, area and prior FC as required undor IA, Notification, 2006 has been obtained from SEIAA, Gujarat Point No. (ii) Hnsure that all the projeets constructed within th ould possess HC under IIA Notification, 2006 as applicable, ‘The details shall he submitted, Action Point:- APSIY, confirmed that all the project ‘will possess Fnwironment Clearance if applicable under IIA Notification, 2006 No action is proposed as the issues related to SIZ are beings dealt separately. Point No. (iv), Prepare a specific action plin to protect the livelihood of fisherman whose maine ecology, and catch nd aceess to the sea have been seviously affected by the violation committed by the Project Proponent within 6 months with a specific plan for fishermen, their access and protection of livelihood. Further, APSEZ Ltd. shall provide necessary support for the development of exchisive fishing harbour as Bhudreshwvar. Action Point 2: Although PP has submitted the details of the approach corridors developed for-fishermen slong: with the year of construction and cost and statec that they are working with all fishermen groups in Mundra for providing thew livelihood support for their Socfo- economic uplifiment, no specifie aetion plan hhas been submitted,39- We may ask APSBZ to submit specifie action plan to protect the livelihood of fishermen along with budget. Point No. (v) Shall consider the voluntary return of grazing land and also invest in improving productivity of dis land with villagers, newts: APSLZ informed in spite of the fact thatthe Hon'ble Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal of villagers challenging the allotment of gauchar land, APSEZ. has voluntarily yiven back approx. 400 acres of land to Zarpata village for gauche purpose, it is further stated that APSEZ, will consider the suggestion andl do the needful. Since APSEZ agreed with the recommendation, we may ask APSKZ to submit ‘action taken report bn shis regard within Six mont Point No, (v8) APSEZ, 1d shall submit Disaster Management Pi different projects to the Slate Government s0 as to enable the Government to put in place & Di Jumam safety in and around the ‘Action Point: No action is proposed as APSEZ. informed that they have already prepared Disaster Management Plan fori’ al the operational area at Munda and mite! to State Disaster Management Authority vide letter dated 18% January, 2013. Point No, (vil) As # deterrent for non-compliance and violations, APSEZ Ltd n Environment Restoration fund distinet and separate from Taw amounting to Rs. 200 erores or 1% of whichever is higher, to be used for remediation of environmental damage in Mundra, ‘The fund will be operated under the Chairmanship of Secretary E&Y, and will including activites as enumerated by the Comm ments: APSE, replied that we are open to ereation of development fund of any substantially reduced amount voluntarily on yeauly basis keeping in mind ir CSR contributions as well as the challenge faced by the infiastrueture sector in the eurvent cconomie scenario, It may be mentioned! that although commitice, as a deterrent for non-compliance and violations, recommended sotting up of an Environment Restoration fund, howwever, as per the provisions of E(P)Act, 1986, this needs to be decided by’ the concerned Judicial Court, It is, therefore, suggested that we may ask the Staic Government to initiate requisite eredible action against the PP as per the procedure specified in Ministry's OMs dated 12.12.2012. and 276.13. The concerned Judicial Court will, therefore, decide action against the PP wes the violations as per the provisions of the E(P)Act, 1986, ‘The Following violations have been reported:- Sunita Narain Committee Repor 8) Baradi Mata eveek has witnessed a distinct change at its moutl where the cercek meets the sea, In 2005, the ereck mouth hdl a natural outfall into the sen-In 2010, the ereck opening shifted and got constricted. ‘This is clearly because of constuction for the Water Front Development Project (WEDP), Under the EC conditions, no changes in ereek or creck mouth, fre allowed, If no remedial action is taken ungently, there is danger of closing of the ercek mouth due to accretion. The Committes has recommended that “The opening of Baradi Mata ereek shoukl be kept40. his must be done for all protected so that it is not damaged or blocked. ‘ther creek systems.” b) Near Baradi Mata mouth- because of construction and reclamation activity, gradual deposition of sand was observed to have taken place, ‘which was blocking small creeks. This would eventually lead to mangrove destmetion. ‘the company had clearly not taken precaution to ensure protection of mangroves. ©) Imposition of stay by the High Court of Gujarat in PIL. 12 of 2011 on saying construction in a specifie area 4) Tt noted from satellite imagerics that portion of a creek between Boch island and Munda ereek has disappeared, '* PP shall get detaited haihymetry done for all the ereeks and rivers within CR area along with mapping of co-ordinates, running length, HIT, CR/ bowidary, mangrove areas including buffer zone through NCSCM / MOT: PP shail also yet prepared a detailed action plan for conservation and protection of creeks/ mangrove area ete through NCSCM / NIOT ad submit the same to GCZMA for their examination and recommendation. GCZMA will submit its recommendations to MoPE. © PP, in accordance with the OM dated 12.12.2012 ant 27.06.2013, shall submit a written commitment in the form of a formal board resolution to MoliF to ensure thal violations will not be repeated. + The State Government will be addressed to initiate credible action on the violation by invoking powers under Section 19 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 for taking necessary legal action under Section 13 of the Act for the periad jor which the violations have taken place and evidence provided to Mol of the eredible aetion taken. Issue direction wider Seetion 5 of F(P)Act, 1986 to APSI not to take up ant allow any further eonsiruction activity till the submission of Board Resolution ‘and credible action by State Government and decision on extension of validity af clearance dated 12.01.2009 ©The extension of validity of EC dated 12.01.2009 will be decided an receipt of board resolution from PP and credible action by State Government, ‘On approval of the above action points (1 to 4), final order to M/s APSHZ, and GMB may be issued. (Lalit Kap Director (LK) 24204et Dsceved wd, Ts (onc) Couymeherba Nake Ts fo he potu Feary he cvecent Me nite 65) achery Fak by Thermal chron . lyE.No10-47/2008-1A-1(09, Subjects Recommendations of the Commitice constituted for Inspection 1 of alleged violations by M/s Adani Port and SEZ Pvt Lid - Reg. relates to the recommendations of the Committee constituted fer Port and SEY Pxt Inspection and examination of alleged violations by M/s Adz Lid Ministry had ‘M/s Adoni Port and SEZ. waterfront development projeet of M/s Mundra Port at ineludes the North, South, West and Hast ports. ‘The components of Waterfrort development included North, South, West and Fast ports. According to PP, m development took place at North and Kast Ports, Components approved in West Port are six berths for coal and iran are, five berths for dry bull cargo, six berths for liquid cargo inclading components approach ehanne) of S00 m, western (491k) ancl eastern (4 kin) breakwaters, ‘back up area (920 ha), back-up infrastructure (9202). ‘Components approved in south port are three container terminals of 2680 1, nultipurpose (erminal of 550 m, liquid berths, Ro-Ro eum service terminals, pot craft terminal of 350m (wo deep water berths for LNG texminal with storage container yard, rail siding, eail and (euck loading facility and associated facilites (700 ha). Map showing the location of West ant South Ports are placed al Annexure-t. Aceoreling to PP, four enul berths, have been commissioned, purpose berths, three container berths, 4 coal 0 Mis Gi Following are the other clearanees granted in the area Port rat Adami August 25, 1995, ihe frst clearance was granted to M/s Adani Port Limited fir the banding facility of general eargo, 1.°G and chemical storage terminal September 20, 2000, clearance was granted (o port expansion project, ineludirg, terminal, railway link and elated ancillary smd back wp facilities to M/s Gujarat Adani Port Limited (GAPI). duly 21, 2004, clearance was granted for single point etc, 0 GAPL. igs crude oil terminal Vebruary §, 2007, clearance was granted for multipurpose berth (Fermin the Munda Port to GAPL. 2a “There arc representations from Shri Bharat Patel, Mar Adhikar Sangarsh Sangathan, Keto Vikas Sewa ‘Trust aj ing, destruction of mangroves, non- compliance of KC conditions, et Ministry based on site inspection on 06-07" December, 2010, noted certan violations related fo construction of airport, township, and hospital and destruction“hae of mangroves and accordingly, a1 show cause not the project authorities, High Court of Gujarat in a PHL. No. 12 of 2011 fie destruction of mangroves in. viol jected for an Commitice and imposed stay on development works. ‘The inquiry by Member Secretary, Gujarat Coastal Zone Management Authority (GCZMA) and PCCE. Based on the report of the inguiry committec, the High Court vide interim order prohibited development in certain area of South Port. Ministry in its affidavit filed before the Hon'ble High Court, proposed to examine the matter by a multi disciplinary committe in view of the seriousness of the issues involved. Accordingly, Ministry constituted 4 five member committee under Ms Sunita Narain to make a site visit and conduet an inspestion and subi the report to Mol. he Sunita Narain Commitice submitted its report on 18.04.2013. with jous recommendations. In the Committee's assessment there is evidence of violation/ Non-Compliance of Ki ns, Based on the report of the cammitice and response of the APSLZ, Mol ase Notice to APSEZ, and MB Environment Department, Government of Gujarat and GCZMA. were also addressed for cert APSEZ, submitted its reply on 14.10.2013 in response to the Show Cause Notice of Mol. GMB has submitted reply on 25.10.2013. Diteetor, Environment Departuxent, Govt of 1/ Member Seeretary, GCZMA has submitted reply on 13.02.2014, ‘The issues have been examined in detail on previous pages, The issues sclating to Adani ‘Thermal Power Plant are being dealt by 1A-(01) (Thermal), The issues relating to SEZ, project is being dealt separately The detwits of relevant conditions of Hnvironmental /CRZ, clearance, findings and recommendations of the Committee are given in Table-t below and the responses of Project Proponent, comments and proposed action points are given ‘able — 2-below: Tablets De recommendations of the Comm Is of relevant conditions of clearanec, findings and tee Findings? violations of ihe Conditions Navinal “creek. “Based “on Google Vat inageries itis | clearance af North Port: clear that there was a 08,1995: mangrove patch along the | (b)—Bocha shaw west of Navinal ercek in the | Conservation Zane: Gili) A dnnured meter | year 2005, bt the same has | These mist be an inerease in vide “mangrove bett | vanished in 2014 (marked as | the enaagrove vonservation should he created all |*P on the maps of 2001 & | area to ensure ecological slong the east of | 2014) . This isin violation of | balance in this eoastal zone. Tos Nawinal Crek ell its | wot just the EC eondition on | do this, Nexth port, whieh has Junction up to new road. | mangrove destruction but also | received ‘environmental the “specific EC condition | clearance vader the waterfront related (0 Naviaal for | project, shou be eancelle angrove regeneration ‘the proposed North port is on Bch conservation are: The | heer se of Hote and \ellte Clearance dated 12.01.2000:“No existing mangroves shall be destroyed curing ‘construction‘operation of project.” ratection oF creeks Clearance dated 12.01.2000: Gil) There shall be no [Ailing up of the creck ‘and reclamation of the ‘creeks, National Contre for Sustainable Const ‘Management shows that there has been a loss of seven ha of | lense mangrove and 68 hha of sparse mangrove implying, that a total of 75 ha oF mangrove in Bocha. Ihave been Tost ( marked as ‘2 on the map). This clearly vs that the company’ had nol taken any precaution 10 safeguard this conservation Proposed North port site: The mangroves. at the proposed North pot site have completely. vanished. ‘The creek has disappeared clearly duc tothe reolamation work at North port site C marked as *3* on the minp) Mangrove conservation near radi Mota mouth: In its Fick visit in Jonuary 2013, the Committee noted dogradation in the mangrove conservation eu near the fighthouse ut the South port. This was because of construction andl reclimation activity. The company had clesely not taker fo ensure protest ngroves, This is a clear violation of BC conitons inal port, whieh borders ine island, has had serious oleterious’ impact on the protected mangroves. This: Visible, both in tens of the loss of te Vieinity of 1 port ‘well as the loss of vegetation ‘an! land ars of Boel isn Mocha ishind and is conservation zone must be protected at all costs Is clear ‘at there is a possibiliy” cf further degradation of the remaining, mangroves areas i the conservation zone, The Committee has identified the contiguous conservation area, whieh inclaes portions of the North port. ‘This suggested Jnceeasel conservation rea hes Deon plotted on a map (se section: mangroves). Nased cn the maps prepared by the the aren of Root should be poo-roferenced with is. This shoul be pa in the public-domain and thee angrove conserva the mouth of 1a Mata must be protected regenerated. An embankment to stop soil deposition into te creck, with buffer between le mangrove. area amd reclaimed Fad, should be mad, All identtied mangrove conservation areas as pet the BC of January. 2009 must be protected with adequte measures against erosion hese areas showle be marked with faclong so. thot reguhr monitoring, Tor complianes, Iased on high-resolution ‘ean be made publicly ‘An ction plan for protection Of all manprove conservation seas including, the proposed ngrove conservation ara nay be prepared and pt in domain, within thee monitoring,Table-2: sof the North Part | }) Bocha Island ‘Conservatio Doiails of th proposed aetion poi he he creck branches (proposed Noah port site) have completely disappeared over the years. This is bound to have nn impact on the mangrove vegetation in the area in addition to the change in hydrological regime. Also a water body, north of the Bocha Iskand, visible inthe 2005 image is not visible in the 2010, pointing towards a Toss of the same( snark sas on the map) ‘North Port aren in the possession of | not APSEZ),. APSEZL } committed commited to conserve | on 88 ha of mangrove | restoration. area of Rocha Island er the BLA studies crooks and ‘wanted the T ocina has connecting er ccitisal for mainiining inter {idal setion of the region. This area should be protected and all erecks and water bodies restored and brought to pre 2005 status including th reclaimed by GMB/APSEZL. The entire area should be declared as a conservation zone, us it is contiguous to oct Island and its important e North port area, atjaining mangrove systom, This ‘conservation zane should be clearly earmarked and demarcated using latlong 50 {hat monitoring i possible. ‘The opening of Baradi Mata ercok should be kept protected 0 that iL is not damaged or blocked, This must be done for all other ereck systems proposed nol | GME has (@Clearance granted 10 the North Port vide clearance lester dated of} 124.2009 be ‘cancelled, — PPACR shall not carry ou any carried out by NIO in | Ministry to | development on North terms of HC dated | commence a] Pari area 12119.1,2009 for | scientf Waterfiont study. velopment Project. | Request oun Response of MB, utilize 396 The request of Gai v0 of | permit development in to} 395 acres in Mocha island area is against eres may | the recommendation of| Hoch Island, Hocha| not be | Committee. GSB shal creck and surrounding | accepted ‘therefore, declare entre creck lets are | since it may | area of 1114 of Bocha textensively used by | add load 7] Island imeluding the Fishermen which | impact on| creeks around Bocka necessitate the bocha | island as conservation jac dredping | isand, zone ond evolve action © to ths. It pln for its will be unwise t0 do conservation, as restoration for those APSEZ should provide stay maaugroves which necessary financied didnot exist_peior t0 aassivance and _¢o- | oeince Wish production in this area has increased. However, for restoration ofthe same Stray niangeoves, itis advisable to earry out ronmental. Impact Assessment Studios through a nationally reputed institute and under their gu restoration _ activities ean be enried ov as the area falls in CR, otal area of 1114 ‘acrs of hand aquired for port development, consists of (2) Boch Island adimeasuting, 78 sores and (b) the adjoining Toad dmeasuring 396 acres under reference, Out of 718 acres of area, around 211 acres (8% Ma) of area is mangrove conservation area for Adani Ports and SEZ ud, GMB propose the reinaining aren of approximately 500 eres for mangrove fafforestation and be declared as conservation area, GMB suggested! that existing 396 acres of land -may be utilized permissible 1 For port aller fresh sat an CRY, GMB also Other Recommendati Tab ‘Comments and proposed setions points: Response of ‘Asean be seen from para (@ t0 (vi) of | pars-10 of the captioned show cause notice that here ie non 8 of dhe Comn by Comments ‘the init Navin Committee apart from violation on ‘North Port area, ins pointed cont ogradation in, the operon to OM tc Comerve this 111 1) The Action Plan for protection ‘ano conservation of creck system. in North pon area sholl be submites months (iv) PP shell get detaitea Datlymenry done for fall the creeks ana rivers within area along with mapping — of eo ordinates, ranning length, HTL, CRE boundary, mangrove areas inching buffer zone throwgh NCSCM| FMOT. PP shall als get prepared al detailed action plan for conservation and protection of eveekss mangrove area ete through NCSCM 7 MOF aan submit the sume to GCZMA for heir excanination and ‘recommendation, GCLMA wil subwit| to Mob. oh oa GMB within 3 Re recommendations Qs response of PP, posed Action point proposed there shall be no developmert in the aves restricted by He Nigh Court of Ginjevan, APSEC.‘Tecompliance or violation of the | conservation terms of the near the Tigh “hall abide the e outcome ofthe @ Pi, 12 of 2011 In the Commies’ onmental fat the South port. | and ater assessment there is | elearance dated | can be seen from the | _ refevunt cases peontrovertible 1219.1.2009 by | sollte imageries evidence of violation | AP! 2. Thorofore | for the years 2001, ‘of EC coneition and | respectiully request | 2013 and 2013 | (>) PP, in non-compliance, it | the Ministry (| submited by the PP | accordkmee with | imvst also. be | reeonsitor the setup | that there are certain | the “OM dated | | recognized that the | of environmental 12122012 ant| | ‘Cexnpas tins | restoration fund for 27.06.2013, | bypassed an amount of Sha! submit a) 3 environmental 15.200 erores which writen procedures in eettain | has been commitment in| 4 eases, The question | subjectively ansived Further, the | the form of a} before the Committee | a. We have spent | High Court of | formal bard is to determine the | substantial amount | Gujarat in PUL. 12 0¢| “resolution 10 future course of | in various netivitcs | 2011, based on the | MoBe to ensure action for socio | site visit report by a} deat violations environment Committe, imposed | will nor he ‘One option would be | development stay on earying| repeated. fo recommend the construction in cancellation ‘of | Without prejudice } eevtain area near ‘The State | Government wi | he eaivosed to |: In view of the | initiate ereble it can | ection on the | violation by | tiolatons of woking powers coins. But it 6 tha there is no non- | tier Section 19 flso clear that these samplinee or | of Me steps, however, harsh | well asthe | violation of the | Anvironment they may sod arin | challenge: faced by | erms of EC is | Protection) det, the) natu of tein | he snfeatactre | incre 1886 for takin | procera sd wou he eae necestary legal clearances, where ‘we are open | south port. The ease procedures have been | 10 creation of | és pending bypassed. tn addition, | development fund legal proceeding could | of any substanti be initiated redneed non-compliance only. lead to. dehy ‘esa, ‘ction wider without any gains t | We will make the Section 15 of the the envionment and | find availble on ae foe i the people. The | yearly basis as por perio for which Committee is the plans that nay ‘he voleions cognizant of the fact | be sinetioned by th dave ten place | fat ange scale | Ministry fond evidence development “Tas | improvement provided 10 already been | socio-environ MoLF of the Undertaken and it [contition. Weare credible "ction fot posible or | open to suggestions taken. Prudent at this stage to | of any concrete Halt or cease ts | projets and dssue persons. Proposals whi ‘rection wer may the Section 3 of Therefore, the | objects and puxpose Ftd, 1986 fo Commitee hts tot to decid 19 commend | Well want differen course. of | at arg, ae action, which is both further iended’ to. be an onstruction effective deterrent ant fctiviny all the ko suggests the way submision | for fare remedial Board action to improve. the Resolution audi980 production inthis area Inns increased. However, for restoration ofthe same stay mangroves, itis carry ont val Impact Studios through a nati roputed institute and under their guidance, restoration activities ‘ean bo carried out as yo area falls in CRZ. Tish “Votal areca of 1114 acres of land acquired for post development, consists of (8) Boch Island admeasuring, 118 eres and (b) the adjoining and dncasuring 396 acres tnder ference, Out of 718 acres of area, around 211 acres (88 May of area is mangrove. conservation area for Adani Pons and ‘GMB propose the ston of approximately S00 eres for mangrove afforestation and be declared a8 eonservation area. GMB suggested that cexisting 396 acres of land ay be utilized for permissible activities for port after securing fresh Evironment and ORZ, clearance, GMB also ~ Tesponse of PP MoE shold impose | As can be sean from iustantial | para (@ to (vi) of for | pare-lO of the and | captioned show through | cause notice that ofan | there. ts ‘gperation to GMb io conserve this 1/4 (iN) The Action Plan for protection and feonservation of creek system in North port ‘area shell be submitted by GMB within 3 months, PP shall get detailed Drattymeny done for all the ‘creeks aud rivers within ORZ ‘area alongwith mepping of co codinales, running, length, UPI, CRE owndary, mangrove ‘areas inclingbufor zone through NCSCM 7 NOT, — PP shu) cals get prepared a) ddeeited action pla for conservation cant protection of creeks! mangrove area ete throng NCSCM 1! MOT and submit the sume 10 GCLMA for' their escanination avd recommendation. GCZMA will submit fas recommendations fo MokE. ddations of the Committee, response of PT, Proposed Aetion a “point proposed Tine Sanita’ Navin | (0) "here shall te Comittee apart | mo developinert fiom violation on | inthe aren North Port aren, has | restricted by tle pointed cont | High Court ef Aegradation. in, the | Gujarat APSEThe ainirip” 7 ccrodkome is part of Siz and its Consteted without caving. 0 safety is a matter of syeat ‘concern Tsunarni and carthquakes are threats to the area owing to its seit assessment in teams of Fiskihnzard analysis, The Goverment should carry out an Impact Siuly specially in fight of the Japan tsunami in Oli. Abo, the disaster manageme plan of the different project proponents of MPSEZL should be linked to the ‘District Disaster: Management Dhan’ “This will be in the intewst of the valnerable people in and around the project area to ensure human safety with eatly svaring patie. The | bP > subuitted details on the norodrome the with ete. slong, with the details of clearances Management for it's all Plan the ‘operational area at ‘Munem, ‘The same has been already submitted to State Disaster Management Authority vide our Fetter dated 18 January, 2013, ‘overlapped on CRZ 1p prepared | by by DILR. The report of the committee Was discussed in the Gujarat CAMA meting and decided {0 forward to Mok. fe is noted that the township and iospital are located booyoud CR, boundary. “Tho violation with respect 0 SEZ is being, ‘dealt separately. iy [Ni prepared Disaster last Nitoem ‘Committee also recommends earrying, ‘out periodic mock sills along, ith disteiet_administeation n and around the project urea Fishermen livelihood and access to fishing grounds ‘There must bea specific plan for fishers; access and their fis address ust prepare seltlement-wise pln within 6 months with a clear schedule of and ‘The exclusive fishing harbor proposed Bhadreshwar should be built so that there is ‘APSEZ fas never restricted or created any hindrance to any authorized fishenmen for approaching the for their fishing related activit There 48 no impact fon fishermen as APSEZ. has provided specific approach corridors for fishormen through Additionally APSEZ has beon with all the groups in facility for livelihood | Mundea for support. This facility | providing them should be built within | livelihood support 1 time period of wo years. In-addition, fishers setlems located in Waterftont (port) are snuist get adequate facilities for carrying out their ecanomie activity Village coninion find (Gauchar) The slate government should roview the policy of sequisition and transfer of village ‘common lands, not Just in the specific cease of APSEZL but also in other eases APSEZI. should consider the voluntary return of grazing, land and also invest in improving productivity of this for their sos upliftment. APS! is also prov support for Healthcare, Education’ and Infasteucture flies for fishermen ‘Alter digeussion ih Toeal people of| Zapata village, APSEZ, has voluntarily given back approx. 400 acres of land (0 Zarpara village for fgauehar purpose, in spite of the fact that the Hon'ble Supromo Cou of India has dismis the appeal of villagers challenging allotment fed wih villagers, auchar PP hasnt submitted specific action phn as sought. “PP has submitted the details of the approach corridors developed for fishermen along rear of and slated at Mey are working with all fishom i Munda for providing them ivelihood support for their Socio Since ASIA agreed ihe recommendation, Tinit-may’ be specified to comply. (9) APSIZ shal submit specife action plan protect Mle Tivelitood — of Ssheraen ‘along with budget withis I months, (i) APSEZ sha ‘eansider the volnary gracing lant and aso inves! in improving produetviyy of ith this lend villagers and submit action {taken report i this vegan within omitseager to help them the best possible manner. APSE will consider the suggestion and do the need Knswre that all the | APSi:Z% has. projects constructed | submitted details of within the projects located should possess e7. along tinder A he Notification, 2006. as of uC applicable. and date of HC, Out Shull be | of 15 projects, vo. projects ateaets BIA, Notification, 2006 aul on got EC fom SHIAA, Gujarat and another is awaited. Fusther APSEZ confirmed that all the projects constructed within the SEZ will possess Environment Clearance it applicable ler EIA Notifies 2006. ‘impacts | NA. ! Camulative of power plant port projects Molt should comprehensive stady onthe cumulative impacts of projects, which bes en clearance. ‘This sty should be used assess and mitigate impacts inthe region AML futuce port and power plant projects should bo assessed for clearance based on cumulative impacts Tihs may be deat in the SEZ, issue since the issue of clearmee to SEX slong, with connected court snaters are dealt separately Tt was recommended that tho Stale Government shall, guide and supervise the Cumulative Impact Assessmis studies tobe nertsken by the APSEZL forthe project already ranted so that fare developments can be assessed for According tthe ctor, vironment, GOG, the Committee constituted 19 finalize the action plan and modalities or the Environmental Restoration Fund cluding GMB will (xii) State Government shall submit te ToR to ‘Mott for Finolisation. (il) The Stole Goverament shall get the study through © Third. party ond Me APSEL— sholt meet the expenses towards the study. CayResse sai Dat Tons would e be asked fron Pst examine tat tiated te Same ae nl Srmsctins of he i mite, Spe fap coed Tecommendaons 0 theinsty Sonnac regulations esha bean tne ee he stoning ad sortie Froese by the Mee ute Mat ound ie dene There is @ eed to [NA Ti was resonninended create monitoring to setup joint stom to ensure that monitor orreative stint ccomunittee suggested by this GCZMA, GPC feport is taken within tant RO" Bhopal to ‘stime-bound manner | cerry 0a monitoring | fof development / compliance of the comditions ad irections for wo years GCZMA—roplied vide letter uted 2A.A2.2013 that it ‘yas decided to |conatinte the committe as sonpeste Further it 8 noted fiom the Fite of ‘Thermal Division (copy of note placed ax IX) that Following recommendation hasnt Been commented to the PP, We stay sipulte the following diestions related to intake and outall channel for desalination ‘Thermal Power plant inthe final order: “The intake and ouufall channel must be reconstrnetedirepaired so that has impervious Ting at the bottom and sides. “An independent stady should be wieriaken every ‘water intron end fo suggest remedial action. five yeas: to study salive Submitted for approval please, Mc )o% Above notes of DD(ET) al pre-page may be seen, tuted under the ution of alleged ‘This relates to the recommendations of the Commitice eon chairmanship of Ms Sunita Narain for Inspection and exam violations by M/s Adani Port and SEZ. Pvt Lid In view of the replies to the Show Cause Notices/letters as submitted by APSEZ. , GML, Havitonment Department, Government of Gujarat and GCZA {ollowing directionsfaction points are suggested as final order to M/s APS! OMB: Clearance granted to the North Port vide clearance letter dated 121.2009 to he cancelled PP/GMB shall not carry out any development at North Port area, (i) The request of GMB to permit development in 396 acres in Bocha island area is against the recommendation of Commitice. GMB shall, therefore, declare entire area of 114 of Bocha Island including the ereeks around Bocha island as conservation zone and valve action plan for its conservation. M/s APSHZ should provide necessary financial assistance and co-operation to GNEB to conserve this 1114 acres area, il) The Aetion Plan for protection and conservation of ereek system in North port avea shall be submitted by GMB within 3 monahs. ‘There shail be no development in the area resiricted by the High Court of Gujarat. APSUZ shall abide the outcome of the PIL 12 of 2011 and other relevaan eases, 6) APSKZ shall submit specifi action plan to protect the livelihood of Jishermen along. with budget within 3 mouths. (0) APSUZ shall consider the votuntary return of grazing land and also invest in improving productivity of this land with villagers and smbnnit action taken report in this regard within Six months, (vil) PP shail get detailed bathymetry done for all the ereeks ancl rivers within CR2 area along with mapping of co-ordinates, runing length, HEL, CR2 boundary, mangrove areas including buffer zone through NCSCM / NIOT. PP shail also get prepared a detailed action plan for conservation and protection of creeks/ mangrove area ete through NCSCIM / NIOT and submit the sane to GCZMA for their examination and recommendation. GCZMA will submit tts recommendations to MoLP, (ii) PP, bn accordance with the OM deted 12.12.2012 anel 27.06.2013, shall submit a written commitment inthe form of a formed board resolution to MoE to ensure that violations will nor be repeated. Gs) The State Government will be addressed to initiate evedible action ‘on the violation by invoking powers under Section 19 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 for taking necessary legal ‘action wider Section 15 of the Act for she period for which the9 « (iy ty 0 op (ity 7) ei) (ety SAH violations have foken place and evidence provided to MoKE of the credible ection taken, dssue direction under Section 5 of E(P)AcI, 1986 to APSEZ not 10 take up and allow any further construction activity ill the submission of Board Resoluion and credible action by Stele Government and decision on extension of validity of clearance dated 12.01.2009 ‘he extension of validity of EC dated 12.01.2009 wit be decided on receipt of board resoluion from PP and eredible action by Stele Government, State Government shell submit the ToR to Mok far finalisation ‘he State Goverment shall get the study through a Third party and Mis APSEZL shall meet the expenses towards the stuly, The intake and owfall channel of power plan must te reeonstructedtrepaired so that its impervious lining ar the botlom cand sides An independent study should be undertaken every five years to stu Satine water intrusion anid to suggest remedial action, Properly conserve the creeks, river and the mangroves areca in te ‘usu that mouths ofall the ereeks are kept open to ensure flushing ofthe creeks, Bring the crecks to the condition as was seen inthe satellite mop of 2005 which will be a "reference" satellite map and « copy of which shall be sent 10 you separately ‘Submit once in a year latest satellite map which can be comparee with the reference satellite map of 2005 ta ensure thd no ‘modification in the creeks, rivers, mangroves anid mouth of creeks ave taken place, A its cast get Inspection study done once in a year by the ‘organizations lke NEERI or cay argemication approved by. this Ministry fo - () ensure compliance of all the EC conditions (i) development of port meeting of the environment norms, and ti) advise any mid-term cor ection that ean be introduced depenalig on ‘the recommendation of the independent Third Party The implementation of aetion plan approved by the Mol shall be ‘monitored by the NCSCM/ NIOT. Compliewice with action plan shall be submitted to GCZMA and to Mok. RO. at Bhopal aton with six ‘monthly monitoring report EP shalt earmark separate budget for the implementation of the ‘above action plan. The details of the expenditure shall be submited 10 GCZMA and to MEF, RO. at Bhopal along, with sx monthly ‘monitoring report PP shall not carry out any river /ereek couse modificationss (i) 0 er buf om the elng mangrove area shouldbe provided Sor any developmental activity, aatalcec On approval of the above with the above may be issued ion points, final order to M/s APSEZ. and GMB Wi Kapa] (ali Direetor(1A-111) apy enna y ALS) 2s fox |1* Lee an Min ia file we are dealing with the proposal of M/s Adani Port and 7. Limited (APSEZL), the Project Proponent (PP), regarding extension of validity of the EG given in 2009, they have applied wot! within timo. tn the EC of 2009, dotails of tho activities that were permitted, developed 80 far and yet to be developed are given in the chert below : Beseription ~~ [Approved Berths: (Type of Facitty | Length as por or Borth) EnvironmontavCRZ Clearance Nos. of Berths or | Nos. of Berths | Nos. of Lenath ‘Muitipuiposs |4 “G50 m+ 2 | 4 gaa) Teereerereee er Berths) Container | 46 (2680 m + 2000 | 3 (C1) ~ 13(C2) | m) | Ro-Ro 2 : 4(R2) Boal ‘lo [aio | 24Co2) | Day Bulk Cargo |S [5 (02) j liquid 9 : pata) | LNG To be]? | | developed by | 6sPC LNG | NOG given by APSEZL | Light &Heavy | 2 : 2 (Hay Enginooring | Port Graft ee eae Shipyard Eee | eee ab “ wiis/se hb Ah(trom pre-page) Out” 240" Millon Cubic” beter dredging quantiy approved, 91 Million Cubic Metor already dredged. ‘Sea Se: “channel for Power Plan's intake Chane! | and other industrial requirements are in operation. & Outfall Channel Backup ave” Bik Tip “roa, Bp facilis tke raw tio, rll algings, al tuck loading, open paved arca, associated buildings, ules. amonits, oto. & connoctily to eal & road cotdr for each part are approved & majorly of | facilities are in operation 2 Allthe above components of port development activily are included in the North, South, West and East ports, According to PP no development has taken place at North and East ports, Details can to seen on the map at F/1. The PP has been granted clearance in diferent phases beginning 1995 for different ports, thermal power plants and the st Z dovolopmonts in the area. Meanwhile, the MoEF&CC received complaints making following allegations’ against the PP (a) Thoro has been widespread destruction of mangroves, which was. strictly prohibited in the clearances granted; (b) The creeks*and intertidal system has be Particularly, the Koldi creck, which has been blacked: n adversely affected, (©) There has been mismanagement of fly ash from the thermal power plant, which was resulled in fugitive emissions during disposal and pollution of groundwater; (4) The large volume of seawater stored in tho unlined pond ard conveyed through the intake and outfall channel salinity:and contaminated water sources; (©) The oiginal HTL/LTL has been distorted because of human made bunds and blocking of creeks; (The company is non-compliant with conditions imposed at the lime increased of environmental clearance.87. (from pre-page) 4, Different Committees, some constituted by the Stale Government including one under the direction of tho High Court, and others by the Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climale Change, all indicated large scale destruction of mangroves, creeks and adverse impact on the eco- system, Finally a Committee under Ms Sunita Narain was constituted by this Ministry of verify the allegations and to give appropriate recommendations. The OM constituting the committee is at F/2 .The Committee went to the site, verified each and every allegation on ground and also vorified vi a-vis the 2005 satellite maps and found that- (@) Mangroves patch along the Navinal Crock has complotoly vanished (©) More than 75 ha of mangroves of Bocha islands are lost (6) Toe mangroves at the North Port sile have completely vanished ‘due to the rectamation work at tho North Port (8) _Dostruetion of mangroves conservation area near the Buradi Mata mouth (e) Tho cleck branches at the proposed North Port site have completely disappoared which is bound to have impact on the tion as well as the hydrological regime. (Tip of Bocha island has significantly shrunk porhaps due to reclamation of the Noith por. (@) Awater body North of Bocha island has vanished (6) The mouth of Baradi Mata Crock has significantly shrunk and likely {0 got closed due to accretion of sis/sand mangroves veget () Local pollution being caused by fugitive emissions and ineffective Lliization of fly ash () The intake water for the thermal plant and outfall water they are increasing the ground water salinity level and also inarease in the temporary al the oufal site affecting small fish catch. A copy of Sunita Narain Committee Report is at F/3. The above damages done are clearly visible when satelite maps of 2005 and 2012 ‘are compared, The Report clearly shows the above mentioned damages. There were some other allegations like construction of airport and townships but thoy were found nol to have violated any provisions of law of environment conditions. All the above violations were against different specific conditions given under different EC These are appropriately sonted in the Sunita Narain Committee Report.(rom pre-page) 5. The Committee after in depth deliberation made the following recommendations: (a) Cancellation of environmental clearance given for the North port 2s, the area in and around the North Pott is required to developed es conservation zone. (b) Complete conservation of Bocha island as a conservation zone that would involve protection of 1714 acres of land including 718 acres of Bocha island to be converted to mangroves with a definite pan to conserve, (b) Rostoration of all tho erooks and thoir branches to the lovol as they existed in 2005, (c) Ensure opening up of Budadi Mata Creek mouth and Kotadi creck mouth, (6) Creation of a Environmental Restoration Fund of 1% of the total cost ot Rs.200/- cror ‘Secretary, MoEF&CC. The Fund should be utilized for the purpose of ~ (i) protection of marine ecology (i) protection of conservation of mangroves including development of new mangroves conservaticn to be operated under the Chairmanship of areas (ii) restoration of conservation of creeks (iv) creation of sociat Infrastructure and livelihood support for fisherman (v) creation of a strong monitoring mechanism to ensure that the above recommendations are complied with, 6. Since there are large scale and conclusive evidence of violation of environment conditions, there seems to be two options before us - one s to cancel the Environment Clearance given to the watertront project or allematively to ensure thal the ecosystem damaged are restored & preserved by the PP. ‘The PP has undertaken large scale development, n terms of port & SEZ development and solling up of thermal power plans and thus cancellation of EG given does not soem approp advisable cithor. Wo should not stop the development pro concems are only for environmental restoration and to ensure that future the PP co given while oxtending the vatidity of 2009 EC or for any tute dovelopment, understanding that such massive development Involvirg iate, is not Our plies with all the environmental conditions given or to te. reclamation, port development, construction of berths ete. will indeed cause some ecological changes. We need to see that the damage to tre1d and as far as much possible, restored, Cancellation of EC will halt further development and economic growth wher ecosystem restoration along with carrying out cumulative impact assessment will not only restore damages done to the environment but also appropriately guide future development activities within the boundaries dotormined by envionment parameters. Therefore, it is recommended that we may opt for the second option. In fact the then Minister in hor order at page 20-22/N has written a very speaking order and instead of cancellation of EC, favoured restoration of damages caused, cancellation of the Environment Clearance given for the North port and creation of an Environmental Restoration Fund to ensure restoration of the ecosystem as far as practicable, of this area including conservation of arca in and around Bocha island covering 1114 acros with, ‘mangrove plantation right up to Baradi Mata mouth and restoration of all the creeks that have vanishedidamagodimodified on account of development of waterfront activities. 7. Considering that show cause notice has already been responded to by the PP and that our OMs of 2012 & 2018 relating to violation have alroady boon hold invalid by the Jharkhand High Court, it's recommended that we may extend the validity of EG of 2008 subject to the conditions as provided al page 63:55/N except the one pertaining to Board Resolution (as the samo has been hold invalid by the Jharkhand High Court. Secondly, under the aegis of SICOM, detail bathymetric and cumulative impact studies be got carried out which would guide the ministry to alow {ulure dovelopmont in cortain areas and to dectare cortain areas as "No GO Area", SIGOM will, in this exercise, involve technical institutions like NCSCM, NOT and other similar technical agencies of repute, and get the above studios done, For this purpose SICOM shall prepare a dotall cost estimate, The PP will bear the entire cost. Til the above studies are completed, the PP shall not undertake any activity relating to land reclamation and construction of berths. Thirdly, we need to create a strong monitoring mechanism. We may assign this fesponsibilly also to SICOM to undertake periodical monitoring using six monthly satelite map of 41:10,000 scale and will also periodically visit atthe site by forming a team of technical persons drawn from national institutions like NCSCM, NIOT and also GSCZMA to oversee the restoration works of creeks including thoir mouths, plantation of mangrove, conservation of 1114 acres coveringawe 221% (from pro-pago) full Bocha island & areas in and around and also ensure compliance of all environment conditior , given earlier and to be given white extending tha EC validity, if approved. The entire monitoring cost as suggested above will also be borne by the PP. :Fourthly,'the PP be asked to adopt the nearby fishormen villages and provide thom faciltics like fish storage, fis orvices, drinking wator otc. Fifthly, a Cumulative Impact Assessment of the thermal power plants may also bz carried out independently to dotormine safeguard features for expansion processing, schools, transport of powor projects including Phase Il and any future thosmal power project For orders, {Thave taken more than three months ime to write my views as | wanted {0 undorstand tho inticacies involved delay.) great detail, | am sory for ts (Shushi Shekha) : cial Secretary (SS) pwn 228 Dovonbver 2014 Thy fe Wey reambrntel tle Unnrarology a ures ar MM J Wold Ake The Ie Core Pred rpc to 50 throughsFoie ‘The undersigned has been marked the file for examination of the facts and issues and has been further asked for a discussion in the subject-matter. T-have gone, through the records of the file __ Fvidendly, in this file a proposal has been suibmitied Tor final ccurse i Keeping in view the facts of show-cause notices under BC Act along with the replies submitted by the project proponent (PP); and the report received from Gujarat Maritime Board, CAMA and Department of Envitonment, Govt. of Gujarat. In having regard to the entire’ issues as, recorded in the file vide p. 42-45/n (the ysis of the case subject by CRA 1), the following observations are submitted: narration of the facts and a Di isiow'in fA. prudent that EC granted should not be cancelled for any tructure activity including that of North Port required that all the terms“and conditions which have heen appended along with clearances, and, which have been recommended by the Committee under Ms. Sunita Narain must be complied witli by the PP for restoring the marine ecology, maiigrove conservation, maintenance of ereeks and r-related eco-systems. Kor this purpase a should be drawn by, the Gujarat CZMA in consultation with Forest Department, Govt of Gujarat along with SICOM, NIOT and NCSCM. This plan should be-implemented by the PP from its own finances, and there should be a provision for regular mohitoring for the implementation and corrective actions, if required to betaken in times to come. A regional strategic impact assessment report should be prepared ‘detailing out bathymetric studies ‘to delineate the inviolate areas and non-permissible activities in the entire region for future development of the area. ‘The cost towards these studies should also be borne by the PP. ‘The restora:ion of creeks, mangrove conservation and conservation of Becha island upto Baradi Mata should be carried out by the PP under the guidance of Department of Environment, Govt of Gujarat/ Gujarat CZMA 4, In the subject matter of thermal power plant, it is suggested that in the proposed regional strategic impact assessment analysis this aspect should be taken up along with its potential environmental impact to suggest future correctiye actions as well as the guiding tool on extension and aq capacities. (Bishwanath Joint Setr Seeratarytzac 3 Noles from p tesa bn een. Thy nate. Conpstinrec ty & tabular fanny the. Alabio @redDawa: We chyanlog hos been prepares wr “planed | haelone for enny Terence Binh | lr we. ney proceed RA pr : by $558) Dar Jo boon oni eau Ge nan handhng Mt cone om pee / Haueren be pyre Apprerrg ‘ha! Hos en ef 8.08 Rthor propeored, Winater May ot decide “eye We reoudel Khel | eon: tee PR Ar op portianntiy for OAL Susornitte! Prin yaa = anf approved . j erolligns / anon | 7a Ss Erfeo Welelis? “4 e f 1. 8.to MOS (UC)EFBCE 580 Pile yg 4—b3- om brug ob We Tene flop by tee Thee 7 ME opty bol, v th hprcuitn” pe ae ay p) Branca, wpe co. Brie We “ Cece vie aoe Nese Me serrcd, frerdebntted ps eces)64 ‘The subject matter under consideration is the proposal of M/s Adani Pert & (2. Ltd. (APSEZL) for extension of the validity of environmental clearance & CRZ, learance which was accorded on 12: Janunry, 2009. ‘The project activities as approved under KG vide Order No.10-47/2008-1A.T dated 128 January, 2009 is at pp.55-56/N, and authorizes PP to develop water front in North Port, South Port, West Port and East Port at Mundra in District Kutch, Gujarat. The PP has inforned that there has not been any water front development for port related activities at North and Fast Ports. ‘The project area has been developed by the Proponent over years after having received approvals from the competent authorities, the frst of ‘which came in 1995 to set-up ports and thermal power plant. The port development tructure for handling cargo, LPG, storage terminal, transportation links oil ls, LNG terminal among others, has inf termi 2. Torecapitulate in the subject matter of complaints of violations of condit ons ranted to the PP in 2009 and pursuant actions thereafter, i is noted that @ team of officials from Mol carried out site inspection in 2010 December that ed certain violations related to unauthorised constructions. of airport townships and destruction of mangroves. A show cause notice was issued to preject nthorities on 15/12/2010 and followed by a direction in February, 2011 to project authorities to restrain from any reclamation activities and to tale up any xew construction in CR area, ‘The institution of PL, No.12 of 2011 in Gujarat Ligh Court which alleged destruction of mangroves by project authorities led to an enquiry by CAMA and PCCF Gujarat ~ wherein project authorities were permitted by High Court to carry out development in certain portions of project area and restraiaing any activity in specified area, However, MokF deposed in this PH, seeking the issues relevant to be examined by multi-disciplinary committee of experts, ant a Committee chaired by Ms, Sunita Narain was constituted on 14* September, 2012 to examine the veracity of all the allegations raised against the project related to violations of KC conditions, ‘The report of the Committee was received on April 18% 2013 (acopy of Reportisat P’3'). The Report has since heen examined in detail, The comments of Project Proponent ie. APSEZ. hax been received. A narration of specific contents of the Report, observations along with the comments APSE. is recorded vide pp.1-11/N and reproduced in a tabular fororat vide pp2-16/N. tn having consideration ofthe observations of the Committee and reply of the PP, the following measures were approved on 2: a) Show-cause notice for cancella for North Port; and for cancellation of Phase-Il of Thermal Power Plant along with exemption from public ng b) Direction to PP to prepare an action plan to protect the livelihooc of fishermen who were reported by the Committee to have been seriously ected on account af the viokations committed hy the PP; ©) Direction to PP to set up an Environment Restoration Fund (BRE)with a corpus of Rs.200 crore or 196 of project cost whichever is higher (other (van bea CSR} for remediation of environmental damage in Mundra, 3. The reply of the PP to the above SCN in brief is recorded vide pp.23 2/N. Since Gujarat Maritime Board (GMB) was found to he in legal possession of som: of the land in the project area of PP and as well as having operation in the area surrounding to that of PP, the comments of GMB were also obtained and are pa the analysis on SGN vide pp.23-25/N. ‘The PP has expliilly spell out that Ro: Island and area proposed for North Portare not in their possession. With respec to action plan for protecting the livelihood of fishermen who have be displacement on account of project activities as observed by theCommittee, the PP refuted theallegation, Further, in having regard to creation of BRE the project proponent refuted the allegations of non-compliance of violation with a submission for reconsideration of the decision to ereate such a fund, However, the PP has offered to creation of Development Fund of substanttally reduced amount voluntarily to meet the objectives of remediation, GMB in Uieir response on proposed action plan along with cost estimate for restoration of mangroves and creeks in North Port site to the original status replied to the effect that the Bocha Ishand lacked “much vegetation in early 1990 as per Yoposheet No#1/9 and F/10 of Survey of India, Further, there fs opinion by GMB that stray mangroves are sometimes found luxuriant / vanished over the period along the navigation channels, wings of existing berths and anywhere where port development and operation activities are preva mnultancously iLisalso observed by GMB that Bocha Island, Rocha Creek and surrounding Creek lets are extensively under use by fishermen which necessitate maintenance regime from time to time. Continuing in the subject matter, the responses of GCAMA and Government of Gujarat in Department of Bavironment were alse received in the relevant points, and the same have been examined vide pp.38-40/N the relevant part of which is reproduced below in bri 1d for a) Conservation Zone including the aroa of North Port and Boteh I restoration including that of ereeks, water bodies and reclaimed land to the status of pre-2005, ‘The proposed action points include cancellation of BC for North Port; 88 hectares n ation by PP; GMB conservation area of 903 agres along with conservation plan; and action plan preparation by GME for conservation of ercek system in North Port avea, ) Preparation of specific action plan to protect fishermen livelihood through restoration and along with support for dovelopment of exclusive fishing, harbour at Bhadreshwar ~ PP has informed the details of approach corridor development of Oshermen and livelihood support fur their socio-economic upliftment, 1 ©) ERF ~ PPis not agreeable to creation of funds except that of meoting the cost of restoration, : Inaddltion, the issuos like that of strict compliance of :C and CRY. Clearance; voluntary return of grazing land and investment tn improving productivity of grazing land, preparation of disaster management plan have also been i considered, anc! a suisfactory reply of the PP is available, 4, Sunita Narain Committee report has elaborated the following general issues without subscribing to the aets of comnaission and omission by the PP: a) Distinct change in Baradi Mata Creek, attributable to water front development project and referring to I condition ~ no change in creck ot creck mouth is allowed! ~ has asked for restoration ~ in having taken note of the recommendation it has heen proposed that through the exercise of bathymetry method PP should prepare and action plan for conservation of cereoks and mangrove area. b) State Government to initiate credible action on violations as provided under Section 19 oF EP Act, 1986. 5. In having considered the above development in the process of grant of rovalidation of the FC for extended perivd, a proposal was submitted seeking approval of the competent authority vide pp.55-62/N with following observation:4). Extension of the validity of the EC with the ‘pp.53-55/N except pata (vil) vide pp.53/N pertaining, to Board resolution by the PP. 66. conditions as elaborated vide b) Bathymetric and cumulative impact study to be carried out by SICOM, cost of 6. ‘and analysis of the reply by the PP tn this instant ca which should be borne by the PP. ©) Bffective monitoring mechanism of re NOSCM and GC2MA, 4) Fishermen welfare programmes to be adopted by PP. ¢) ClAof Thermal Power Planttobec However, the office of MEF for comparative yeo-mapping, of 2005 / 2011 by Sunita Narain Commitee foration work by SICOM through ed autto determine sae pp. 62) he has vide noting, to he elaborated through sell contained note. 7 0 0 (iy) o (vi) ‘The Sunita Narain Committee has noted that fn all the conditions for ranees it has beon constriction and operation ofthe project.‘The report of the Committee in Table: page 12 regarding creeks, and‘ presented the clearances along with conditions stipulated for erect and Ww from where the following relevant position: fade elear that no crecks are to be blocked during the ‘able-2. on page 17 reparding, mangroves hits corways, e reproduced August, 1995 ) Adequate culverts should be provided for smaller creeks... (b) 100 meters mangrove helt should he ereated all along west of creek tll its junction up to New Road September, 2000 ~ (a) PP shall ensure that no: the area are not affected (b)PPshall ensure that there wil be no disposal... in the ereeks seeks are blocked andl the natural drainage of (©) Mangrove afforestation shall be undertaken at the identified sites progress of which to be sent to MoE; recommendation of NtO for angrove afforestation at Navinal to be strictly implemen:ed; equate protection oFexisting mangroves from dredged material compensatory: mangrove ave in the project area July, 2004 ~ Mangrove planation in 25 ha, a destruction and adequate protection to existing many from where pipeline passes. February and August, 2007 ~ No adverse impact and destruetion of mangrove. May and October, 2008 ~ (2) Noadverse impact on mangrov (b) Soa water intake structure shall be designed in a manner to ensure that continuity free low of water in two arms of Kotdi creek is not hampered. January, 2009 ~ (a) Bocka {sland (68 ha), Kase of Bocha island (155 ha) and Kotdi Muth (901 ba.) and mouth of Baradinvata (30 Ha,) have been-67- identified as conservation zon Department, Mandira, () Project proponent has already un to be maintained by Horticulture taken 100 ha, of mangrove afforestation and will do additional 200 hi (No existing mangrove shall be destroyed during construction/ operation of project. (@ addition, as per the EC of January 12, 2009, four areas have beet sarmarked as mangrove conservation areas; Bocha Island (88 ha}; Bast of Bocha Island (155 ha.) and Kotdi Mouth (981 ha.) and mouth (of Baradimata (30 hai). In other words, a total of 1,254 ha, should be strictly projected and regenerated, (©) There shall be no filling up of th reek anc! reclamation of the creck. 1, Sub-Committee in 2006, headed by Prof, Nikhil Desai, Director of Gl reported that the company has bullt many tiunds in the inter-tidal area and blocked many creeks Feeding water to the mangrove patches. The sub-Committee also reported rampant destruction of mangroves for laying pipelines; and destruct Sacha island. In this subject matter, the Committee records that GCZMA in May after ground verifica Sha. of ar 2008 on directed for compensatory afforestation of mangroves over 5. Inspection team of Mol in 2010 observed ale reclamation, using, dredged material on mangrove area behind the west and north port sites, large scale destruction af mangrove especially north portsites and obsteuction of creek systems and natural low of sea water because of reclamation. 10, xamination of the issue by Sunita Narain Committee 11, ‘The Committee carried out analysis based on satellite imagery (Landsat 5 'M) and google earth imagery of the period between january, 2005 and june, 2010. reeks ed on the allegations by local Kotdi creck, creeks north of Bacha Specific few points were identified munities and include Baracli Mat land and othe 2. In the comparative period satellite tmagery the Committee noted distinet change in Baraeli Mata ereck sind its mouth where creek meet the sea ~ from natural outfall into sea changing into shifted opening and constricted. ‘Committee concludes that the change in the geomorphological feature of the reek is because of the construction of water front development project. 3, ‘The creek branches north of Bocha island have completely disappeared over the period of comparison and disappearance of a water body north of Bocha island during the period. 4, Widening of Kotdi creek mouth on account of general accretion which in turn {sue to construction in the nearby inter-tidal area, However, there does not ‘appear to be any major change in Kotdi creek network, D, 1. The comparative satellite imagery of the intervening period between 2005, and 2010 was carried oul to ascertain changes in mangrove cover, particularly in the conservation areas as stipulated under EC conditions and those areas where local communities had alleged destruction, Mangroves66 2. The Committee noted vanishing of 100 meters mangrove belt west of Nav.nal eveek which it terms not anly a violation of EC conditions but also the specific EC condition related to Navinal. The Committee has noted that eut renents fof few mangroves during the site visit. 3. The satellite image analysis of Bocha conservation area of 88 ha. duvingthe comparative pertod reports a loss of 7 ha. of dense mangroves and 68 he. of sparse mangroves in cast of Navinal ereck and south-east of the tip of sled. The Committee attributes this phenomenan as a result of erosion because of vessel movement of Navinal port pointing out that PP had not tazen precaution (o safeguard this conservation area, and concluding that if nerth port is developed there willbe further loss of mangrove. 4, ‘The Committee notes mangrove destruction in Bocha istand if the island fs considered with the continuous area of the proposed north port site and records that mangrovesat proposed north port site have completely vanished tits tip periphery and simallereok which is due to reclamation workat nerth port site, The Committee further records the ownership, possession and project activity in Bocha island and north port area which is seen to be GU, However, it remains unclear to Committee if GM is responsible reclamation, The Committee also notes that GMB has reported sparse veqetation in this area based on topo-sheets of Survey af tia in 1990, ‘The Committee notes the specific spats near Baradimata mouth whore dogradation of mangrove ts visible and recommends for corrective acton including mangrove conservation area neat light house at south port which in turn ison aecountof construction and rectamation activity. The Commitee farther notes that it was important to build a bund along the mangrove conservation area Observations of the Committee: 1. Commitice Is clear that there have been huge changes in landseape in he project area including changes in the creeks. 2. Committee reports that these changes have been noted over the years by lifferent Committees which have visited sites during construction. he Committee reports about their visit in January, 2013 and reports “The major crecks as viewed from the lighthouse ~ which gave the Committe a vantage point ~ did open out into the sea, suggesting, that no major ereek mows wore blocked, 4. Commitice records that It noted that there were ereeles showing signs of damage, because of sol deposition blocking access of sea water into Uh Whas farther reported that aver time and without adequate mitigation efforts, this would block the ereek and lead to eventual death of mangraves, dopending on inter-tidal water action. 5. The examination of issue through satellite imagery confirm that the ndeed cases of erecks being blocked (north port) and of creeks of in danger of being blocked (south port), In the matter of creek in danger of being blocked near south port, the Committee has relied upon site visit (Baradi Mata-II) and noted that creek may have been blocked due to filling of the area adjacent to the High Court contempt area. 6, ‘The Committee records th ise of north port the responsibility fs rot clear as APSEZ maintains that the area is under Gujarat Maritime Boa: however, Committee didnot find @ clea response from GMB about the responsibility af creek reclamation. The Committee, in finality, records that creeks have vanished in the area and there is a clear violation of FC, 7. Inthe case of south port, theaceretion is evident suggesting that there is every possibility of eventual blocking of creck mouth unless urgent action is taken,69. 8, ‘The Committee observes that Is the responsibility of PP to ensure that no mangrove fs lost and relying upon the images of comparative period, report ff past committees, there is evidence of destruction of mangroves. Recommendations of the Committe north port area, adjoining Bocha has connecting etecks, criti n inter-tidal action of the region. ‘This area shotld be protected and ed and brought to pre-2005 status including | that reclaimed by GMB/ APSE The entire area should be declared as a conservation zone, as It is contiguous to Bocha fstand and its Important mangrove system. ‘This conservation zone should be clearly earmarked ancl demarcated using lat-long, so that monitoring is possible. 2, The opening of Baradi Mata creek should be kept protected so that itis not dlamaged oF blocked, This must be done for all other creck systems. The protection of conservation zone in Bocha island is mandatory to ensure that further degradation of mangrove fs not allowed, recommending the delineation of contiguous conservation zone to be monitored regularly. 4. Cancellation of EC for development of north port. 5. Conservation of mangrove patch in north port area as a contiguity to Bocha island and brought to pre-2005 status. |. Mangrove conse area near the mouth of Buradimata must be protected and regenerated. 7. All identified mangrove can: must be protected with adeqgrate measures against evaston: marked with kitlong so that regular monitoring for compliance, ys, can be made publicly available. for protection of all mangrove conservation areas including the proposed mangrove conservation area, may be prepared and put in public domain, within three months, for monitoring, based on hi 12, Details of the responses of Project Proponent, comments and proposed action points: 1. Reconsnenda jons of the Gonmniltee (b) Declar: Response of Project 2eponent. APSEZLand Gujarat Maritime Board APSEZI. has informed that North Port area is not in thelr possossion. APSI ‘committed to conserve 88 ha of mangrove area of Rocha Island as per the EIA studies carried out by NIO jn terms of EC dated 12/19.1.2009 for Waterfront. Development Project, Response of G Hocha Island, Bocha creck and surrounding crecklets are extensively used by hermen which necessitate maintenance dredging from time to time. IC will be unwise to do restoration for those stray mangroves which did not exist prior to 1980 ce fish production in this area has increased, However, far restoration of the same stray mangroves, it is advisable to cary out Environmental Impaet Assessment Studies through a nationally reputed institute and under thetr guidance, restoration activities can be earried out as the area falls in CR| | | i “70: ved for port development, consists of (a) toch: fotal area of 1114 acres of and acy Island admeasuring 718 acres and (b) the adjoining land admeasuring 396 ai under reference, Out of 718 acres of area, around 211 acres (88 Hla) of arca mangrove conservation area for Adani Ports and SEZ Ltd. GMB has proposed that the remaining area of approximately S00 acres for mangrove alforestation be declared as conservation area and suggested that existing 396 acres of land nay be ullized for permissible activities for port after securing fresty Environment and CR clearance, GMB also requested for a personal discussion, Comments: GMB has not committed on restoration of erecks and wanted the Ministry to commence a scientific study. Request of GMB to utilize 396 acres may wo: he accepted since it may add load / impact ox the Bocha island. Proposed Action point ‘learance granted to the North Port vide clearance letter dated 12.1.2009 ta be cancelled. PP/GMB shall not carry out any development an North Port area, 1) The conservation and preservation of Bocko istand is essential because this is an ecologically fragile areo. However, there are infrastructure development in the area of island as well. Even the environmental clearances have been grantec for development of parts of the Rocha island after having considered the iA studyand proposed IMPs, The island certainly has valuable mangroves ~- existing and denuded bath, In addition there are some ather ecologically sensitive areas and features which require to be protected, restored and preserved. Accordingly, itis suggested that entire existing mangrove covered land and land with the traces of imangrave after their disappearance should he declared as conservation area ¢fter careful delineation and mapping through satelite imageries and field verification. In addition, all the existing BSAs and those which have disappeared in last fou years, ie, after 2007 should be covered by protection and be the part of the ‘conservation avea for protection, restoration and preservation. M/s APSIZ should provide necessary financial assistance and co-operation to GMP to conserve this 1114 acres area. 6) The Action Plan for protectian and conservation of creek system in North port erea should be subyaitted by GMB. APP should get detaited bathymetry done for all the creeks and rivers within CRZerea along with mapping of co-ordinates, running length, IT}, CRZ boundary, mangrove areas including buffer zone through NCSCM / NIOT. PP should also get prepered «a detailed action plan for conservation and protection of creeks/ mangrove crea ete through NCSCM / NIOT and submit the same to GCZMA for thetr examination and recommendation, GCEMA will submit its recommendations to MOLE, H. — Recommendations of the Committee MORE should impose substantial dete through the creation of an Environment Restor nmittce’s assessment there fs incontrovertible evidence of violation 0: EC ‘and non-compliance, ‘The Committee has recognized that the Companyhas bypassed environmental procedures in certain One option, according to the Committee, fs the cancellation of clearances, where procedures have been bypassed. In addition, legal proceeding could be initiatedn against non-complianceand violations of BC conditions, hese steps, however, harsh they may saund, are in the nature of being procedural and would only lead to delay «without any gains to the environment and the people. The Committee is cognizant of the fact that krge scale development has already been undertaken and it is not possible or prudent at this stage to halt or cease its operati ‘Therefore, the Committee has decided to recommend a different course of action, which is both intended to be an effective deterrent and also suggests the way for fiture remedial action to improve the environment Response of PP “There is no non-compliance or violation of the terms of the environmental clearance dated 12/19.1.2009. Th PP has requested that the Ministry should reconsider the setup of environmental restoration fund for an amount of Rs.200 crores which has been subjectively arrived at. PP has spent substantial amount in various activities for socio environment development. pp in mind their sector in the projects and proposals whi well-being of people at large. rested for Substantial reduction in the amount of development fund keeping 'SR contributions as well as the challenge faced by the infrastructure uurrent economic scenario, PP is open to suggestions of any concrete may meet the objects and purpose of environment and Comments: ‘The Sunita Narain Committee apart from violation on North Port area, has pointed ‘out degradation in the mangrove conservation area near the lighthouse at the South port ed on the site visit in area near Further, the High Court of Gujarat in PIL 12 of 2011, be: report hy a Committee, imposed stay an carrying construction in cer south port. The case is ponding, Inview of the above, itcan be concluded th compliance or violation of the terms of theresponse of the PP that ‘there EC" Is Incorrect, 4) A comprehensive and integrated systom of plan preparation for conservation ‘and monitoring thereafter including on the conditions af approval should he put in place. NCSCM shall prepare the pan in consultation with PP and GSCZMA, ‘The plan should be financed by the PP. the implementation should be carried ‘out by GSCAIA, The monitoring of the Implementation should he carried by NCSCM, There shall be no development in the area restricted by the Hligh Court of Gujarat. APSKZ shall abide the outcome of the Pll. 12 of 2011 and other relevant cases ‘The existing legal provisions do not provide for any imposition of BRE on a PP by the Government HL Recommendation ofthe Commnittes should urgently take up this matter with GCAMA and ask for review and reassessment of the matter. his assessment should be based on fresh collection of coordinates, through a joint team. GCZMA should be directed to take necessary aetions based on this visit. The map should be available in the public domain so that it can be verified,i Comments, ‘The GCZMA was asked for reassessment of the matter relating to location of Samundra township/sterling hospital with respect to CRZ boundary and the sare is awaited. According to GCZMA which replied on 13.2.2014, a Committee was constiLited consisting GCZMA, Director, BISAG, Gandhinagar, Officer from Space Application Centre, ISRO, Ahmedabad, District inspector of Land Record, Collector, Kutch, Town Planning Officer, Kutch, (o review and make reassessment of the matter relatirg to Samtucira Township/ Sterling hospital, The Committee made site visits, calle:ted coordinates, prepared map in 1: 2000 scale anit overlapped on 1» prepare by CESS by DILR. The report of the committee was discussed in the Gujarat CEMA meeting which decided to forward it to Mok. Its noted that the township andl Hospital were located beyond CRY, houndary. Proposed Action point he structures are located outside GRZ area and prior RIA Notification, 2006 has been obtained from SHIA, Gujarat 16 as requived I. Recommendation of the Gonmittes The airstrip / acrodrome is part of SEZ and it was constructed without SEZ having an EC, Re ponse of PR PP submitted details on the coordinates, facilities, dimensions ete. atong with the det Comments: i Ke oS rstrip/acrodrome including, the location with ils of elearances obtained, evan ih eet esticbaigcestapatay, gh BMY Propaxed Action Point y= None Ve Recommendation of the Commiter thquake/Tsunami and project clearance ‘The Issue of coastal safety isa matter of great concern. Tsunanit and earthquakesare to its geological settings. But there has been no ws of risk hazard analysis. threats to the area owin comprehensive assessment in ter ‘The Government should carry out an Impact Study especially tsunami in 2011. Also, the disaster management plan of the different proect proponents of APSEZL should be linked to the 'Distriet Disaster Management Plan’ ‘This will be in the Interest of the vulnerable people tn and around the project area to ensure human safety with early warning practices. The Committer also recommne ds {th district aditnistration tn and around carrying out periodic mock drills along the project area, Response of PP APSEZ has already prepared Disaster Management, Plan which has been alroxdy submitted to State Disaster Management Authority. Comments NoneProposed Action Point None, Vi. Recommendation of the Committee ivelihvod and access to fishing grounds Fishermen Jnors; access and thelr livelihood to address all e this settlementavise plan within 6 months ‘There must he a specific plan for these concerns. APSHA, must prep: witha clear schedule of implementation and monitoring. ‘The exclusive fishing harhor proposed at Bhadreshiwar should be builtso that there is facility (or livelihood support, This facility should be built within a thne period of two yeats, [n addition, all fishers settlements located in the Waterfront (port) area must get adequate Facilities for carrying out the ie activity. Response of PP restricted or created any hindrance to any ‘authorized fishermen for approaching the sea for thelr fishing related activites and thas: provided specific approach corridors for fishermen mavement through their area, Additionally, PP Tis boon working, with all the fishermen groups in Munda for providing them livelihood support for thetr socio-economic upliftment, healtheare, ceucation and infrastructure facilities APSHY, has informed that it neve Commrents PP has not submitted specific action plan as sought, PP has submitted the details of the approach corridors developed for fishermen along with the year of construction and cost, PP has stated that they are working with all fishermen groups i Munda for providing them livelihood support for their Socto- economic uptiftment Proposed Action Point shall submit specifie action plan to protect the livelihood of fishermen months. a) APSHA ‘along with budget within 3 VI, Re Village common ‘The State Government should review the policy of acqui nd Wansfer of village common lands, not just in the specific ease of APSE but also in other cases. APS productivity of this land with villagers. “z should consider voluntary return of grazing land and also iavestin improving Response of PP ‘Alter discussion with lacat people of Zarpara village, APSEZ has voluntarily given back approx. 400 acres of land to Zarpara village for gauchar purpose, in spite of the fact that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has dismissed the appeal of villagers: vg the allotment of gauchar land. APSEZ will always eayer to help them in sst possible manner, APSRZ will consider the suggestion and do the nee«lful ‘Since PP agreed to the recommendation, time limit may be specified to comply. Proposed Action Point“the a) APSE improving productivity of this land with villagers and submit action ken ‘report in this regard within Sie months, shall consider the voluntary return of grazing land and also invest in VIN, Recommendation of the Committee that all the projects constructed within the SIZ should possess EC EIA Notification, 2006 as applicable. ‘The details shall be submitted, Response of P PP hi requirement of approvals including KC, wherever necessary. suggested the details of projects and the documents in support of ents, matters are cealt the issue of clearance to SH% along with connected « separately. Proposed Action Point None 1X Recommendation ofthe Committee ts Cumulative impacts of power plants and port proj. MoBE should commission a comprehensive study on the cumulative impacts of projects, which have already been granted clearance, This studly should be usel to assess and mitigate impacts in the region. All future port and power plant projects should be assessed for clearance based on ccunmitative napaets Response of PP None Comments ded that the State Government shall guide sind supervise the re Impact Assessment studies to be undertaken by the APSHA, for the project already granted so that future developments can be assessed for clearance ‘on cumulative impacts. According ta the Director onment, GOG, the Committee constituted (o finalize the action plan and modalities ofthe Euvironmental Restoration Fund including GMB Wil supervise the Cumulative Impact Assessment studies, Draft TORS would be asked from APSEZL to examine and finalised the same after including suggestions of the mmaittec, Proposed Action Points 4) State Gavernment shall submit the Tol to MoEP for finalisation, 1b) The State Government shall get the study through a Third party and M/s APSLL shall mect the expenses towards the study. X- Recommendations of the: Committee Specific recommendations on reform af RZ. regula ‘There should be an urgent review of the functioning and setentifie protocols usec by the agencies authorised by MoEP to undertake CRé demarcation,Responseof PP None Comments Being considered in the Ministry. XL Recommendations of the Committee ced to create a monitoring system to ensure that corrective action by this reportis taken within a time-bound manner Responseal PP None Comments Ie was recommended to set up ajo Bhopal to carry out monitoring of cevelopment / compliance directions for two years, ig committee of GCZMA, GPCB and RO of the conditions and. GCZMA replied vide letter dated 24.12.2013 that It was decided to constitute the committee as suggested, Proposed Action Roints A comprehensive and integrated system of plan preparation for conservation and ‘monitoring Uereafter Including an the conditions of approval should be put in place. NGSCM shall prepare the plan in consultation with PP and GSCZMA, The plan should be financed by the PP, the implementation should be carried out by GSCEMA. The ‘monitoring of the implementation should be carried by NCSCM, 13. Although the Committige has noted distortions inthe ertek pattern as well as some mangrove arcus degradation, the Committee has not attributed the same directly (on the PP. The Committee is on record saying that such changes in the creek and ‘reduction/ disappearance of mangroves have eon noted but has not been able to point out specifically on the responsibilty of the PP except saying that in some areas the project works have been carried out by the PP and the waste materials und deposits hhave taken place. An inirect responsibility has been attributed vo the PP PP ought to have been more carl to ensure that such distortions do not take place, Moreover, the comparative data from the satelite is from the period 2005 to 2011. The entire North port area has never heen in the possession of PP and the records of land acquisition by revene authorities clearly establish that che process of acquisition was completed only in 2007 (vide order of Collector, Kutch dated 22.1.2007 1/4) From the records made available tn the Committee report and observations drawn therefrom ts based on the change in satellite imagery between period of 2005 and 2011. It is not possible to clearly establish whether such changes tavk place before 2007 when the land came in possession of the PP or period after. The decision of the Committee to capture the satelite deta from 2005 i also not explained inthe report of the Gommittee, Hence, it isnot possible ta clearly substantiate the obsorvation and responsibility of PP therein to be directly accountable for changes in the landscape of the area, specifically for creeks, mangrove or any other patter uM In having, tiken note of the entire facts of the case as elaborated vide pp 64-75/ the following course of action is suggestedA y = zw u. m, ™ v vi. vin. 1 16 The propose of extension of the aly of Rovitnental clearance grant the Modanios va lar dted 1212009 should ba considered separately a a etr age Fe lon, ecolageally sensitive geomorphological footures and areas tr the ‘ena eroks avout tnd shut be dead scorseretion zon od sper forts comerveion mest be prepared. M/s APSEZ shall provide mes cil assstance fo ts paris Theviototonofspeciccondion ofa the Hv and proceed nh te proton of At 1986 Independent clearance, any, should be A comprehensive and integrated conservation plan including detailed bathynetry “study and protection of creeks/ mangrove area including buffer zone, mapping of co-ordinates, running length, HTL, CRZ boundary should be put in place. The plan should take note of all the conditions of approvals granted to all the project proponents in this area eg. the reported case of disappertrance of mangrovesnear Navinal creek The preservation of entire arou to maintain the fragile ecolegical condition should be a part of the plan in relation to the creeks, mangrove conservation aind conservation of Bocha istond upto Baradimata and athers. NCSCM should prepare the plan in consultation with MIOT, PP and GCZMA. The plan should be financed by the PP. The implementation should be carried out by GCAA The monitoring of the implementation should be carried by NCSC There should be no development in the area restricted by the High Court of Guiarat. APSEZ shall ablde the outcome of the PH, 12 of 2011 und other relevant cases. APSEZ should submit specific action plan to protect the tivelihaad of fishermen along with budget. The voluntary return of grazing lund in possession of APSEZ, any, A regional strategie impact assessment report with a special focus on Mandra Fegion should also be prepared. The cost towards these studies should also bebarne by the PP. In the subject matter of thermal power plant, 1is suggested that In he provosed regional strategic impact assessment analysis this aspect should be taken upalong with its potential environmental impact to suagsest future corrective actions es well ‘as the guiding tool on extensian and addition of the capacities, ren in2009) to the 15, The request ofthe PP seeking extension of the alidity ofthe BC may be considered In the light of above notings. ‘The showscause: potic APSHA The action plan propased vide parlf 14 on pp.75: 76/nabove may kindly be approved. f ap (Bishwgnath Sing} Joint YY 64,2085 |. should be disposed offoe sey AL secu KY we ewtieey Duye ( + os &) nfsa re “7 Discussed the subject matter. As desired the following s submitted: information 1. All the recommendations of Sunita Narain Committee lave been captured in the note in para 11 & 12 vide pp 67-7: 2, ‘The structure of running note vide pp 64-75/n includes the following: 1) The background of the subject matter and decisions of the Ministry including the show-cause-notice to project proponent in para 1 to 4 vide pp 64-66/n. i) The relevant extracts of the report of Sunita Narain Committee in para 7 vide pp. 66-69/n iii) The analysis by Sunita Narain Committee is divided into three parts ~ examination of the issue, observations of the Committee and recommendations of the Committee in para 11 vide pp 67-69/n iv) ‘The analysis of the recommendations of Suni Committee, response solicited from the organisations and proposed action points in para 12 vide pp 69-75/0 The undersigned has reproduced para 12 as appea-ing, in the running note in this file from p.45-52/n and the action points herein are those which have been proposed by 1A.HII Division, hhe undersigned vide his notings pp 75: opinion on the further course of actio some of the issues from the proposed action points of the Division. ‘The reasons are given below: a) The Division has recommended cancellation of the K: of North Port, However, the undersigned disagrees with this recommendation in view of the fact that there necessity of a further study to be carried out (which is also recommended) before assessing the likely damage to the environment on account of the propesed construction of North Port, Secondly, the undersigned has differed with the Division in terms of declaration of entire Bocha Island as a conservation zone. The Becha Island and some of its part is already under development activities of Gujarat Maritime Board, the area is suitable for port development. However, there is necessity to conserve all the ecologically sensitive entities in Bocha Island. Vor this purpose the recommendation has been made differing from the Divisionrv -19- ‘Two studies have been recommended. The first study is on the coastal chvironment and likely impact of any development activity on ecologically sensitive areas, Second study pertains to regional strategic impact assessment on entive Mundra region, subsequent to which the decision on expansion of thermal power plants should be based upon. File is resubmitted for further order (Bishwanath Joint Secre! 25.8.3015 cal syayst 978) gf eg fNi -80- Consequent to Hon'ble Minister's query on page 62/N ante, the notes of JS (BS) on pages 64-77/N may be seen which summarizes the subject matter under consideration. JS (BS) has given his recommendations in para 14 of his notes contained at pages 75-76/N ante. In his cfarificatory note on pages 78-79IN ante, JS (BS) has clarifiec that all the recommendations of the Sunita Narain Committee have seen caplured, and responses of the PP and other relevant organizations have been looked at. JS (BS) has also highlighted the need for further studies to be carried out before taking a decision on the show cause notice regarding cancellation of EC for North Port and that of phase-tl of Thermal Power Plant. He has recommended two studies: a) The first study is proposed to be carried out, at the cost of PP, to operationalise recommendations of JS (BS) as contained in paragraph 14 Il, IV, V & Vil on page 76/N. He recommends that the study should be carried out and a comprehensive & integrated conservation plan should be prepared by NCSCM in consultation with NIOT, PP and GCZMA. Implementation of this plan should be done by GCZMA but should be financed by PP. Monitoring of the implementation should be carried out by NCSCM. This study would need to assess the likely impact of the on going activities of PP and other stakeholders in and around North Port, Bochcha island, Bochcha creek, Navinal creck, Baradi Mata oresk & Kotdi creek etc, and also the future impact of any additional activity in case validity of EC is extended for the North Port. Based ot: the outcome of this study, a decision on the proposal of extension of velidily of EC to North Porticancellation of EC to North Port could be taken separately at a later stage. It is also apparent {rom the notes that overall cost of conservation of ecologically sensitive areas and livelihood of fishermen etc. as per recommendations contained in para 14 I, VV & Vil can be assessed only after conclusion of the study. Therefore PP would need to be clearly informed upfront in this regard, and later communicated about the quantum of funds alongwith clear action plans to be implemented, after the conclusion of the study, b) The second study is proposed to be carried out for preparing regional strategic impact assessment report for the entire Mundra region, at the cost of the PP, to determine the potential environmental impact of the proposed expansion of the Thermal Power Plant in phase-tI and also to suggest future corrective actions. ‘The outcome of this study would determine, at a later stage, whether EC granted alongwith exemation from public hearing for phase-II of the Power Plant should be cancelled or should be extended.81. | agree with the recommendations about the desirability of these two studies with the observation that these may be conducted by reputed institutions not under the administrative control of Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change. With the above observations, the recommendations of JS (8S) as contained in para 14 1 to X on page 75-76/N ante are put up for consideration please. kL. awe (Sushee! Kumar) Additional Secretary (SK) 28.08.2015 ity. EF&CC fe Opt ranbieter8co) _ — > |e H was As seussel ae 85 oy dele * on cabo 2 } pre See" Mile st spe! 2G se : cach =e c BH (ane Wey \c' pr wy ab As (3 Lo Jy/ADIste,) aa aeGR No. 10-4'7/2008-1A.111 Subject: Extension of validity of Clearance dated 12.01.2009 granted for waterfront development at Mundra, District Kackchh, Gujarat to M/s, Adani Port and SEZ Limited ~ Reg. Clearance granted for waterfront development at Mundra, District Kachchh, Gujarat to M/s. Adani Port and SPZ Limited vide letter no. 10-47/2008-IA-I dated 12.01.2009. The present proposal is for extension of validity of the Clearance. ‘The issue was discussed by the EAC in its 120% meeting held on 2204- 24% January, 2014 and committee recommended for the extension of validity of the clearance dated 12.01.2009 for a period of five years with any existing qualification in respect of north port. It is submitted that Ms. Sunita Narain Committce set up w.rt. allegation against the project, has recommended cancellation of North Port. The same was accepted by Ministry. Project Proponent has informed that North Port area belongs to Gujarat Maritime Board (GMB) and not objected anything about cancellation of North Port, We may therefore consider extending the validity of clearance excluding North Port, up to 11.01.2019. All other conditions remain unchanged. Accordingly, draft letter is placed for perusal and approval please. (8. Thirunavulekarasu) Sci 26) EM epeomed the represk fey open ve vatidihe cleveloyameat ot (fl in The. Mond sf She. egy wove Nance) Conreeffec The CAC recoravvertde! fer 7 xf veliddy be feavemee lp ue yous tell CON cea qualrfeeden ma rexyncd on ned pe dey tech Canceilaben | Cle cverne ¢ foowy heer ‘vecommeaded iit “ke }o.. Dy Sinbe Navetn Coe e Ahisclmwe bre Syyesed fo Peleud 1a vot dy ad cheareanre AE 1a 2024 vated de Py [sy APSEZ Ud fev coaley sind Pevelepan awh by andher yey ealyy, Noth pelh “aud subyerdto Cougheu cd. Ravel oder ax cud uhm raed vy Pla MMNhy Lo -b The yeeommeudadten vA Ms Suna Nerediy Coutefee Nweluding eahen ye Enarmectt Rederedin ruud . Me J byteowon bdbtew caccondaghy is yrteced Foy Dte ecyaprned vf ime Pheave - fev is firs) By eoloot) | —— SayNotes on pages 1-2/N may be perused. granted for waterfront development at Mundra, District Kachchh, Gujarat . ("The proposal for Extension of validity of Clearance dated 12.01.2009 to M/s Adani Port and SEZ Limited is put up for approval of Minister, (Maninder Singh) Joint Secretary a“ 05/03/2014 ass Ne Arey plirenee on 7 Mok Th Th Come + we bekus fp loletim b be faker om po , iat Actenarninctahor 9 banih” Morass Gratis Aepiod- + Theorefors A dn’ fel bedihe : dents Aepusrs fe bn oditeenaed Pe fiche Ths nip(ek, Povearsee bp aS (ms aud Ondkryognedl chy As(ss). ©) Be coas ynfernee! ab cs te ye yy hoor Sjele Gok cud GCZMA has beer, vecered Fhe Ble xcleled to deciqen on Te seer pow en deekend Ms Saniler Nareiny Goowdfee Y tr Kb ais heme sabudieo! shelly. The abet poopsctl fe eebenten rea validly yf cheavemee as recemmyecndod hyp Ede Kes been prrtesecl eparc) yebeng a _ prececkocil veacremneets = AS secormnectded \ahe reper Ys Somber Nena Corfe, the popes] Coty 7 Af| wee | for epleneon eeclides the Ae Pox | Aud Subject fo pecepabenyee afte fra} Lovdet Lob He Aus! Sima Narain Coudee vyepet- Vieoludng “He creator xf Gnvoermad Reblerahion) feud As asked hy ASCE) [Ce reheceut perhon Let pana Q. atthe EIA Nebheanian, goog y dnp Validity wh ECs alyo aplecee! od Fly fox veaay vefrenet The ee eee asp pore ceo@/ Se Please refer to our discussion and the notes on pages 1-4/N. The extension of validity of clearance has been sought for five years, from 12/01/2014 to 11/01/2019, The proposal has been processed in consonance with para 9 of the EIA Notification, 2006, dealing with validity and extension of environmental clearances. The EAC recommended extension of validity of clearance in its 130" Meeting (22 ~ 24"* January, 2014). Accordingly, the proposal at ‘X’ on page 3/N, is put up for approval of Minister. aoe (Maninder singh) Joint Secretary 12/03/2014 sigh hh prt ep th deen file tm dhe Oehyat jf ANtolabirn, arn Aorredtnc! Whee Aarne Aagarcla vente Y Lo er seeerdent 7. anaes Patek AK ae tee unre sfosftr DUL EK,Reference notes on pre-page may please be seen. The order dated 18.09.2018 adjudicating the Show Cause Notice has been issued, a Notes on page 82-86/N (part file merged on 24.09.215) may please . be seen. These are regarding Extension of validity of Clearance granted for Waterfront development at Mundra, District Kachhchh, Gujarat, The clearance was granted for this developmental project to M/s. Adani Port and SEZ Limited by the Ministry under the EIA Notification, 2006 and CRZ f Notification, 1991 vide letter dated No. 10-47/2008-IA.II| dated 12.01.2009. 3. The issue was discussed by the EAC in its 138 meeting held during 22.24" January, 2014. The minutes of the meeting are place below in the file at F/A. During this meeting, PP (M/s. Adani Port and SEZ Limited) informed EAC that EC and CRZ clearance were granted for the water front development on 12.01.2009 and an addendum was issued on 19.01.2009. Many facillies have been commenced in 2009 and 13 container berths out of 16, 2 coal berths out of 4, 5 dry cargo berths, 9 liquid berths, 2 shipyard, etc, are yet to be developed. The overall development was affected due to ‘economic slowdown. The PP further informed EAC that there is no change | in the scope of the project. PP requested EAC for revalidation for § years. | 4. Regarding decision on of EAC for this proposal, it is submitted that EAC has recommended extending validity of clearance for 5 years with any existing qualification in respect of North Port. The proposal was processed for granting extension of validity of clearance. However, the ‘same could not be issued pending the adjudication of the Show Cause Notice issued to PP regarding the violations. 5. The SCN issued to PP has been adjudicated vide order dated 18.09.2015 (Flag-B). The SCN has been disposed off subject to the certain course of action/directions detailed at page 75-76/N and page 7-8 of the order dated 18.09.2015, _ it has been decided by the Ministry that the proposal of extension of validity of Environmental Clearance granted to the North. Port vide letter dated 12,01.2009 will be considered | separately at a later stage. 6. _ In view of the above, the draft letter cum order for extending the validity of the abovementioned clearance, excluding North Port, has been prepared and is placed below at DFA. Submitted please. e f (Shard) | Scientist | AD(SKS),an tour 7 se | | aH Catbey | Qe propor fr eelren > i valid 3} Ne Alec Ud Ry Uh op 2019ers valid Fee A che Clhorac

You might also like

• Fear: Trump in the White House

  

  From Everand

  Fear: Trump in the White House

  Bob Woodward

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (738)
• A Man Called Ove: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  A Man Called Ove: A Novel

  Fredrik Backman

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (4609)
• The Sympathizer: A Novel (Pulitzer Prize for Fiction)

  

  From Everand

  The Sympathizer: A Novel (Pulitzer Prize for Fiction)

  Viet Thanh Nguyen

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (120)
• • Magazines
  • Podcasts
  • Sheet music
• Devil in the Grove: Thurgood Marshall, the Groveland Boys, and the Dawn of a New America

  

  From Everand

  Devil in the Grove: Thurgood Marshall, the Groveland Boys, and the Dawn of a New America

  Gilbert King

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (266)
• A Heartbreaking Work Of Staggering Genius: A Memoir Based on a True Story

  

  From Everand

  A Heartbreaking Work Of Staggering Genius: A Memoir Based on a True Story

  Dave Eggers

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (231)
• Grit: The Power of Passion and Perseverance

  

  From Everand

  Grit: The Power of Passion and Perseverance

  Angela Duckworth

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (588)
• The Little Book of Hygge: Danish Secrets to Happy Living

  

  From Everand

  The Little Book of Hygge: Danish Secrets to Happy Living

  Meik Wiking

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (399)
• Never Split the Difference: Negotiating As If Your Life Depended On It

  

  From Everand

  Never Split the Difference: Negotiating As If Your Life Depended On It

  Chris Voss

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (838)
• The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck: A Counterintuitive Approach to Living a Good Life

  

  From Everand

  The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck: A Counterintuitive Approach to Living a Good Life

  Mark Manson

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (5794)
• The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer

  

  From Everand

  The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer

  Siddhartha Mukherjee

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (271)
• The World Is Flat 3.0: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century

  

  From Everand

  The World Is Flat 3.0: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century

  Thomas L. Friedman

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (2259)
• Yes Please

  

  From Everand

  Yes Please

  Amy Poehler

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (1891)
• Shoe Dog: A Memoir by the Creator of Nike

  

  From Everand

  Shoe Dog: A Memoir by the Creator of Nike

  Phil Knight

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (537)
• Rise of ISIS: A Threat We Can't Ignore

  

  From Everand

  Rise of ISIS: A Threat We Can't Ignore

  Jay Sekulow

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (137)
• Principles: Life and Work

  

  From Everand

  Principles: Life and Work

  Ray Dalio

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (599)
• Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln

  

  From Everand

  Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln

  Doris Kearns Goodwin

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (234)
• The Hard Thing About Hard Things: Building a Business When There Are No Easy Answers

  

  From Everand

  The Hard Thing About Hard Things: Building a Business When There Are No Easy Answers

  Ben Horowitz

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (344)
• The Glass Castle: A Memoir

  

  From Everand

  The Glass Castle: A Memoir

  Jeannette Walls

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (1712)
• John Adams

  

  From Everand

  John Adams

  David McCullough

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (2409)
• The Gifts of Imperfection: Let Go of Who You Think You're Supposed to Be and Embrace Who You Are

  

  From Everand

  The Gifts of Imperfection: Let Go of Who You Think You're Supposed to Be and Embrace Who You Are

  Brene Brown

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (1090)
• The Perks of Being a Wallflower

  

  From Everand

  The Perks of Being a Wallflower

  Stephen Chbosky

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (2100)
• Angela's Ashes: A Memoir

  

  From Everand

  Angela's Ashes: A Memoir

  Frank McCourt

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (440)
• The Woman in Cabin 10

  

  From Everand

  The Woman in Cabin 10

  Ruth Ware

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (2322)
• Wolf Hall: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  Wolf Hall: A Novel

  Hilary Mantel

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (3811)
• Her Body and Other Parties: Stories

  

  From Everand

  Her Body and Other Parties: Stories

  Carmen Maria Machado

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (821)
• A Tree Grows in Brooklyn

  

  From Everand

  A Tree Grows in Brooklyn

  Betty Smith

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (1929)
• Sing, Unburied, Sing: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  Sing, Unburied, Sing: A Novel

  Jesmyn Ward

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (1103)
• Elon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX, and the Quest for a Fantastic Future

  

  From Everand

  Elon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX, and the Quest for a Fantastic Future

  Ashlee Vance

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (474)
• The Art of Racing in the Rain: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  The Art of Racing in the Rain: A Novel

  Garth Stein

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (4200)
• Hidden Figures: The American Dream and the Untold Story of the Black Women Mathematicians Who Helped Win the Space Race

  

  From Everand

  Hidden Figures: The American Dream and the Untold Story of the Black Women Mathematicians Who Helped Win the Space Race

  Margot Lee Shetterly

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (895)
• The Unwinding: An Inner History of the New America

  

  From Everand

  The Unwinding: An Inner History of the New America

  George Packer

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (45)
• The Outsider: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  The Outsider: A Novel

  Stephen King

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (1839)
• The Yellow House: A Memoir (2019 National Book Award Winner)

  

  From Everand

  The Yellow House: A Memoir (2019 National Book Award Winner)

  Sarah M. Broom

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (98)
• The Constant Gardener: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  The Constant Gardener: A Novel

  John le Carré

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (104)
• On Fire: The (Burning) Case for a Green New Deal

  

  From Everand

  On Fire: The (Burning) Case for a Green New Deal

  Naomi Klein

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (73)
• Brooklyn: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  Brooklyn: A Novel

  Colm Tóibín

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (1937)
• The Light Between Oceans: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  The Light Between Oceans: A Novel

  M.L. Stedman

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (789)
• Little Women

  

  From Everand

  Little Women

  Louisa May Alcott

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (104)
• Bad Feminist: Essays

  

  From Everand

  Bad Feminist: Essays

  Roxane Gay

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (1015)
• Manhattan Beach: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  Manhattan Beach: A Novel

  Jennifer Egan

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (792)
• Steve Jobs

  

  From Everand

  Steve Jobs

  Walter Isaacson

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (806)
• Leaked Secret Lima Draft Decision Text

  

  Document7 pages

  Leaked Secret Lima Draft Decision Text

  nitin sethi

  100% (1)
• The Reporters' Collective Response To The Morning Context

  

  Document5 pages

  The Reporters' Collective Response To The Morning Context

  nitin sethi

  No ratings yet
• Adani Final Order

  

  Document10 pages

  Adani Final Order

  nitin sethi

  No ratings yet
• Adani Violation File Notings

  

  Document94 pages

  Adani Violation File Notings

  nitin sethi

  No ratings yet
• 2013 Show Cause Notice

  

  Document3 pages

  2013 Show Cause Notice

  nitin sethi

  No ratings yet
• Call Marrakech

  

  Document4 pages

  Call Marrakech

  nitin sethi

  No ratings yet
• Ikea Response August 30, 2022

  

  Document6 pages

  Ikea Response August 30, 2022

  nitin sethi

  No ratings yet
• Adani Final Order

  

  Document10 pages

  Adani Final Order

  nitin sethi

  No ratings yet
• Adani Final Order

  

  Document10 pages

  Adani Final Order

  nitin sethi

  No ratings yet
• Ticket Hacking

  

  Document3 pages

  Ticket Hacking

  Ashwani Agarwal

  No ratings yet
• Recommendations of The TSR Subramanian Report

  

  Document7 pages

  Recommendations of The TSR Subramanian Report

  nitin sethi

  No ratings yet
• Clinton Climate Change Plan Dated 1993

  

  Document111 pages

  Clinton Climate Change Plan Dated 1993

  nitin sethi

  No ratings yet
• Leaked TSR Subramanian Report

  

  Document113 pages

  Leaked TSR Subramanian Report

  nitin sethi

  100% (1)
• Draft Synthesis Report - SPM Provisionally Approved

  

  Document41 pages

  Draft Synthesis Report - SPM Provisionally Approved

  nitin sethi

  No ratings yet
• National Board of Wildlife Agenda

  

  Document39 pages

  National Board of Wildlife Agenda

  nitin sethi

  100% (1)
• GOI Affidavit On GM Crops

  

  Document128 pages

  GOI Affidavit On GM Crops

  nitin sethi

  No ratings yet
• Demwe Assam Affid

  

  Document7 pages

  Demwe Assam Affid

  nitin sethi

  No ratings yet
• UPA PMO Letter No 2

  

  Document3 pages

  UPA PMO Letter No 2

  nitin sethi

  No ratings yet
• Pmo Letter1

  

  Document4 pages

  Pmo Letter1

  nitin sethi

  No ratings yet
• Demwe File Notings

  

  Document13 pages

  Demwe File Notings

  nitin sethi

  No ratings yet
• Scan Moef Gmo

  

  Document10 pages

  Scan Moef Gmo

  nitin sethi

  No ratings yet