Proceedings of the Environmental Public Hearing held on

27/04/2017 at 10.30 am at Tilak Maidan Vasco-Goa.

In respect of:

Proposed deepening of Approach Channel and Inner Basin for Capsize

Vessels at Mormugao Port” by M/s. Mormugao Port Trust, Headland

Sada-Goa.

This Public Hearing is conducted as per the revised EIA Notification

dated 14/09/2006 (as amended), Shri. Johnson Fernandes – Additional

Collector II & Additional District Magistrate (South) welcomed the public

present for the Environmental Public hearing, and requested the public

present to express their views/objections/suggestions if any, after the Project

Proponent gives its presentation. He stated that the same will be recorded

and forwarded to the Concerned Regulatory Authority, for processing the

application regarding Environmental Clearance.

The Representatives of the Project Proponent have thereafter made a

Power Point presentation concerning the project by explaining the contexts

thereof in Konkani language.

Thereafter, the Chairman/ Additional Collector II & Additional

District Magistrate (South) called upon those present to submit their

views/objections to the proposed project for purpose of recording the same

and subsequently submitting the same to the MoEF in terms of the EIA

Notification.

Accordingly following individuals have raised the issues/gave

suggestions/objections which are as under:

1. Avinash Tavares, Fatorda :

a) He objected to proposal for deepening of Approach Channel and Inner

Basin for Capesize Vessels at Mormugao Port

1

b) As per MoEF guidelines stated in the EIA report, the study is

conducted over 10 km radius keeping project site at the center. In the EIA

report, the impact area is demarcated by selecting the project site that is a dot

on the map of mormugao near MPT and drawing a 10km circle around it. He

questioned whether the consultant knew that the project is a channel and it is

not like the other two berth development projects where the project site

could be represented as a dot. He stated that the project site is 10km channel

which should have been represented by a line on the project map. He stated

that the project site which is shown is at the eastern end of the channel. He

questioned the Mpt and the consultant to justify the need for representing a

channel as a dot as a project site. Even if you wanted to represent the

channel as a dot it should have been at the center of the channel

c) He stated that the project site should have been represented as a line

and the study area should have been 10 kms on either site of the both ends of

the channel. Effectively the study area should have been 30 kms from east to

west. Therefore the study area shown in the report itself is flawed and

therefore this study has to be discarded and the EIA report has to be

scrapped.

d) Further, as per the EIA manual, project study area should have been

15 kms and not 10 kms

e) He objected to the test sites used to prepare the report. The report

shows 8 marine test sites which are predominantly on the western side of

Mormugao Harbor. In fact there is not a single one on the eastern side of

Khariwada jetty. He stated that more than half the study area is not covered.

No samples are collected from north of the Channel, near Dona Paula, nor it

has been collected south of the Mormugao area, that is bogmalo and

cansaulim area. He questioned that how is this a study is samples are taken

only along the channel

f) He pointed out that no samples were collected from areas near St

Jacinto Island or Chicalim Bay which is ecosensitve and home to coral and

other rare species. He questioned whether this is intentional or was it a

mistake on part of the Consultant. He asked for clarification.

g) He questioned the Chairman/Collector that if one stands in the middle

of the Zuari bay, does it fall in South Goa or North Goa or both ?The

chairman stated that it can be determined only when one crosses the river

and goes on landward side. Avinash then questioned if this project is

2

executed on land or in the sea? He stated that most of the dredging is done in

the sea.The chairman stated that since the project in South Goa since it is

next to the landward side of South Goa and therefore falls in South Goa.

Avinash asked the Chairman, under which rule is it stated? Avinash quoted

MoEF notification dated 14/9/2006, Section 3 Public Consultation, Para 2(a)

it is stated that a public hearing must be conducted at the site or in its close

proximity district-wise. He stated the project site shown falls in the sea so

why is the public hearing not conducted in the North. He raised the objection

that the project is offshore and affects both districts of Goa and therefore the

hearing should be conducted at both Districts which adjoins the river. He

stated that on these grounds, the public hearing should be scrapped and the

GSPCB and Collector have not advised the Project Proponent properly.

h) He referred to diagram 2.1 on the EIA report and stated that the layout

of the proposed Mormugao port shows a cargo terminal west of the break

water. He questioned whether the turning radius shown in the diagram will

be implemented in this project. He stated that he is assuming that the Cargo

terminal is a part of this project since it is shown in the diagram and

questioned the Project proponent whether they are planning to develop the

cargo terminal and dredging is a small part of this project. He stated that the

EIA report is incomplete and flawed.

i) He stated that the EIA document is in fact a business project plan

because dredging can be used for whatever reason but the report has

dedicated many pages to show the purpose of dredging such as traffic

projections, amount of coal estimates, cost estimates etc. He stated that this

is none of our concern. He stated that the PPs intent with this information

was to show the benefits of the project compared to the damage it will cause.

He hopes that the EAC will not consider all these unwanted details while

making their decision.

j) He stated that Hydrodynamic and siltation study was conducted by

CWPRS. He stated that his objection is that the input data taken for this

study is flawed because input data taken for this study was flawed. The data

for currents was taken only at two locations near the harbor. He stated that

the port is not along an ordinary Coast, but it is an estuary where river meets

the sea. Water flows in 3—4 different directions. They cannot collect data

for just two locations and do a modeling study. Further, he stated that the

data collected is from 7 meters deep but the dredging is up to 20 meters. No

3

deep water studies have been conducted. He question how can the currents

be extrapolated. He also questioned whether the currents are uniform from

the surface to 25 meters? Other parameters such as wind data, tidal data,

river wave data etc are all taken from 5 km radius and not 10kms. He stated

that the sampling area for the data given to CWPRS for modeling simulation

is inadequate. He stated that with wrong data the output will be wrong and

therefore the CWPRS study, based on which dredging and disposal sites are

decided, cannot be accepted.

k) He questioned the use of software Mike 21 for simulation modeling of

hydrology and sediment displacement since this software is a 2d modeling

software. He stated that the same company also makes a 3d modeling

software called Mike 3d and that the difference between both software is

that Mike 21 does not analyze patters and various depths and therefore

suitable only for coastal applications. The dredging work is not a coastal

application. The study area goes to around 25 kms into the sea. He

questioned the Consultant why they used a 2d modeling software when the

project required modeling in 3d. He also questioned whether this Mike21

software is empanelled by MoEF or any other authority and whether it is

allowed and suitable for 20 kms offshore studies. He stated that Mike 3

software is applicable for coastal as well as oceanographic circulation

studies including fine sediment dynamics. He stated that fine sediment

dynamics is very important and not covered in the study. He stated the color

coded model shown in figure 4.1 can be used for berth development and not

deep ocean analysis. He questioned why the color coded model only shows

the channel and not the disposal sites. He stated that that there is no model

simulation study of disposal site in the EIA report. He questioned if anyone

has seen the simulation study or disposal site. He stated he suspects that the

disposal sites were arbitrary selected without any study. He stated that the

study done by CWPRS is insufficient and inadequate and therefore any

decision based on this study must be null and void.

l) He quoted a study which stated that micro tidal environment where

tidal currents are stronger than the river flow such as Zuari basin,

semidiurnal tidal cycles play a significant role in controlling hydrological

and sediment processes. During such semidiurnal tidal cycles, large amount

of fine sediments are alternately eroded, suspended and deposited. He stated

that the details are mentioned in his written submission. This study goes to

4

show that dredging and dumping will have an impact on the estuarine

environment. He stated that this study is not been conducted by the

consultant and therefore there is no conclusive evidence to say that the

dredging will not have an impact on the estuarine environment and therefore

this EIA study must be scrapped

m) He stated that there has been no study conducted of marine life at the

disposal site. A study has been conducted at the dredging site The EIA

report shows that the sediments near the port are contaminated with twice as

much heavy metals as compared to sediments from sites away from the

berths. During dredging the sediments will be dumped into the seabed and

the EIA report assumes that the possible side effects the acute toxicity,

chronic toxicity and bio accumulation are short term and insignificant and no

serous effect has been reported from earlier instances or studies. He stated

that the PP has not mentioned the earlier instances or studies from where he

could have verified whether PP is telling the truth or trying to fool the

people. He stated that the underwater area at disposal site is not a desert.

n) He stated that the Marine Environment Management Plan does not

have specifications for implementation. The EIA report states what the

dredging contractor has to do but does not state who will monitor the

dredging contractor, what is the penalty for failure to comply with the norms

and how much resources will be required for monitoring the dredging

contractors in terms of personnel etc. The Compliance Standards have not

been mentioned in the EIA, such as prevailing water quality conditions. As

per standard practice, the turbidity should be recorded independently and

immediately made available to the dredging supervisor so that any

corrections and adjustments to dredging operations can be made quickly. He

questioned MPT who was the dredging supervisor and who was supposed to

appoint him. He stated GSPCB is not equipped to do this and MPT will not

do it as they don’t care what happens outside their jurisdiction.

o) He stated that EIA document does not specify critical monitoring

procedures such as frequency measurements of the water turbidity at the

active dredging areas, and at the sample stations located at various sites

around the bay and near ecosensitive areas. He stated that since this was not

done during the EIA study, he doesn’t expect the PP to do it in the future.

p) He stated that international practices are constant surveillance of the

dredgers during transit to and the sediment release at the approved disposal

5

sites. He stated that it is unclear who will do the surveillance for this project

and the dredging contractor will do whatever he wants to ensure he utilizes

minimum fuel for maximum profit. He stated that the Marine management

plan stated in the EIA cannot and will not be implemented in spirit, it is

incomplete and thus ineffective. He hoped the EAC will not consider this as

a good plan to keep the environment safe

q) He stated that none of the experts who have prepared and signed the

EIA report are hard core marine experts with any expertise in Dredging. He

questioned the consultant how did these people prepare a document on

dredging. The MPT Chief Engineer stated that that they engaged wapcos as

the consultant and in Wapcos there is a geologist. She stated that Wapcos is

a big organization and they have an internal team of experts only this is his

name was not there. Avinash questioned if WAPCOS had an expert why did

they not put his name in the EIA document and just by saying they have an

expert can he be held accountable?

r) Avinash stated that the EIA report did not explain how the dredgers

which will be used for dredging operate and further they have not

distinguished between fine sediments and course sediments and the impact

the dredgers will have on both. He questioned if the hopper discharges the

water and sediments along the way as it travels to disposal site. The MPT

Chief engineer said no. Avinash questioned whether the dumping will

contaminate the site to which the MPT chief engineer stated that CWPRS

had done a study and the dumped material is not coming back to the

channel. Avinash stated that this is not mentioned in the EIA report to which

the MPT CE stated that there is a separate report for that. Avinash stated that

this report has not been made public.

s) He quoted that the rotator motion of cutter suction and dragging of

suction pipe of suction hopper dredger, along the river bed this will disturb

the substrata and place sediments into suspension which cannot always be

sucked by the hopper. These suspended substrates may smother nearby

fauna and flora in the water when it settles. The effect will be greater in the

case of fine sediments which are more easy to be placed in suspension.

t) The EIA report has not done a prolonged study over several weeks. In

this case the dredging operations is to be conducted over 4 months.

u) The EIA report has ignored spillage/leakage of dredger. Some

dredgers contractors in order to maximums solid dredging materials in the

6

hopper hold by allowing slurry water mixed with the dredged material to

overflow from the vessel. In the case where fine sediments are being

dredged, this results in high turbidity of water surrounding the vessel which

could be then transported by surface water currents over sensitive habitats

such as Zuari basin. He further stated that deliberate spillage occurs when

the bottom gates of the hopper hold are open slightly so as to release

sediments while the vessel is on route to the disposal site. Where appropriate

controls and disposal site records are not in place, this practice can shorten

the turn-around period for the trip with obvious financial benefits. The

resulting impacts of turbidity and sedimentation would be most sever in the

vicinity of the inshore fringing reefs when the hopper vessel is out at sea.

v) He stated the other issue regarding dredging is accidental spillage.

The EIA report assumes there are no accidents during dredging. However,

the amount of material leaking from the bottom gates of a hopper dredger

would normally be insignificant. However, if a hard object or rock becomes

lodged between the gates, then material will steadily spill out of the ship’s

hold into the water column resulting in impact on turbidity and

sedimentations which would be severe. He questioned MPT is there is any

monitoring for such situations in every trip.

w) He questioned the PP on the duration of the simulation done, which

was of 3200 cum for one month but reality is dumping will be dome over 4

month period.

x) He objected to the dredged material being dumped at sea and stated

that the material can be used for land filling in Goa. The EIA does not

compare online disposal, inshore disposal, sea disposal and deep sea

disposal. He stated that no mind had been applied to select the disposal site

from the options available. He questioned if CWPRS does inland dumping

studies. Since CWPRS specializes in coastal studies, they will obviously

recommend disposal at sea.

y) He stated that there is no preparedness for Emergencies. He stated that

the EIA report under Section 7.5 states the likely emergencies such as

accidents involving vessels, oil spills from ships, sabotage, and terrorism but

does not specify how these emergencies will be mitigated. He stated that

scenarios involving collision between dredging vessels resulting in release

of oil, sinking ship or release of dredged marital are not taken into account in

the EIA report. He stated that we have to assume that PP is not prepared to

7

handle such disasters and therefore should not be allowed to dredge the

channel.

z) He stated that the submission in the EIA report that the project will

result in economic growth and employment generation is incorrect. He

questioned the PP whose economic growth are they talking about and where

will the employment be generated. Since this is not mentioned in the EIA

report, he objects to this statement and therefore must not be considered for

grant of EC.

aa) He concludes that the project and baseline conditions is grossly

inadequate, the methods followed and models used in data generation and

analysis is unreliable. The methods followed and models used for impact

predictions are not comprehensive, relevant and reliable. Risk analysis and

disaster management plan is inadequate. Mitigations measures are also

inadequate. Thus the EIA report must be scrapped. He further stated that the

exercise is an insult since they produced such a shoddy document and placed

it before us and tried to prove that it is beneficial to us.

2. Caitan Fernandes, Khariwado Vasco

He seeks information as to whom the dredging is being done! Is it for the benefit of the

He seeks to know for whom dredging is done. It is of no benefit to fishermen. The Project Proponents are all outsiders. He states that coal pollution is destroying the fishermen’s lives. He requests that the proceedings be done in English. He states that dredging should be done in Kerala.

3. Pascoal D’Souza

He stated that he is a traditional fisherman. He stated that activity of MPT will destroy the lives of the fishermen and their families and the future generation. He totally opposes the activity of dredging.

4. Bernando Martins, Vasco

He stated that he and his family is traditional fisherman. He states that the traditional activity of local fishermen is being destroyed by MPT’s activity in the area. Dredging activity will fully destroy the local fishermen. He requests the Chairman to act in favour of local fishermen. He states that due to dredging activity, livelihood of the local inhabitants is being destroyed. He objects to the failure of the Project Proponent to provide drinking water to the local public at the public hearing. He fully opposes the proposed

8

dredging activity of MPT. He states that MPT has failed to provide any benefit of the local people. He states that the Government is not working for the common men but is working in collusion with MPT. MPT does not employ local Goans or fishermen in its Port.

5. Jose Rodrigues, Non Mon, Vasco.

He stated that he is a local fisherman aged 77 years old,Day and nightwe r working to to fill our stomachs by working in the sea.and you all are relaxing with your families. He states that MPT by its projects is affecting his livelihood adversely, and now we cannot even collect shellfish which we used to earlierin the olden days, due to dreging, he states that MPT is not looking of the livlehood of their community, you all are doing what you all want. He states that dredging is not required. He states that all local youth are unemployed and all benefits of employment are given to outsiders, because of this all are local youth have been forced to go abroad for better pastures. He state at Chougule berth(No:&&) he used to do fishing, He states that his father and fore fathers were dependend on this fishing and that dredging will cause destruction of the fishermen houses and requests that this activity of dredging should not be undertaken by MPT.

6. Suresh Barve, Vaddem, Vasco

a) He protested by wearing a white Mask, and stated that he will remove the white mask only if the Panel members give him answers to his queries. b) Chairman referred to para 6.6 of the EIA Notification. He states that as per the Notification he is required to record the objections of the public and transmit them to MoEF.c) He stated that till now inspite of his requests for the EIA report, summary of the Project Proponent he has not been given the documents till date in Konkani language.d) He stated that without the documents he is hampered from effectively raising his grievances before the Public Hearing Panel.e) A copy of the EIA Report in Konkani is handed over to Mr. Barve. He states that he has come to save Goa. He seeks to know who is in charge of management of the Public Hearing.f) He stated that the venue of the public hearing does not have a single dustbin and this itself indicates a violation of “Swatch Bharat Abhiyan” by JSW.g) He seeks to know under what authority the Public Hearing was stopped at 11.45 pm last night. If it was stopped on account of the Noise Rules, the meeting should have been stopped at 10.00 pm.h) He seeks to know how many trees have been planted by the Project Proponent till date. He states it is the Government’s role to plant 10 tree for every single tree that is cut.i) He seeks to know why the Chairman only objects to the public and not to the omissions of the Project Proponent regarding representatives. He

9

requests the MPT representatives to state their names, designation and address.The Project Proponent representatives introduced themselves;1. Shri. D. D. Ambe, Executive Engineer, MPT.2. Shri. G. R. Jirage, Executive Engineer, MPT3. Dr. S. K. Tyagi, Chief Scientist, WAPCOS4. Dr. N.P.S.Varde, Consultant, MPT.5. Dr. Arun Kumar, Top Well Expert (Env), WAPCOS

j) He requested the project proponent representative to explain What the characteristics of Vasco are including topographic features. On receiving no reply from the Project Proponent, stated that if the Project Proponent were unaware of the topographical feature of Vasco then they could not do dredging activity.k) He requested the Project Proponent to state effects of dredging on Vasco.l) He stated that Vasco is an island. He said that by dredging the MPT will remove the stone cover across the side of Vasco Island that will result in landslides from El-Monte to Japanese Garden, Vasco is an island. He stated that Bat Island and Anjidevi Island which is visited by locals for religious practices, once a year.m) He stated that activity of dredging will result in sinking of Vasco. He requested the Project Proponent to install an RO plant instead of dredging activity.n) He requested the MPT Officials to submit any permission for operating the Port. He requested the Project Proponent representatives to submit the full form and meaning of MPT. He requested the MPT Officials to give him replies to their queries.o) He stated that MPT is an institution. He objected to the MPT’s activity of leasing of Berths. He stated that Mormugao belongs to the Communidade. He stated that MPT is approaching the people for permission as NGT has refused permission. He requested the press present for the public hearing to report that MPT is a fraud. He sought to know the period of lease and the depth to which the Project Proponent would be dredged. He sought to know from the Project Proponent if they were aware of the foundation laid for their houses. He stated that continuous dredging of the channel will cause collapse of houses. He questioned the GSPCB Officials as to whether water pollution comes within the ambit of GSPCB. He questioned as to whether the GSPCB is aware of the amount of waste water is flown into the sea from gutters and action taken by the Board. He seeks a report from GSPCB on the STP at Vasco. He seeks to know who had given them permission to install the STP at Vasco. He questions as to whether the land on which the STP is on Government land. He states that the Government does not own any land in Vasco. He states that he needs to know how many years the government has leased land for MPT. He states that the present public hearing is being conducted by using force. He seeks certain records regarding the same from

10

GSPCB Officials. He states that the decision of the Board in holding 3 public hearings for one common project. He states that inspite of being government servants who are paid salary from public tax, the Government and Board Officials are not working for the public. He stated that the day any work is started in water near MPT, destruction will start of the Project Proponent.p) He stated that he fully opposes the activity of coal handling and dredging and will oppose the same if granted.

7. Puja Mitra, Parra.

a) She requested for permission to display a two minute presentation showcasing the varied marine life at Grande Island. She stated that she works in the field of marine conservation, specifically coral and dolphin conservation. She stated that marine biodiversity of Goa as shown in the video is being threatened by the proposed dredging activity of MPT. She states that the marine biodiversity faces severe threats by the project proponent and states that it is obvious that the biodiversity has to be conserved. EIA report states that Grande Island has a coral reef and the activity of dredging will cause mortality of coral reef. She states as follows;

b) Area near Grande Island is a coral reef as acknowledged by NIO that is under stress due to dumping of effluents and tourism and shipping. Corals are natural barriers to climate change, and support the breeding of fish. Activity of dredging will result in destruction of corals that are protected as Schedule 1 species of the Wildlife Protection Act 1972 . She records that coral reefs must be nurtured and protected and Project Proponents activity ofdredging cannot be allowed. 

c) EIA report states that dredgers are not a threat to marine life including dolphin and will not be serious,is a misled statement. She states that only a marine biologist canascertainthat dredging will not bea serious threat to dolphins and marine life. No opinion or views of such an expert has been obtained.

d) Dredging will result in huge impact on the tourism in the State. 

Hump back dolphin are protected as a Schedule 1 species under the Wildlife (P) Act of 1972 and have to be protected. 

e) Expansion of coal handling and or the deepening of channel should be rejected and steps should be taken with the view of making Goa a sustainable state with a green economy rather that investing in destructive industrial proceses.

f) EIA report states that Biodiversity profile of the area around the site is low. This is a false and a number of protected species as shown in the video are present in the waters around the site. Rare endangered and protected fish are present in the waters outside Goa. Dumping of sedimentary dredged material will also result in destruction of the environment. She states that an

11

expert study of the protected species is 10 Kms radius of the project site be done.

g) EIA report indicates that dredging will also immediately result in removal of Benthic species. She states that no study on the extent of destruction of Benthic species has been done.

h) The EIA report states that Dolphin are regularly cited at Dona Paula bay that is located 4.5 Km from the project site.The increased turbidity and noise levels may drive away these highly sensitive species. She states that this is unacceptable and Dolphins cannot be allowed to be driven away. Dolphin are a globally protected mammal and is a Schedule 1 protected species under the Wildlife Protection Act of India 1972 .The MoEF, has also given the status of ‘non-human persons’ to dolphins in India, which necessitates their protection.

i) This project has to be rejected as it will negatively impact this protected species.

j) EIA report states that significant impact will be felt on Marine ecology but such marine life will regenerate. She states that dredging activity will result in total destruction of the present marine ecology within the site and impact range and its unacceptable that such an activity should take place as it supports vital local livelihoods such as fisheries and tourism.As stated in the EIA report the marine ecology will not recover after dredging activity.

k) She says that she does not oppose progress but progress  cannot be at the cost of marine biodiversity and eco sensitivity.

l) She recommends that State of Goa restore degraded eco-sites ,switch to renewable energy and follow/adopt a green economy.

m) She states that the government should understand its people and questioned the installation of barricades at the public hearing venue .

n) She states that the public does not need to justify its demand for a clean environment.  She refers to the recovery section of the EIA report.  It states that the impact on the marine environment and its aftermath and due to dredging activity has not been assessed as there is no study that has been done on this subject.

o) She states that the Government should not have forced people to come for this public hearing   to demand a clean and pollution free environment since delivering a healthy environment for citizens to live is the governments responsibility and it should not be put upon the citizens to demand something that is their right. The project that so clearly impacts peoples health, economy and environment should not even be considered by the Government as it is the duty of the members of the Government, especially those in the Pollution Control Board to safeguard the rights of its citizens to a clean and healthy environment.

12

p) She seeks the opinion of the GSPCB on micro plastics is fish on the west coast.  She states that the Goa needs to develop a green economy and take step to ensure sustainable development.

8. Pascoal D’souza: Vasco

a) PASCOAL is a City Councillor of the Vasco Municipality, He stated that he is a citizen of Vasco and that the life of citizens of Vasco is destroyed.b) He stated that he was an employee of MPT. He stated that the port cannot do activity in the port without the approval of the fisherman. He states that traditional fisherman of Vasco are being harassed due to activity of coal handling and dredging by MPT. c) He stated that MPT has cheated fishermen and employees.d) He stated that only locals who reside in Vasco understand the suffering faced by the people of Vasco due to coal handling at MPT.e) He stated that due to coal handling there is large scale adverse health impacts on the people of Vasco.

9. Cyril Fernandes, Vasco, on behalf of Chicalim Villagers Action

Committeee

a) He stated that MPT is secondary as the local people of Vasco are primary. First right on Vasco is with the local fisherman. MPT seeks rights over Goan land and resources using central legislations. MPT was a Portuguese creation and only after liberation did MPT come under control of the Indian Government.b) He gave a power point presentation on the objections to MPT’s proposal for dredging.c) MPT started in 1888 with 3 berths (i.e. for 120 years) MPT has failed to disclose that a protected Fort exists behind MPT within its primary study area which was built much before Mormugao Port was constructed. He pointed out that the Fort is four hundred years old and a protected monument.d) He provided intricate details regarding the dates on which 11 more berths were added.e) He stated that MPT’s growth has not been towards seawards but has encroached into human habitation towards the Vasco City and Vasco fishing bay.f) MPT should study in detail and inform the public as to the impact of its growth on Goan environment, social fabric of the locals and the local biodiversity. He also states that even the GSPCB has failed to do any such study.g) He stated that MPT has expanded greatly over the years. He states that presently the MPT is outsourcing its berth to private companies. He calimed that this outsourcing is not benefiting Goa and Goans but private individuals.

13

h) He refers to a map/layout of MPT in 2006, in which the houses of locals have not been shown. This is done with a sinister motive to conceal information so that the EAC is kept in the dark to approve the project. He says this is an attempt to conceal facts that here is a huge population that resides all along the border of the port.i) He stated that MPT has not come willingly for the public hearing but they have been sent here by NGT.j) He stated that MPT has done 60% of dredging work without approval and now are seeking public hearing so as to get an EC now. He said that MPT has to be directed to revert the dredged area to its original condition and then asked to apply for EC by the MoEF.k) He submits that they should first restore the land back to its original state and then apply for an EC and be subjected to a public hearing thereafter.l) He stated that MPT has not disclosed the total quantity of inflammable fuel being brought into MPT and presently which is stored closed to the port.m) MPT initially handled 3 million tons per annum of coal and now handles 11 million tons per annum .Coal is a flammable commodity and should not be stored in proximity to flammable liquids. They now seek 400% increase in coal handling capacity. This is a threat to the people and environment of Vasco due to increased coal handling.n) They seek to handle 51 MMTA of coal now. He states that vis –a vis the State of Goa seeks to increase the mining cap from the present 20 MMTA to 40 MMTA after obtaining approval of the Supreme Court.o) He says in this scenario MPT will handle almost 40 MMTA of ore for exports. He further charged that alongwith proposed 51 MMTA of Coal, MPT would be handling over 100 MMTA of cargo yearly. He questioned if MPT has the capacity to handle such large cargo and what would be its effect on the environment. He said it is important to study the pollution carrying capacity of MPT, Vasco City and the Vasco bay in view of such large handling of Cargo.p) He stated that the government and MPT has to conduct a study to determine the total carrying capacity of the Port. He seeks a reply on this from the GSPCB. GSPCB official stated they have not studied this aspect about MPT’s operations till date.q) Trafficking of coal by MPT is increasing every year. MPT is seeking to expand west of break waters also, which is not disclosed in the present draft EIA report.r) He states that MPT plans to expand at Baina bay, Vasco bay and west of breakwaters. He stated that MPT is pursuing an unplanned growth beyond its capacity forcing the local fishermen and Vasco citizens towards forced eviction. The social impact of MPT’S unscientific growth would lead to displacement of the indigenous fishing community of Vasco Bay and Baina Bay s) He stated that MPT plans to re-locate the fishing fleet from Vasco bay and in Baina bay they seek to shift the traditional fishermen. He states that

14

people of Goa should not be directed to shift for MPT, rather MPT should shift out. He requested MPT to transfer the coal handling activity to the proposed port at Jaigad.t) He stated Goa is a top tourist destination. With regard to socio economic benefits, MPT states that there will be minimum economical benefits for Goa. In other words it means that it is only going to benefit the corporate, he claimed. u) He states that the health of Vasco locals should not be taken for a ride for the benefit of a handful of corporates.v) He stated that MPT has a hidden agenda for Vasco Bay. w) He stated that now MPT plans to shift the coal towards the Hindu cemetery side (east of the vasco bay).x) He stated that with the support of local politicians and the central Government, MPT continues to act high handedly.y) He further stated that as on date MMC has banned MPT from transporting coal in the city and sought why such resolutions are not enforced. He further sought to know from MPT, how they will overcome such restrictions imposed by Mormugao Municipal Council on the movement of Coal through the City?z) He stated that the EIA report does not state that Chicalim bay exist in the study area. Similarly existence of corals at Grande Island is also not mentioned in EIA.aa) He objected to the role of the MPT consultant Dr. Varde for not vetting the EIA report, nor for giving them the proper inputs. bb) He objected to the fact that GSPCB is unaware of the Biodiversity of the area at the subject site. He objected to GSPCB feigning ignorance on existence of corals within 7kms of project site.cc) He stated that Chicalim bay and Biodiversity existing there is a gift of Nature. He says PP has intentionally not mentioned the Chicalim bay in the EIA report. Chicalim Bay is a womb of marine Biodiversity falling within 5 kms of study area . It is a natural breeding ground for the window pane oysters (Placuna Placenta) and other endangered species. He said Window pane oysters are protected species under schedule IV of the endangered list of the wildlife Protection Act.dd) He requested the GSPCB to ensure that Chicalim bay’s Biodiversity is protected. He pointed out the Goa State Biodiversity Board has marked Chicalim Bay as ecologically fragile marine site.ee) He demands that this resource be protected.ff) He also explains the different types of window pane oysters in Chicalim bay breed in natural circumstances. It is a natural breeding ground gg) He also demanded to know why WAPCOS and MPT did not approach NIO for details regarding Chicalim bay.hh) He refers to the study by Dr. Baban Ingale from NIO. In addition to the window pane oysters there are a number of other marine life, including clams which are harvested by people and is a source of income for over 300 families. The PPT showed videos of Dr. Baban Ingole, Scientist of NIO

15

explaining the rich Heritage of Chicalim Bay in providing livelihood to local tribal and traditional fishermen .Further, Chicalim Bay is part of food chain of entire human population of Goa, he statedii) Chicalim has the oldest megalithic caves. Its human footprint dates back to 15,00 years and before. He showed pottery pieces found in the chicalim caves which are now on display at Goa’s State Museum at Panaji. It is important part of Goa’s heritage, however information on Chicalim village and its heritage sites and the Chicalim bay have been conclealed in the EIA report.jj) EIA also makes no mention of birds and insect species located in the study area. He showed slides of birds and insects documented by the local villagers of Chicalim.kk) The EIA report makes no mentions of the flora of Chicalim and the effects of the proposed project on them. He said that merely because the animals and birds cannot speak, does it qualify us humans to murder them, he questioned.ll) The EIA report has not been done as per the EIA notification and study areas should have been 15kms. There are tribal who lives in this area. The EIA report is silent on the social impact of the dredging project on the tribals.mm) He stated that the GSPCB should have a study on the effect of MPT’s proposed dredging project on the marine life. The EIA report is silent on this aspect.nn) The proposed project has a direct impact on the world heritage sites of Old Goa that is located within 15kms of the project site, the EIA report is silent on this aspect. The MPT’s proposed project will adversely affect this heritage structure.oo) The MPT has also not mentioned the 150 years old Anglican Church that is located within the boundary of MPT in the EIA report. pp) It has also failed to mention the fort located within its vicinity and the school that it has set up. This is required to be stated in the EIA notification.qq) It has also not mentioned about the close location of defence establishments, Goa airport, schools, hospitals and religious places.rr) He informed that Dr. Antonio Mascarenhas (who is a Scientist of repute) and member of the GCZMA has stated that Vasco bay has suffered from erosion and a detail impact study to avoid further erosion is necessary. ss) He stated that in the event that MPT goes ahead with the dredging project then the remaining shore fo the Vasco bay will collapse including the Zuari Bridge which is just 10 kms away from the project site. tt) He stated that all the beaches from Colva to Calangute come under the study area but are not mentioned in the EIA report by MPT and the project will have adverse impact both on tourism as well as fishing activity in the study area.uu) MPT has not mentioned the housing facility for the officers that are located in the immediate proximity of the project site in violation of EIA guidelines.

16

vv) MPT has failed to state the location of oil and naphtha tanks in the close proximity to the project site. They have also failed to mention the location of large ammonia tanks of 5000 tonnes within 50 meters from their coal stack that are flammable.ww) He requested the chairman who is also member secretary of south Goa disaster management committee as to how locals will be evacuated in the event of fire and sought to know if there has been any mock drill carried out in the past. The Chairman answered in the negative.xx) The EIA report is silent on the social impact of the proposed project on the indigenous tribals as 10% of the project affected area constitutes ST population. The project would have adverse impact on the traditional occupations of these tribal population, he said. yy) The EIA report does not disclose the large clusters of densely populated areas located in close proximity of the project site, that is more than 50,000 inhabitants. This population inhabits within 500 mts to 1 km of project area.zz) He stated that all 3 projects that are scheduled for public hearing are actual one cumulative project. The MPT has intentionally sliced the project into three in order to escape stringent environmental scrutiny. He placed the Business plan of MPT, prepared by Ernest & Young which proposes a host of development and increase in Berths. That MPT is implementing its growth as earmarked by Halcrow /Ernst & Young 2007 report. He further pointed out two other projects are interlinked. The interlinked projects are the double tracking of rail line from Hospet to Vasco by Indian Railways and the widening and four laning of Goa’s Highways. He pointed out that this double tracking is taking place within National Reserve Forest Areas. He pointed out that the second interlinked project is the road widening and four laning if highways NH-4A, NH-17and NH-17B which is being financed by the Central Govt through the National Highways Authorities .He demanded that impact of this two activities should be also taken into consideration and a cumulative impact must be studied and identified .aaa) EIA report states only 2 Lakh people are affected. If the study was done in 15km radius as required, the total population affected would have been 4.5 Lakhs reaching as far as Ponda, Cuncolim, Calangute etc.bbb) In 2007 High court directed NEERI to do a study on coal pollution. The MPT has still not complied with the NEERI directions to construct a closed dome to store coal.ccc) A directive in this regards was issued by the GSPCB in 2010. These have not been complied with by MPT till date. ddd) He requested the Board to submit the records of all notices issued by GSPCB till date.eee) The Board in 2011 issued a further direction to ensure construction of a close shed and to ensure mechanization of coal handling at berth no. 11fff) He requested the Board to ensure that non compliances to the Boards directions be brought to the notice of EAC.

17

ggg) He stated that Vasco is sitting on a ticking time bomb on account of close proximity of petroleum, ammonia tanks, phosphoric acid and naphtha tanks and the EIA report is also silent on this subjects.hhh) He questioned the carrying capacity of MPT to keep on enhancing its coal handling activity and also sought to know the pollution level index.iii) He stated that the project proponent has admitted in the EIA report that handling of coal is a fire hazard but does not list out a disaster management plan. This is a serious matter in view of 1,70,000 KL of Petroleum products stored in the vicinity or border of the port area.jjj) He demands that the author of the EIA report should be arrested for submitting false EIA report and putting lives of people of Vasco in danger.kkk) He requested that fraudulent EIA report should be rejected.lll) EIA report has deviated from the EIA manual on Ports and harbours. Baseline data is faulty and hence it has deliberately covered up to give im proper details.mmm) A fresh comprehensive EIA report has to be prepared by a reputed organization with multi –disciplinary experts .nnn) He requested a detailed carrying capacity study to be done of MPT.ooo) He stated that the application for EC for the proposed project of the MPT for Deepening and dredging should be set aside.ppp) He handed over a CD and hardcopy of the PowerPoint presentation made by him. He appreciated the chairman decision to permit him to give a power point presentation at today’s public hearing and pleaded that marine life is not created in just a period of one day or two but is a process of various millennium and any change in the land mass beneath the sea is going to be destroyed and with massive mechanised movement coupled with the handling of hazardous cargo it is going to change the demography of marine life.

10. Rupesh Shinkrea) He questioned the MPT Officials as to whether the MPT still seeks to go ahead with the dredging project after hearing the views of the public.b) He stated that MPT claims that the dredging activity is being undertaken in larger public interest. This is stated in the EIA report.c) He seeks to know how the public interest is involved. d) He stated that this project is not being done in public interest but in contrast of private corporate interest.e) He stated that the MPT has carried out over 60% of the work without permissions. He claims that MPT is now in process of obtaining post facto approval. He seeks to know what legal action has been taken against MPT for its act of undertaking work without permission.

18

f) He stated that all 3 projects including double railway tracking is one plan to destroy Goa. He questioned as to whether any study has been done on capital dredging and maintenance dredging done by MPT and GSPCB. g) MPT stated that such studies have been done and when the initial dredging was done the Environment Clearance was in vague. h) MPT representative states that the study is done after the NGT order and was even done in the past. i) He stated that there will be a serious impact on the marine life when it is dredged from one spot and dumped in a dumping spot 14 Kms away.j) He stated that dredging that has been done in river Sal had adverse impact on the marine life and has not been effective.k) He disagrees with the submission of MPT that turbidity of the water will not be material.l) He asked the MPT as to whether any study has been carried out on the impact of dredging on fish catch, including capital and maintenance dredging done by MPT. He states that this dredging has drastically affected the fish catch in the area.m) He stated that the MPT will never be able to obtain the emission as the local people of Vasco will always agitate.n) He requested MPT to give up its idea to dredge the channel and think about Goan centric development.

11. Savio Correia,Mangor Hill, Vasco –Da –Gama

a) He stated that the EIA study is a mockery of additional TOR prescribed

by Hon’ble EAC. The additional TOR has not been properly incorporated in

the EIA study.

b) He stated that it specifies a separate chapter on status of compliance of

environmental conditions. However, what appears in the draft EIA report is

a single paragraph numbered under 1.10 at page 1-13. The para only makes

reference to PP’S letter to MoEF&CC dated 17.10.2016,. However, this

letter is limited only to the capital dredging project. A plain reading of the

additional TOR would indicate that EAC wanted a certified report of

Regional office, MoEF&CC on status of compliance of conditions on all

19

operations at the existing port to be provided in the EIA report, as per

MoEF&CC circular dated 30.05.2012.

(c) He stated that the PP is required to submit copy of layout superimposed

on HTL/LTL map demarcated by an authorized agency. Under a table titled

“ToR Compliance’’1, the reply given is “Enclosed as Annexure-V’’.

However the soft copy of draft EIA report available on GSPCB website does

not contain so-called “Annexure-V”. “Annexure–IV’’ (Containing copy of

MPT letter dated 18.10.2016) is followed by “Annexure-VI” on ambient

noise standards. The very same ambient noise standards are referred to at

“Annexure V” (kindly see page 3-12 of draft EIA report). This is again

repeated at page 3-14. There is a clear attempt to confuse the public and

suppress a material environmental fact.

d) Mr Correia sought to know regarding recommendation of GCZMA. The

MPT Representative stated that the GCZMA has been approached for fresh

recommendations.

e) Mr Correia also sought to know regarding marine bio diversity impact

report and management plan shall deal with all micro, macro and mega

biotic components and ecology within the area of influence and should be

drawn up through the National Institute of Oceanography or any other

institution specializing in marine ecology. The reply given in TOR

Compliance 2 is covered in chapter 5 & 6. Turning to chapter 5, it is titled ‘’

Mitigating Measures ‘’; while Chapter 6 is titled ‘’ Marine Environmental

Management Plan’’. Both chapters do not contain a whisper of any studies

having been drawn up by National Institute Of Oceanography or any other

institution specialising in marine ecology. The only conclusion one can draw

from the contents of chapters 5 & 6 is that the EIA consultant WAPCOS Ltd

have considered themselves as a self-proclaimed institution specializing in

marine ecology and done the study themselves.

f) He questioned regarding study of impact on study of shoreline. The reply

given is “Covered in section-4.15 of chapter 4’’. The very first line of

section 4.15 speaks of an “interim report’’ based on first three months

studies done by CSIR-NIO Goa during September 2016. It is therefore clear

that the studies are still underway and have not been concluded. Even this

so-called interim report has found coastal erosion/accretion. There are

20

factual contradictions in the latter part of the first paragraph at page 4-11 of

draft EIA report.

g) Mr Correia questioned why PP was in a hurry to get EC for ledging

projects. Regarding action plan for dispersal of dredged soil and rocks. The

reply given is ‘’Covered in Section 2.7.4 of chapter -2’’. However, it is

noted that Section 2.7.4 speaks only of methodology of dredging work and

dredging of rocks. There is not a shadow of reference to dispersal of dredged

rocks. As regards dispersal of dredged soil, no alternatives such as use of

dredged material for beach nourishment or as use for construction purposes

has been considered.

h) Is regarding “Disaster Management Plan’’ .The reply given is ‘’Covered

Chapter 7’’. However, it is hilarious to note that the PP has prepared a

disaster management plan with respect to a “Multipurpose Cargo Terminal.

Kindly see page 7-3 of draft EIA report. In chapter 7 of draft EIA report,

there is no reference at all to the project placed for public consultation i.e.

deepening of approach channel. Mr Correia submits that on this point itself,

the entire so-called ‘Disaster Management Plan’ in the draft EIA report is a

disaster and has no credibility at all.

i) Mr Correia Regarding status of court case pending against the project. The

reply given in “Annexure-VII’’ is ‘’Covered in Section 1.9 of Chapter I’’.

However, in the said Section 1.9, the PP has concealed its appeal filed and

pending in the Supreme Court of India against judgment of Hon’ble National

Green Tribunal and registered as Civil Appeal no.9955/2016. The case is

due to come up next in July 2017.

j) Induction of sudden morphological changes that will be caused by capital

dredges and it’s consequences have not been considered .He Cited the report

of Dr Antonio Mascarenhas given to GCZMA with respect to the capital

dredging project on this aspects.

k) Sustainable use of dredged material has not been considered Mr Correia

stated the use of dredge material for beach nourishment and construction

sand ought to have been considered in EIA studies .Otherwise this precious

resource will be lost forever.

21

l) He concluded by describing the EIA study as a farce and done in a hurry

to complete the dredging project. Mr. Correia stated that the dredging project

was proposed to enable navigation of coal laden capsize vessel and strongly

opposed turning Goa into a coal Hub and coal corridor.

11. Jose Philip D’Souza.

a) At today’s public hearing, traditional fishermen have come and placed their fears over the effect of the proposed project by MPT i.e. dredging will have on their livelihood.b) The MPT Officials have no answer to the queries of the public.c) The Public hearing should be called off on this ground alone. MPT is a fraud. MPT supports only those who are in power at the Centre.d) Joseph Silveira of MPT tried to influence voters before election on proposed plans for Khariwada by doing out housing schemes, I have personally filed a police complaint against the housing scheme and till today no action has been done.e) Nitin Gadkarni inaugurated an illegal dredging activity. Project was started without permissions. It is an attempt to bring fear against voters, the dreging was stared just before the elections to influence the voters.f) If dredging takes place, then Khariwada fishermen will be displaced.g) How could MPT complete 60% dredging without permission?h) MPT’s plan is to remove all inhabitants of Vasco by doing the dredging.i) All MPT projects are for its own profit and corporate profits. No projects are done for people benefits.j) Vasco was clean and pure before MPT started its activity.k) The local MLA is dividing Khariwadal) Plans of MPT are all for private companies.m) All profits are made by private companies.n) He is sure that the Chairman of the public hearing will give a correct report as he is unbiased and is a Goan.o) Khariwada has to be saved.p) Who has permitted MPT to dump their scrapped vessels at Khariwada.q) MPT must take local residents into confidence before it carries out its projects.r) The local MLA and the Chief of Mormugao Municipal Council is not at the meeting but are abroad.s) He stated that he will never let Khariwada to suffer.t) People of Vasco will not hesitate to come on the street and agitate if MPT goes ahead with the dredging project.u) He fully opposes the proposal for dredging the channel by MPT.v) He stated that MPT has illegally done 60% dredging and if it continues then locals from Khariwada will agitate.

22

12. Krishana Salkar.

a) He strongly opposed the plan of MPT to dredge the channel. b) He stated that the people of Vasco have effectively protested against the plan for dredging the channel.c) He requested the Chairman to convey the sentiments of the public to the EAC and to ensure that coal handling is stopped and the dredging does not take place d) He requested the government officials to support Vasco locals and guide them.e) He stated that his young daughter is suffering of asthmatic cold. He says this has happened due to coal pollution in Vasco. Almost all children in Vasco are suffering from health problems due to coal pollution. He stated that as he was proceeding to a hill station in the north, he asket the doctor if he would need to take the portable nebulizer, the doctor advised that it was not required, as there was no coal pollution in the North like Vasco, he therefore on vacation he did not use the nebulizer, but upon reaching back to Vasco, the little girl was effected immediately in two days time. Most of the children upon visiting the paedtricians are advised to use nebulizers, because of the pollution levels.f) In the interest of Vascocars and all the Goans, please stop this coal handling.g) He stated that the coal only benefits two or three corporate industralists and not local people.h) He appreciates the efforts of people who have come from out to Vasco to help, guide and educate the public for this public hearing. i) He said that after listening to all the Techincal expersts opinions , in respect to the ill effects of coal pollution, and if this exercise against coal pollution, does not materalize in our favour, then we have a backup plan, and we would be forced to bring all the Goan people on the streets to agitate against the same.

13. Dinesh Dias :a) Shri Dias raised the issue of discrepancy in the length of the extension of channel mentioned in the Form I; Executive Summary and the EIA for proposed deepening and extension of channel at MPT for capsize vessels. It is mentioned that the extension length of channel is 4.8 Kms, 3.8 Kms and 3.5 Kms respectively. b) He questioned MPT officials as to which of these is correct length of extension of existing of channel. c) He also questioned as to why there are two different contracts for capital dredging of MPT channel and proposed dredging in the re-development of berth 8 and 9. d) The MPT Executive Engineer Mr. Ambe informed that the mode of contracts are different and hence both projects involving dredging are considered separately.

23

e) He informed that in the Form I at para 2.1 they have stated that for deepening of channel the project does not have any interlinked projects.f) Further Shri. Dias brought to the attention that Form No.1 at point 10 total capital dredging quantity is mentioned as 15 million meter cube whereas EIA report at page 5.1 and 5.2 the quantity of dredging is 7 million meter cube. He wanted to know correct quantity of dredging proposed by MPT. g) Shri. Ambe from MPT clarified that the total quantity of dredging is 15 million meter cube and 60% of the work has already been completed and balance of dredging is quantity 7 million meter cube.h) Shri. Dinesh Dias pointed out that in the affidavit filed before the Hon.ble Supreme Court, MPT has stated that 64% of the work is completed whereas in the EIA report has said 55% of the dredging work is completed. He questioned the MPT as to which figures are correct. i) Shri. Ambe from MPT clarified that pursuant to the filing of the affidavit before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, siltation has taken place hence during the finalizing of EIA the quantum of work completed has been mentioned 55%.j) Shri. Dinesh Dias pointed out various discrepancies in Form I which includes point no. 9.4 with regards to cumulative effect due to proximity to other existing or planned projects.k) He submitted that the project berth no. 8 and 9 also involves capital dredging. Also capital dredging is also to facilitate the expansions of berth no.5A and berth no. 6A and should have been included in Form I as they are interlinked as can be seen from the EIA report of expansion of berth 5 & 6A, deepening of approach channel and Inner Basin for Capsize Vessels and re-development of berth No.8, 9 and barge berths at the port of Mormugao.l) Shri. Dinesh Dias also pointed discrepancies in the information provided at (III) Environmental Sensitivity point 9 the details of important or sensitive areas is incomplete as some of the sensitive areas like Chicalim and Sancoale bay, megalithic caves at Chicalim and Sancoale are not taken up. At III(7) all defence installation such as naval armament depot, naval airport at Dabolim have not been mentioned at the point III(8) at Form I the detail of the densely populated built up area is also incorrect as population of Vasco-da-gama, Panaji, Taleigao, Sacoale, Chicalim etc. has not been considered.m) With regard to information provide at III(9). Dinesh Dias stated that the information is incomplete and the details of hospitals, schools, places of worship, community facility like GMC hospital, hospitals in Panaji and Vasco, Colleges schools in Panaji & Vasco, Sancoale etc are not included. Similarly information at III(10) The tourist places such as Calangute, Candolim, Miramar, Caranzalem, Dona Paula etc are not included. The fishing locations at Khariwada, Baina, Chicalim bay etc have not been included. As regards to information provided III(11) states that there are no area subjected to environmental pollution or where existing legal environmental standards are exceeded is also false. As GSPCB has been

24

continuously issuing directions to MPT due to the fact that ambient air standards are continuously exceeding standards.n) With regard to information at III(12) the landslides at Sada, Desterro etc have not been included.o) Shri Ambe EE representing MPT stated that he stands by the information provided by MPT in Form I to be correct.p) Shri Dinesh Dias read the contents of the undertaking given in Form I by the Project Proponent and which specifically states that if the information is proved incorrect or misleading than the Project and clearances will be revoked and therefore demanded that the clearances be revoked.q) Shri. Dinesh Dias pointed out at para No 3.6 in the terms of reference issued by MOEF on 10th October, where in a marine biodiversity impact assessment report had to be carried out and he sought to know which Institute has carried out this study. r) Shri Ambe of MPT clarified that the said study had been carried out through National Institute of Oceanography Goa. s) Mr Dias asked as to why acknowledgment to this effect and content of the said study are not provided in the EIA report.t) Shri Ambe clarified that the report through NIO was commissioned after the judgment issued by the Hon’ble NGT & report was received in the month of December 2016 and hence it is not included in EIA report. Similarly the shoreline change report by NIO was also received in December 2016 and not part of the EIA report.u) Shri Dinesh Dias expressed that the study by NIO should have been put into public domain and made available for scrutiny during the public hearing.

14. Custodio D’souza, Vasco

a) He is the chairman of the Old Cross Fishermen Society and b) Goa against coal Convenor.c) He stated that he got a chance to speak at todays public hearing after almost two days. He said that todays public hearing is being held only because the traditional fishermen who went to the NGT, otherwise the eyes of the Collector and the GSPCB were closed. He says that MPT has illegally completed 60% of dredging activity without permission.d) He stated that MPT has raped the waters of the sea.e) He requested the GSPCB to state what action it has taken on MPT and if not he requests that action should be taken immediately and to submit the report tomorrow.f) GSPCB official states that the matter is before Supreme Court however, Custodio states that the matter is not before the Supreme Court but before the NGT.g) He said MPT must remediate the area by bringing back and replace all the material removed during dredging activity. He demands to know when this will be done from MPT and GSPCB.

25

h) He stated that the case before the NGT has been won due to hard efforts of the fishermen. GSPCB official states that he will not be in a position to state when the dredged material will be recovered. i) MPT official states that the matter is sub-judice before the Supreme Court and NGT.j) He stated that surveyor had come to Khariwada to do a survey for new fishing jetty at Khariwada. MPT official stated that no MPT official had come to Khariwada. He states that when they obtained a stay against the MPT’s dredging activity the local MLA began calling them. It was then that the MLA realised that traditional fishermen exists at Khariwada. The local MLA asked the local fishermen’s what their demand was. He stated that the demand was that Khariwada be declared as a fishing village. The demand has not been met. k) He stated that Fr. Bismarque had led an agitation with them in 2011.l) He stated that his demand is that the area that is dredged by 60% has to be restored.m) He stated that by dredging the channel, houses of fishermen have collapsed. He states that Nitin Gadkari came from Delhi that because a case was filed in NGT a loss of 150 to 250 crore was caused. He states that the money is of the people.n) He stated Nitin Gadkari is not sure of how much loss is caused i.e. 150 crore or 250 crore and it appears that 100 crores has been looted by someone. o) He stated that due to the illegal 60% dredging, a huge loss is caused to the fishermen. He states that fishermen may not be scientist but they have knowledge. MPT dredging have destroyed fishermen net. He states that he has filed a complaint in this regards. He requests MPT officials to inform him about the status of his complaint. He states that the Captain of the dredger abused him and said he cannot put his net in that area. He states that MPT should put signboards in these areas. He had sustained loss of Rs. 70,000/- due to the tearing of net.

p) He stated that directorate of fisheries has written a letter to the fishermen stating that they cannot put nets in the channel.q) He stated that he had put his net outside the channel, in spite of that the dredger captain destroyed the net and caused him loss of 70,000/- and also abused him.r) He stated that dredging of 60% done illegally by MPT has caused reduction in catch.s) He stated that he and Old Cross Society with 108 members with 5 family members each strongly object to dredging of channel by MPT.t) He said the Baina Raponkars also had the same demand. He further demands that the illegal dredging of 60% be restored immediately. This demand is not only of Vasco fishermen but of entire Goans.

26

15. Sabina Martins : Goa Bachao Abhiyan and Bailacho Saad (NOT

CORRECTED)

a) She submitted preliminary objection as they do not have all the date b) She requested more time to take detailed presentationc) She stated that all three projects scheduled for Public Hearing should be taken up together.d) She stated that each department was directed to submit land use requirement, but individual land is requirement exceeds cumulative land availability. Hence she demands that all 3 projects be heard together.e) She stated that EIA report states that part of the project is on land use side and hence has to reflect on development plan. Development plan can be finalized only with peoples participation. This project cannot be approved unless it gets approval from people of Vasco.f) She stated that breeding grounds of fish will be destroyed by dredging and will affect local fisherman.g) She stated that Fisherman interest should overrule individual corporate interest.h) She is concerned about eco sensitive zones of Goa. Coal pollution that is taking place and which will increase if projects are approved will destroy Goa of the Green Cover and quality of air will be destroyed.i) State Government is committed to conserve eco sensitive zones of Goa around the port area.j) She demanded that eco-sensitive zones be notified and all coal projects should stop.k) Respiratory disorders, gasping, cough asthmatic effect are caused due to coal pollution. l) Report should reflect the health effects of coal pollution.m) India is a signatory to climate change agreement to increase renewable fuels over fossil fuel.n) Promoters of coal based energy is a bad policy.o) Polluting material should not be imported in Goa and GBA demands that the government adopt clear energy.p) GBA also demands that GSPCB stop the dredging and acts against coal pollution.q) GBA places its preliminary objections on the EIA report and request for more time to place its objection

27

on receipt of all data. She requested the GSPCB not to grant its consent to the project proponent.r) GBA supports the local Vasco residents in their struggle against coal pollution.s) On behalf of Bailacho Saad she states that dredging will cause adverse impact on fish catch which will affect the source of livelihood of fisherman.t) The project will also divide communities and will destroy community.u) She states that coal transportation cause health problem like asthma cough etc.v) Health of women and children will be affected due to coal pollution and will cut into financial crisis of laymen. w) Settling of black particulate matter on houses will increase workload of women and will affect their quality of life.x) Bailacho Saad request for more time for submitting objection after assessing documents.y) It will affect her as she lives in Panaji and coal pollution will travel to Panaji.z) She is a victim of carbon pollutionaa) She has done a thesis on carbon pollution. She states that while handling carbon she was exposed to carbon pollution leading to health hazard to her. The health hazards caused to her creates hardship in her daily life and personal health.bb) She has to pay huge medical bills.cc) She stated that man handling of coal will cause respiratory problem to the people of the State.dd) She stated that stacking of ore can cause a serious fire hazard.ee) Lechate after spraying of water on coal stacks is polluting.ff) Dredging will lead to destruction of resource of fishgg) At an international conference organized by NEERI after the Paris convention all Central Minister present pledged to shift over to renewable energy from fossil fuels.hh) Importing of coal by MPT goes against the State Government policy.ii) Goa has plenty of scope for solar energyjj) GSPCB should take cognisance of objection to dredging and expansion of coal handling operation.

16. Avinash Taveres, Fatorda a) He questioned the PP what material is dredged, only silt and clay or

anything else. The PP stated that only silt and clay. Avinash stated that a

tender document floated for maintenance dredging in 2016 stated that slit,

28

clay, concrete blocks, chains, anchors, wires etc has to be dredged by the

Contractor. He questioned why the PP has not mentioned this in the EIA

document?

b) He also questioned MPT if they had submitted bathymetry charts

along with the EIA. MPT said no. He stated that the tender documents

showed that bathymetry charts were submitted for maintenance dredging. He

questioned why MPT did not submit bathymetry charts when they had

prepared the charts for maintenance dredging. MPT responded by saying

that those charts were prepared by maintenance.

c) He questioned the PP if there are any other planned projects by the

MPT other than the three projects for which Public Hearing is ongoing.

d) The PP replied that these are the only planned projects.

e) Avinash stated that there is a tender floated whose closing date is

16/6/17 at 160Crores titled Development of Liquid Bulk Cargo Berth at

Vasco Bay on PPP model. He asked whether this is a planned project in the

pipeline? The PP said yes.

f) He read the RFQ document and said it is stated that the channel will

be deepened to 19.5 meters to accommodate Capesize vessels. With the

handing of Berth No 8 to PPP operator, it is become necessary to construct a

separate bulk cargo berth. For this purpose the Vasco bay has been

identified. The existing liquid bulk cargo that is handled at berth No 8 and

the balance that is handled at 10 and 11, all this cargo will be shifted to the

new berth at vasco bay. Presently the total liquid bulk cargo handled by

MPT is 1 million tons per annum. The PPP will also be handling LPG at this

berth.

g) He stated that this project should have been stated in Form 1 of all

three projects for which hearing is ongoing. This project will add another

level of threat. He further stated that this berth requires capital dredging,

constructing of berth 280 meters long so as to handle 2 million tons per

annum.

h) The PP stated that the EIA report for dredging was prepared 8 months

before the RFQ for liquid berth. The Objected stated that he asked this

question in the beginning of this conversation and he had answered no. He

informed the chairman that the PP lied in this hearing and that EAC should

take serious note of this. He that MPT tried to hide this project from the

29

public and that MPT, if at all they want to go ahead with this project, has to

be in toto and not in piece meal.

17. Abhijit Prahudessai1) He questioned if MPT had a copy of report prepared by the working group

for port sector for the 12th five year plan, to which MPT replied in the negative. He quoted from chapter 15 of this report regarding port cities, stating that these cities have conflicts with ports due to dirty and hazardous cargoes. The Government has taken a decision in 2011 to keep coal, naphtha, ammonia and petroleum away from the cities. The Government had also asked port trusts to make action plans to move the dirty and hazardous cargoes away from cities. He asked if any plan was made to shift these products to inhabitant place to which they answered in the negative. Then he questioned them as to why, to which they didn’t answer. He demanded that MPT should take all dirty and hazardous cargoes out of Vasco. He asked why the project was being considered in view of the recommendations of the expert group on port sector. He stated that ports like Chennai, Mumbai, Kolkata have already been moving hazardous material out of cities. He also stated that MPT lied in their Form 1 saying Vasco city is 5 kms away from MPT.He asked if the entire project was in accordance with the twelfth five year plan, which MPT denied saying that the projects are interlinked. He read their own report, which states that the dredging was proposed for accommodating cape size vessels, which will be handling coal as their cargo.

2) Union Minister for coal stated that in the national coal policy that there should be no imports of coal. The speaker stated that PP should comply with national policies. PP is not aware of national policy for coal. He also stated that this project is against the national policy for coal.

3) Further the PP when asked about reducing green house effects which is signed by prime minister, the PP said that they won’t answer anything regarding it. The speaker also stated that this project is against the policy for reducing green house effects. He stated that this project is against the India’s Nationally Determined Contribution to reducing greenhouse gases.

4) He further questioned if the Mormugao Municipality was approached prior to considering this project. He stated that it was the constitutional mandate after the 74th amendment to go the local authority for public participation before taking this decision to consider the present project. The present study could not have been carried out without obtaining the approval of the local population and authorities.

5) He further claimed that his mother died of lung cancer which she got from the flying dust of coal from railways, as they were staying few meters away from the railway lines.

6) He stated that the PP doesn’t consider about the impact of the increased transportation upon people living in coal corridor, neither there is anything mentioned in the EIA regarding the transportation of coal.

30

7) He further asked if they know of the EIA Guidance Manual, to which it was replied that they have no clue about the guidance manual. He stated that PP has not referred to this guidance manual and does not even know of its existence. He has totally failed to comply with the important directions given in this manual making this study incomplete. For example, proponent has not furnished any layouts in their EIA report regarding the rail and road facility as required under paragraph 2.8 of the Manual. He stated that he had raised all issues related to the Guidance Manual in the first Public Hearing for berths 5A and 6A but none of the points were noted in the draft minutes.

8) The expert consultant said in their reply that they do not know the EIA guidance manual and that they will address all the concerns raised by persons in the EIA report.

9) The PP said that he won’t reply anything on the guidance manual. The PP further stated that the guidance manual is for observation and suggestion only and not for any legal, whereupon the speaker stated that guidance manual is the most important document while preparing the EIA study.

10) He further read from the manual the recommendations given in paragraph 4.2.2 relating to topography such as studies of the land, terrain, coastal and inland topography, coastal features, terrain features, slopes and elevations, study of land use patterns, vegetation, cropping pattern, forest cover, environmentally sensitive areas and contour maps. He asked a question if they had taken this into account. On that the PP replied that they need not answer all questions related to the manual as he had made a generalized answer earlier.

11) He asked PP to shown him base line study on rock texture, rock type, rock structure, geology study, and geophysical conditions in their EIA report, as nothing whatsoever was mention in the EIA report. The PP replied saying all comments are noted and will be given an answer at proper stage. The speaker said that without proper baseline geology study, the impact of dredging on environment cannot be assessed.

12) He asked if the geotechnical quality of the soil is done as required by the manual. To which the PP said that they are sticking with draft report, and whatever suggestion made will be incorporated. He asked if they had done geotechnical quality of soil 10 mts below the proposed dredged depth of the proposed dredging site? There was no satisfactory answer from PP.

13) He asked if PP is aware of ‘designated best use’ of water resources in your EIA report? There was no reply. He explained that paragraph 4.3 of the Manual relates to water environment and provides water quality standards and classification for coastal waters. He stated that the highest water quality is designated for shell fishing and ecologically sensitive areas. He further asked if they know any activity of shell fish in their study area? To which they answered yes, and any suggestion will be incorporated. He then asked why they haven’t mentioned in the report. He asked how is the report prepared without considering the large shelf fishing grounds at Sancoale, Chicalim, etc adjoining the project site and asked further if they intended to

31

do the studies now after the report is prepared? The PP replied by saying they will prepare a final report.

14) He stated that the manual states that capital dredging may cause changes to current pattern, littoral drift, change in currents leading to erosion or accretion on shoreline, changes in river flow and water front drainage. A study on likely impact on littoral drift and sediment transport must be taken up through modeling as per the manual. He asked if the modeling study was done to check this? To which the PP answered in the negative. In fact, the PP mentioned it is not in the EIA report as it is a completely different study. He read section 3.7 and other sections of the EIA report to show that there were no such studies done. He asked why the fact that the project was in an estuary was not mentioned in the report.

15) ). He questioned whether the EIA Consultant possessed NABET Accreditation for carrying out studies of Ports and Harbours at the time the study was started. He asked that document showing said validity be placed on record and shown to the people.

16) He asked that copies of the reports listed on Page 1-10 of the EIA Report be made available to the Public since they were essential part of this study. He pointed out to the Feasibility Study carried out earlier by the same consultant and asked whether it would not be a conflict of interest for them to carry out the EIA study now, because they would be biased.

17) He stated that signatures are scanned and pasted in the list of experts in Chapter 10. This is not the procedure to be followed. Signatures have to be signed in person. He also pointed out that one of the experts. Mr A S Leo, was listed as an ecology and biodiversity expert in the present report and as an air pollution expert in the report for redevelopment of berths 8 and 9.

18) He pointed out that the Report does not list any experts in geology, marine hydrology, hydrogeology, though such expertise is the basic need of dredging report. He asked how the study could be carried out without these basic experts.

19) The proponent and consultant could not explain how the report was prepared without necessary experts. When they didn’t reply to his questions, he objected saying that without answering the first question, they are restricting him from asking the next question, as it is based on the first question’s answer, thus violating proceedings of public hearing.

20) He pointed out the inadequacy of the biological experts, since there were diverse fields from marine ecology to terrestrial flora and fauna. He stated that baseline data in the Report states that there are 33 birds, but over 50-70 birds can be seen by ordinary amateur in half a day, revealing that biological experts were not adequate.

21) He stated that the Form I submitted for the TOR is full of falsehoods. Sr. No. 19 of Form I states that nearest town Vasco is 5 kms away, but on the contrary, the MPT is within the Town of Vasco. Due to this concealment, the TOR are highly inadequate. Intentional concealment of this fact renders the entire process null and void.

32

22) He stated that Para 21 & 22 of Form I relate to interlinked projects and proponent has replied that there are no interlinked projects, but all the projects including the rail doubling project are inter linked.

23) He stated that the Section 1.18 & 1.19 of same Form I relate to road and rail infrastructure necessary and the answer is in negative. This is a big lie.

24) He stated that the Section 3.2 regarding change in occurrence of diseases is answered in the negative. Similarly, the Form I falsely states that there is no impact on people’s welfare and livelihoods. But the EIA study of redevelopment of Berths 8, 9 & Barge berth states in Para 4.3.2 that there are increased respiratory diseases, which is completely contradictory. He pointed out that the impact on air environment is carried in other two reports but in this report they mentioned that its only diesel, whereas the major pollutant would be handling of coal, lime stone and iron ore .

25) Under 3rd section environmental sensitivity the PP falsely states that there are areas protected under international convention, no sensitive ecological areas, and no sensitive species breeding, nesting. This again is full of inaccuracy and concealments.

26) He stated that Form I has concealed facts of all the three projects being linked to one.

27) He stated that the NGT Judgment, Application No. 10/16 dated 02/09/2016 has called upon to consider if all the three projects are one but the MoEF has not taken into account of the same.

28) He stated that the Terms of Reference dated 10/10/2016, as per the conditions and as per 3(ii) a separate chapter on compliance with conditions laid down in earlier environment clearances had to be given, but the EIA report does not include such a chapter. The entire study is meaningless as there is no data on the past compliances. He pointed out that the port had gone through a lot of expansions including dredging and berth expansions in the past and the compliance with earlier conditions essential to understand the present environmental status. He alleged that MPT had previously carried out port expansion works without any permission.

29) He stated that the TOR direction to obtain the recommendations of GCZMA is not complied in the EIA report and the same remains unaddressed.

30) He stated that TOR requires detailed marine biodiversity study to be carried out by NIO or other suitable institution. However, this is not carried out but only a two day study is done by the consultant, therefore failing to carry out the detailed study of the marine biodiversity expected under the TOR.

31) He stated that the TOR required impact of dredging on the shoreline. No such studies are contained in the EIA report. In contrast, the report of Expert member of the GCZMA suggests having a study of one year because of the erosion of the beach of Khariwada due to dredging. Though there is a study referred to in the EIA report supposedly done by CWPRS, this report

33

is completely fraudulent. The fact is that the shoreline is badly eroded due to earlier dredging, which the reports try to conceal.

32) He stated that there is no analysis of the impact of rock dredging at all in the Report. He stated that this study was most critical since it would determine whether the Rumdawada slopes would collapse or not. Without doing the study, the precautionary principle does not allow dredging to be carried out.

33) He stated that no provisions under the Environmental Law allow to grant EC after the dredging is carried out after the already done. Firstly, all damage done has to be undone naturally, and only than the proper study could be carried out. Any study carried out now would give wrong data because of illegal dredging. Not only the project must be stopped and illegally dredged areas be allowed to restore themselves, but stringent action to be taken against PP for the massive destruction that they have caused.

34) He referred to direct impact of dredging. Maintenance dredging which was earlier 3 million TPA, would now be increased to 6 million TPA. In terms of damage, both capital and maintenance dredging are equally destructive. Every time we do maintenance dredging, we destroy the benthic life and the flora and fauna completely. Further, it’s a loss to marine ecology. Every year there will be total destruction of marine ecology due to maintenance dredging and the entire area will slowly get devoid of life into a barren desert.

35) He stated that the Socio Economic Impact the EIA study has fooled the people. For example: In terms of fishermen in the study area, the data in tables has no mention of Sancoale, Cortalim etc, where a large number of people are engaged in catching shells, clams, crabs etc. Similarly, the numbers given of fishermen in Vasco, Baina, Bogmalo, etc are totally wrong. The PP has intentionally concealed the fact of number of fishermen.

36) He stated that there is direct connection between dredging and impact of marine life and further the impact of loss of marine life on the livelihoods of the fishermen. The chapter in the EIA report on impact repeatedly states that it is not possible to quantify a number of the impacts. No proper studies are carried out and the stud y fails to quantify any of the figures or to establish the relationship between the proposed activities and the marine life and the relation between the marine life and the fisher folk livelihoods. As there would be losses of fish, there would be impact on the fisherman for want of catch, but no impact analysis is carried out.

37) He stated that EIA report states that Dolphins would have to leave the Dona Paula Bay due to the project. Para 4.1.3 is an admission that substantiates the submission that impact analysis is not done.

38) He further stated that the report states that the project is in an area with large scale activities including port activities, industries such as barge repairs and urban population. The impact is stated to be of cumulative nature and the report states that it would be hard to discern the cause due to the cumulative impact. It is therefore admitted in this paragraph that no studies can be carried and that the impact cannot be assessed based on the Report

34

prepared. He stated that study of cumulative impact of ongoing activities is a must, since this project can be the straw that broke the camel’s back.

39) He stated that the impact on coal corridors is completely ignored. In addition to the fugitive coal, the diesel emissions from train & trucks are going to affect the people living alongside the routes. No study is done. Similarly, the impact upon the villages will be grave and unbearable. For example, the level crossings are already saturated and with the expansion of traffic it will be impossible for people to cross these tracks. The socio-economic costs are so huge, but the report fails to mention the same. Precautionary Principle demands that the proposal be dropped.

40) He stated that the Vasco Bay and rivers are commons of Goa. They are the sustenance of the people of Goa & fishermen of Goa, of the poor and the tribals. These commons cannot be allowed to be usurped by the corporations for private profits.

41) He stated that MPT has exposed itself as a front for private corporations. Rupees 380 crores of public funds is being spent only to reduce freight charges for these corporations. He demanded that inquiry be lodged to determine how these projects spending public money for private profits at huge costs to the public are being allowed.

42) He stated that a fundamental flaw in this study is the failure to consider MPT business plan, the Sagarmala Report and additional projects being pursued by MPT. Not only increase in coal handling through the port, but also through other rivers and estuaries is being pursued. They are going to be horrendous effects if the coal is handled through 6 Goan rivers including the Betul Port. The bunds and fish would get damaged and die leading to disastrous impact on socio economic aspects of people. The double tracking of railways and the highways would have equally disastrous impact. All of these impacts are huge, but are not considered.

43) He stated that Climate change, global warming, sea level rise and impact of use of fossil fuel have not found a mention at all. This makes the study useless. Study carried out by independent researchers has established that 5 lakh people would die due to burning of this coal over a period of time in the state of Karnataka. He said that the proposed project has impact upon the environment from the coal mines to the final combustion at steel or power plants and the entire impact must be considered. Especially in view of the global warming and climate change.

44) . He stated that based on the EIA study, only benefit from this project is cape size vessel would be brought and the freight changes would be reduced. However the EIA study has failed to study the cost and the impact on the people and the environment. He further stated that none of the costs for highways, double tracking of railways have been included.

45) He stated that sustainability or the word precautionary principle has nowhere been used in the EIA report.

46) Page 5-8 of the report, para 5.7, states that there is no biodiversity recovery plan. The last paragraph on this page of the EIA report itself suggests that due to non-availability of reliable long term fishery data, it is

35

rather difficult to predict impact on fisheries and hence a one year study needs to be carried out. This is admission that necessary data on fisheries is not available and as the recommended study is not carried out, the study is useless.

47) He stated that no quantification of the impacts has been given though impact is mentioned. There is no date available on sedimentation, hydrodynamic & siltation studies. There is no application of mind as to why the sedimentation percentage / rates are different at different parts of the approach channel (high in the bay) as given under page 4-13. When questioned, the representative of WAPCOS stated that he would reply in writing. The objector stated that the said data in the report reveals that entire settlement areas including the Rumdawada Hillock would collapse. As recommended by the GCZMA experts in their report, side scan survey has to be used to carry out the study and a one year study is required, without which the impact cannot be assessed.

48) He stated that amount of Rock that has to be removed has not been identified and the relationship of this rock with the stability of surrounding areas and slopes has not been identified.

49) He stated that the report itself states that Khariwada is the largest landing area in the study area. Since the dredging is proposed in this same area and the dredging activity would tend to kill the fish breeding grounds around Khariwada, the impact of this project upon the fishing industry is not considered in this study.

50) He stated that as per the report of the working group for port sector for the twelfth five year plan (2012-17), section 15, 15.11 port cities are required to be made safer by removing dirty and Hazardous Cargo from these port cities. Every port trust was asked to make an action plan for these to be taken away from the city. MPT admitted that no such action plan is prepared by MPT. He said that the said working group report states that the Port should be used primarily for the locals, cruise terminal and the general benefits of the city.

18. Mr. Carlos Almeida, MLA

a) He questioned if there are any Goan companies that are being benefited from the coal that is imported.b) He asked if there is any health survey conducted.c) He stated that the Mormugao Municipal Council has sent a resolution to stop coal transportation through port town.d) He stated that if the pollution levels are high then why should extra coal be brought into the State.e) He stated that MPT has made a statement that ‘We are outsiders’. He states that we are ‘Goenkars’ first.f) He suggested that the Pollution Control Board should carryout Digital monitoring extensively.

36

g) He thanked all the activist and NGO’s that came for the public hearing and enlightened the public, this is a very serious matter and I personally will take it up with the CM of Goa.

19. Bharat Kamat, Vascoa) He stated he wanted to play a video clip but the facility was withdrawn bu the Chairperson. The hill slope near mormugao harbour near chowgule office has collapsed and this has been highlighted by Prudent Media, this has happened during the period of this hearing.,\.b) He stated that WAPCOS has made a shoddy report which was RED FLAGGED but GCZMA Authority, could have wide ramifications both on the landward side and the water body side including Western Ghats.The dregging effects will be seen along the northern side of river Zuari, and along the river and the upper part towards Zuari Bridge,and further till the western Ghats.c) He stated that the dregging for the Cape Sized Vessels, will have a disastrous effect not only for the people for Mormugao,but buth also the coastal part of Tiswadi.d) He requested that MPT should answer the questions raised, so that it should be a dialogue and not a monologue.e) He raised concerns about the answers given after three or four days by MPT, and this appears to only a monologue.f) He stated the 15 Kms aerial MAP is not shown in the EIA report, which is a must, He stated that Dr. Salim Ali Bird Sanctuary lies within 15 kms radius is also not mentioned in the EIA report, which should have beeen a must. Dr. Salim Ali Bird Sanctuary is an estuarian mangrove habitate , which has been declared as a bird scantury.g) The cost estimated is 380 Crores, and asked if there would be an escalation to the cost, and also asked if this cost include any shore protection measures, since the PP, the PP replied that the shore protection cost is not included, therefore he raised the querry that if any untoward accident occurs due to this project, who would be responsible to bear the cost , in case of damage to life and property.h) He questioned if whether there are any shore protection measures taken up by the Project proponent. The Project proponent answered negatively. Further Bharat questioned as to who will bear the cost if there is any damage caused? Is it Goa Government, or MPT or the citizens?i) He questioned as to who will be benefiting from the project of capital dredging of 380 crores ? The project proponent replied that it is the port users who will benefit from this project.j) He alleged that MPT is doing public expenses for private gain for certain companies like Zindal and Adanis, he questioned how this public money would be recovered from these companies.k) He questioned that green cess is not paid by any port users, till date, and what will be the guarantee that port users will pay the same or MPT

37

will recover the costs of the dregging. The PP stated that a dredging cess will be levied.l) He questioned whether the local fishermen and the trawler owners would benefit from the deepening of the channel.m) He stated that there would be a disastrous effect on the spawning grounds of fish, and this would have a cascading effect on the livlehood of the Fishermen and the community as a whole. n) He stated that there is no study done on effects of dregging On the fishing community as this would adversely effect on the breeding grounds of fish, resulting in decreasing fish catch..o) He stated that the EIA report is not been provided to various Panchayats like Agassaim, Santa Cruz, Nerul, Candolim, Calangute, etc. Also not provided to the city corporation of Panjim all of which are within the 10 km study zone.p) He stated that there are no soil investigations being carried out.q) He questioned as to what type of material is dredged. He further stated that working on marine clay is a technical charge.r) He questioned as to whether any study being carried out on aquifers as any damage caused to the acquities will have a catastrophic damage to agriculture.s) He alleged that seismic study is not included in the EIA report inspite of the same being available with NIO.t) He stated that impact on the geology, probability of settlements, etc. in not taken out.u) He stated that soil improvement techniques are not taken into account.v) He stated that the coast line within the 10 kms study is falling into the sea including the Raj Bhavan at Dona Paula, which is facing severe distress.w) He stated that the CWPRS study has stated that the coastline has got eroded.x) He stated that dredging harms ecology which is a feeding ground for all the flora.y) He stated that the cause of concern is the cutting of rock strata including the TOE of the slopes which lead to landslides. z) He stated that due to unscientific methods of dredging it is going to affect the estuary and the river banks and they would be rendered unstable.aa) He stated that the issue of flooding has not been addressed in the study.bb) Read out that the report of the media pertaining to the Governor’s palace which had appeared a few years back which disclosed that the rock on which the palace stood has developed cracks.cc) He stated that the foot of the hill of Dona Paula was damaged because of the erosion. Instability is caused due to a wall that was constructed by the Portuguese.dd) He stated that if dredging takes place than shore protection measures would have to be taken in the whole of Goa. He further stated that the report

38

on the study of Governors palace is not being looked into by the consultant of the Project Proponent.

He said that the dredging work has to be kept in abeyance till all the affects of dredging on the surrounding lands within 10 kms is carried out.

20. Fr. Jose Antonio Costa, Chinchinim (NOT CORRECTED)a) He stated that MPT was always an institution that was looked upon with respect.b) He alleged that instead of MPT being a protector of Goan interest they are protecting the vested industrialists.c) He stated that MPT was a place which provided bread and butter to the people but in the recent past, coal handling has been a major cause of concern. He further stated that fish catch has been reduced and the fish has consumed coal which in turn is caught by us and causing health hazards.

21. Pricilla Fernandes, Cansaulim (NOT CORRECTED)a) She stated that the impact of the proposed project on the human life is not taken into consideration then how the impact on the environment will be considered?b) She stated that removal of benthic life and dredging will cause adverse impact on marine life. Filter feeding would be affected.c) She stated that adult fish would move away.d) She stated that turbidity would increase and the birth cycle would be on the decline in the marine life.e) She questioned that whether any study was done on the dumping site? The Chairman informed that the question was raised in the past for which the MPT had no answer.f) She questioned whether any scholarly articles been referred to at the time of preparing the EIA report. The Chairman informed that this issue had also been raised earlier and had there been any reference, than the bibliography would have been there.g) She stated that a 2° rise in climate temperature cannot be stopped but it can definitely be controlled out with the handling of cargo by adding to the increase in climate change.h) She stated that she was not a native of Vasco but being a resident of Cansaulim, the said proposal would affect her after the doubling of rail track.i) She concluded stating that “our goal is no coal”.

22. Judith Almeida.a) She stated that we have heard number of professional speakers and also people who are suffering from Trauma like Cancer and some of the speakers children who are suffering from respiratory ailments who had carried out research on tthis issue.

39

b) She also stated that the professionals proved that the EIA report was flawed and misleading. The others spoke from their true life experiences and all objected this dirty and life threatening form of energy.c) She stated that most of the people of Goa are Fishermen community the Environment of Goa has to be protected at any cost for the future generations.d) She stated that Piecemeal construction are carried out to hoodwink the people. She always pointed out to the ongoing works of Western bypass.e) She stated that the government is not even conscious of the fact that aforestation has to be planned out first before doing any damage to trees. Is there any holistic development? f) She stated that the EIA scientist’s have been appalling in as much as their studies are flagrantly abused.g) She stated that all forms of life on the earth should be looked at with a human aspects but the entire EIA report has not been cumulative.h) She reminded about the Bhopal tragedy. Till date there is not date on the impact of Coal Pollution in Goa. There is no safe treatment for fine particulate matter.i) She stated that Coal terminals what are proposed for massive expansion are a threat to the life of the people, not only in Mormugao / Vasco but all along at the places where the logistics of coals are involved.j) She stated that no research on expected health hazards. She also questioned whether any study is done ?k) Chairman replied that if there had to be any study, than it would have reflected in the EIA report.l) She also stated that more monitoring stations has to be put up not just one or two, and the reports should be in public domain.m) She stated that no data on spikes of emissions. Tiny particulars of coals are toxic; first clean up the existing mess and than only come with new projects.n) Begin to prosecute the persons who are violating and causing pollution.o) She stated that the life of the citizens of Vasco is painful. There was no business for the MPT to lease out when infact the MPT itself is an issue.p) She demanded for green and sustainable development. Clean and renewable energy should be the mantra and even in UK they are planning to implement.

23 Dr. Shantaram Surmay, Vasco- Research Scientist in GMCa) Dr.Surve, research scientist working at Goa Medical Colleg, speaking on behalfof Eric Pinto, practising as a gynaecologist, ent, and general physician in the city of vasco.He appreciated the gesture of the People of Vasco to oppose the coal expansion, he appreciated the people for not toleratin Nonsence things from Nonsence people.b) Our goa is so tiny and so beautiful, I want this to remain so for the generations to come, and preserve its identity.

40

c) He stated that Public Hearing is for people to participate and to voice their opposition, there is a lot of opposition to coal in goa, so the authoritie should hear the people.d India i a independent and democratic country, its by the people for the people and of thepeople. Is this public hearing authentic, who has forced this hearing, enough is enough, please don’t hurt the people. Behave like humans, He stated that Democracy should not be for the limited people but for all the people.d) He questions as who has forced to have this Public Hearing. Is it Mallya?e) He said do not spoil Goa. Don’t do more business when Vasco is already choked up.

24. Bernardo Marques.

a) I have taken a decision. If berth 8 & 9 is being required.. How come it is given on lease without repairs.b) Demand made to give it to the Cannoe operators was declined.c) Do you know if the earth is splitted what would be the after month. d) When dredging is done than when where would the fish fetch its eggs ? If there is no soil than whatever be the rains nothing is going to germinate.e) People were coming to have bath in the salty waters of Vasco but now that is not happening because of coal.f) Do not take the curses of the people.g) Requested the educated class of the people to act diligently.h) We do not have cattle to go and stay on mountains. We have got canoes to nab fish.i) If there are houses belonging to us than CRZ is made applicable to us .This area belongs to us, the people of the poor class.j) We are not animals.

25. Peter Andrade, Mangor Hill Vasco (NOT CORRECTED)a) Did the Chairman apologize for his remarks as outsider he condemned the statement.b) Modi says “Sabka Saath Sabka Vikas but MPT says that Vasco ka Satyanas”c) Has the MP and the MLA’s of Mormugao Taluka given any say on the projectsd) Has any councillors given any representations in favour or against.e) Has any consent been given by the Mormugao than councillor given any consent to lift the garbage.f) Has the coal handling in activity been reduced after its direction to come down by 25%.g) Has the GSPCB got the capacity to deal with sludge oil, barge oil etc. GSPCB says that it was for the PP to deal on this subject in the EIA report itself.h) Has there been any personal organisation come in support of the project.

41

i) In Sonshi mining case there was immediate stopping on account of pollution and in the case of Mormugao the GSPCB has not acted upon the same. Double standards of GSPCB are exposed.j) The Ministry should ensure that leaving apart the minutes, the entire Videography should be seen by the Expert Appraisal Committee.

26. John Fernandes, Benaulim (NOT CORRECTED)a) The Chairman informed that 5 minutes would be given to each person who are yet to voice their concerns on the proposed project. The objector Mr. Fernandes opposed to the said time restrictions.b) He stated that Form I asks whether there is any litigation pending but the project proponent has replied negatively. However, on the contrary there is a litigation pending before the NGT. Project proponent states that there is a litigation pending.c) He demanded an investigation as to how and why wrong forms were uploaded on the network. He charged that Officers that were present for the public hearing are selling Goa.d) He stated that in September 2016, MPT made a contract with Vedanta. Why is MoEF signing contracts with persons/corporate having criminal records. MPT is supporting the corporates.e) He stated that MPT is engaged in the process of genocide because day in and day out people would be slowly dying giving benefit only to the medical and pharmaceutical industry.f) He stated that the project proponent is slowly poisoning the publicg) The Chairman informed that the objector has been given about 25 minutes and what he is given another 5 minutes to wind up. The objector once again took objection to the said decision of the Chairman.h) He questioned as to why the MP of North and South Goa aren’t present.i) He demanded an investigation as to how they ___ the people who carry out the investigation.j) He questioned as to who were the consultant for all the three projects. He stated that Agency WAPCOS has been engaged by both private and public sector which amounts to conflict of interest. EAC has to closely taken a dig of what the said consultant has done for the three projects.k) He referred to the report made in the media by the Chairman of MPT which was reported on 29/04/2017 whereby he speaks of economic growth. He questioned how come the economic growth study not being mentioned in the EIA report.l) He stated that the Chairman has said that people are opposing to the projects and not raising concerns on the coal pollution. Further he questioned whether the Chairman of MPT belongs to Vasco to say that whosoever present for the public hearing are outsiders.m) He was grateful to the fishermen who had taken the might of the MPT and its battery of lawyers which catapulted in the present public hearing.

42

n) He questioned how the scientists who have not even given their qualifications be trusted. He requested to start the EIA all over again as there are too many holes in it to cover up.o) He stated that if the evidence is false then everything is false. He stated that the EAC should read the comments and opinions from the public and then to decide whether to throw it in the dustbin.p) He questioned whether there was any socio economic expert. The graphical knowledge displayed in the EIA report is cynical. He further stated that the consultant has relied upon the census data.q) He recommended that persons from WAPCOS should be scrutinised by NABET who is the body to give accreditation.r) MPT has assured that they assured to be ethical, continuously working to improve quality of life of the community but since the last 5 days there was nothing good to be heard of MPT.s) He stated that the British started industrialisation 200 years ago. He called upon the public to go and see what is happening in Wales whereby people were suffering and the NCLC pocket the income.t) He stated that Indian Wealth is owned by 5 families. Further he questioned whether this project is a progress and if so then at whose expense.u) He stated that the more nature is destroyed, nature would hit back. If Adani has begun investing in solar energy then he should stop import of coal.v) He stated that inhalers are becoming a fixed accessory for the people of Vasco. He quoted the 10 Do’s that were penned down by his 10 year old niece. w) He stated that this public hearing from today henceforth declares Goa as a ‘Coal Free Zone’ and will work towards cleaning this atmosphere by all means necessary.

27. Cedric D’Souza, Raia.a) He complained that register for Attendance was not circulated in the morning but was circulated at 3:15 p.m. onwards. Similar was also the case on all previous days too and what he stated.b) Since the dredging has already happened to the extent of 60% the rule has been violated have they been penalised for it ? MPT answered saying that the matter is sub-judice in the Supreme Court and NGT. It was the court itself who had directed to conduct public hearing when asked for a copy, the MPT said that they do not have a copy of the same but they can give in writing.c) All the three projects are just one single project and the consultant has not been able given any proper inputs which are totally flawed and the scientists need to be prosecuted.d) He questioned as to whether humans are considered more important than aquatic life. He stated that he has moved out from Vasco after staying for 30 years because he had the resources. Do you want to kill all the aquatic life.

43

e) Who is the Authority to check the vessels & Cargo that enters the Cargo Port Area. The representative of MPT replied that they would be replying in writing.f) He questioned has any Disaster Management Plan been in place? Chairman replied to say the Collectorate do has a Disaster Management Plan but it has not been tested by way of a mock drill. He assured that looking at the various presentations that had been shown, the mock drills would definitely be planned out in due course of time.f) He stated that if the ship which grounded for 12 years could not be removed and are was ready to tackle to handle huge ships if they get grounded.g) He stated that the amount of coal dust that happens at the time of loading from the vessels.h) He questioned GSPCB about the Noise Pollution levels that were taken on the first day of hearing. The representative of GSPCB replied saying that action would be taken at the earliest.

28. Mr. Olencio Simoes, General Secretary, Goenchea Raponkarancho

Ekvott Cansaulim .

a) 4(Four panchayats) Cansaulim, Velsao, Sancoale & Cortalim panchayats which are within the 10 km radius are not covered up and is a complete violation of EIA notification 2006 under section 2.2, 2.3 as draft EIA report was not available in the concerned panchayat , and hence he raised a point of order. Chairman clarified that an order to this effect has already been passed on the very first date & there is no need to have another order.Study area map designed by WAPCOS’s falsely designed and clear violation of EIA notification as 10km distance at North side from the navigational channel at MPT should be upto Candolim and not Panaji.b) He stated that the PP has once again violated the 10 km radius of study range inspite of clear cut court directives.c) He also that in the judgment passed by NGT in appeal no.10/16 In the Matter of Old Cross Fishing Canoe Owners Co-op Society Ltd & Baina Ramponkar & Fishing Canoe Owners Society, in the NGT,MPT said in the court they state that dredging is carried out to the extent of 65% and in the EIA report they have mentioned as 55% which is full of contradictions.d) From the present 14.4 mts depth to what extent has the dredging been carried out was questioned. The MPT stated that the dredging which has been carried out is not uniform. Olencio stated that 6km navigational channel had been dredged and he wanted clear details as to where 65% of dredging has taken placed.MPT stated that he will give in writing . Olencio protested and said that under which law he will give in writing as public hearing grievance has to be answered at the day of public hearing and MPT has clearly violated the EIA notification 2006 and he also said that case should be registered by Collector and Goa Pollution Board for contradicting their own statements of dredging done of 65%.

44

e) The objector stated that this is the clear violation of the EIA Notification as the PP is not giving any answers.f) He stated that MPT would be using the cutter dredger whereby 1.25 million rock dredging would be done. It is common knowledge that the surface of the rock is hard and by the time you go to the bottom it becomes clay. The representative of the MPT states that is the aspect is already clarified.g) How much money was paid to WAPCOS for the draft EIA report ,as the final EIA report prepared in November 2015 and the draft EIA of November 2016 one which is presented now for Public Hearing are copy paste and are the same and the final EIA dated November 2015 was challenged where the court gave us stay.after the orders passed by the Court of Law are the same.h) Dr. Antonio Mascarenhas who was member of GCZMA has inspected the site report in July 2015 who had reported discrepancies and apprehension as similar apprehension arises with regard to the proposed 19.8 m deep channel. Consider a depth profile through the axis of the river form the Zuari Bridge to the outer anchorage. It is found that the river bed is the shallowest (1.5 m water depth) at about 1 km downstream of the bridge; from this point seaward, the water depth increases gradually to 8 – 10 m (inner anchorage), 12-14 m (outer anchorage). The navigation channel is now sought to be deepened to 19.8 m, an increase of 5 meters in just one attempt. It is precisely this sudden increase in the channel depth that may induce drastic morphological changes within the estuary. And will led to collapse of Sancoale and Chicalim bay and destruction of mangroves all over the bay of if dredging is carried out and study needs to be carried for one year period.i) He questioned whether the EIA stated anywhere that embankments of the river bed would not collapse.j) He stated that dredging would be carried out in 400 kms of rivers in Goa only to facilitate the coal transportation as proposed .k) He stated that he lives next to the Railway line and on this route there is so much of spillage which affects not only him but right upto Hospet.l) He stated MPT has done master in hiding facts like how they did at the time of illegal dredging as they said it was capital dredging and took permission from MOEF stating that it is maintenance dredging that MPT is extending its jurisdiction upto 52 kms coastline and become autonomous. They want to build satellite port at Betul. Baina Beach is destroyed with NH17B along with Bridge which is build for MPT for coal transportation .m) He stated that in a meeting held on 17.4.2011 by the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Goa, it was decided to declare the fishing villages and de-notify the jurisdiction of MPT and without undertaking the exercise, the PP is forcing to come with project as MPT has no right to even lease or carry out this project.n) He stated that MPT has to restore and restitute the sea bed base on the NGT Order and that they can come only, when the restoration is done, for Public Hearing.

45

o) He questioned what is going to be the benefit for State of Goa ?p) He questioned as to any study being done on the impact of maintenance dredging which they have been doing so far?q) He stated that if on account of River Sea Princess grounding the entire coastline of Coco beach , Nerul was affected. If such massive dredging occurs than the entire coastline would get eroded resulting in tourism loss. He stated that out of 105km already 20% of Goa’s coastline is been eroded and MPT is planning to build satellite port and converting all fishing jetty into mini harbour and dredging, then the entire coastline of Goa will be finished and the tourism industry will be effected and our state revenue which depends on tourism will be doomed. He stated that where there MPT has done study as to how much deep you can dredge below the sea bed as because of dredging at navigational channel sea water will enter in fresh water and because of this fishermen, mangroves ,coral at Chicalim bay which is studied by many scientist and is qualified for world heritage site and all this will be destroyed and as entire habitat of the marine species will be destroyed. r) He stated that because of the dredging salty water would begin to enter rivers and water wells.s) He stated that 6 million cubic metres if silt is to be dredged on every year basis as maintenance dredging. Resultantly the beaches get eroded and it is not only beaches but even the landmass. he stated an example that Pondicherry beach was totally eroded as the port wanted to deepen the channel which eventually the government had to abundant the project and the government of Pondicherry is spending several crores to restore the shoreline.t) He stated that 43% of the coastline in India has got wiped out because of the existence of Ports which is sited by many agencies even one of the government agency.u) He stated that landing centres are only at Khariawada, Colva etc. and wanted to know where is Issorcim. Fishing is done at Betalbatim,Sunset, Sotrant, Hollant, Baina,Desterro,Cansaulim,Velsao, Arrosim etc which is not finding a mention in the EIA report. He objected to the chair as when questioned was raised the MPT officials walks off and questions raised to WAPCOS was not answered in vernacular language i.e in Konkani and no officials was present who prepared the report.v) He referred to Table 3.32, regarding fisherman population in the study area. He questioned as to from where did the PP get the data on Population of Fishermen. He sought to know from where he received the data ?w) Chairman replied that this reply was already given saying that the data was obtained from the Directorate of Fisheries.

He stated that WAPCOS have only obtained secondary date i.e hard data from fisheries department and note inspected the ground reality, as the work of the consultant is of no use

46

as all data are borrowed and copy pasted .the consultant is appointed for namesake just only to comply to the MOEF formalitiesa) He questioned as to why the Chairman of MPT is not present even after 4days when the people have been demanded his presence to answer the clarifications? He also sought to know what action has been taken by GSPCB when there was spillage of coal being strewn on the beach.He said that the MPT chairman is making false statements that no pollution is caused due to coal pollution ,he sought to know then why GSPB has told MPT to reduce coal handling by 25% and what action will the collector take. y) He stated that the 100years Fishermen of Baina are sought to be eliminated on account of coal expansion by MPT Port and he said that demolition of other fishermen houses at Khariado,Velsao,Cansaulim and then upto Candolim beach are in the pipeline to be demolish for Coal expansion.z) He also stated that the data on fisherman has pointed out list that there are 2000 fishermen families both of mechanised Board and traditional fisherman which is false as Vasco has 4 Unions 2unions of the traditional fishermen and 2 of the mechanized boat owners in that traditional fishermen are 200families which totals upto 1000 fishermen plus trawlers owners are 200 families which totals to 2000 fishermen at Vasco only.aa) He stated that in Baina 100 families, in Desterro 100 families i.e 1000fishermen where are the others gone. This EIA report is completely sham and Scam and demanded action to be initiated. He also stated that in Bogmalo there are only 23fishermen, is what is mentioned in the report. In Bogmalo there are 120 fishermen, Hollant there are 80 fishermen and in Sotrant there are 50 fishermen. By far and large that there are five persons in each family of the fishermen which totals up to 1250 fishermen in Bogmalo,Hollant and Sotrant. The Sagarmala Project is also a sinister design to dole out subsidies to purchase boats to fish outside 12nautical miles, so that they can and finish off the traditional fishermen only to foster the coal transportation.bb) He stated that in Velsao, Cansaulim and Arossim, there are number of fishermen which has not been mentioned,Velsao their are 200families,in Cansaulim 50 families and Arrosim 60families Total 310 families which means 1550 fishermen. cc) He stated that Candolim, Sinquerim, Nerul, Coco Beach are left out in the study area.dd) He stated that Inland fishermen have been left out, Chicalim are 200 families ,Sancaole and Quelossim have 200families. Rock mussels are fished out by the Schedule Tribes. PP hiding the facts is trying to deprive the right to life which are guaranteed by the constitution and is violation of constitution of article 21,dipriving right to livelihood ,right to indigenous people .ee) He stated that around 1500 fishermen population is excluded from the study area of Candolim, Sinquerim, Nerul Coco Beach area apart from the

47

fact that they are being not notified for this Public Hearing. Mondovi river inland fishermen of Panaji and Mayem jetty has been excluded which is amounting to 2000 fishermen. Fishing villages Cacra, Odxel, Siridao, Miramar,Caranzalem, Donapaula, Nauxi all amounting to 2150 fishermen areas have not taken into account at all. About 8000 population of Fishermen’s livelihoods are affected who are not finding a mention in the report.

He said freedom of trade of occupation ,Article 19 clause 1sub clause C is clearly violated so the EIA need to be scarped ff) He stated that demographic people of study areas like Siridao, Panaji, Taleigao, Durgawadi, Murda, Bambolim, Goa Velha etc shows only 9 villages and where did the rest study area villages go. He said 3 three constituencies that is Panaji, Taligao and St.Andre villages are missing including Mormugao and Cortalim villages are missing. Villages like pale,Bogmallo,Zuarinagar,Dabolim,Chicolna,Velsao,Cansaulim,Hollant,Consua etc He questions what about other villages. He stated that study shows only 1,25,000 people but statistically, it has a still wider area of population and what WAPCOS has shown in the draft EIA is false .gg) He stated that various villages have not been taken into account for the study area and has been deliberately skipped off.hh) He stated that impact due to dredging , the turbidity of the area would not get settled due to MPT will not stop after capital dredging as after that maintenance dredging will be carried out round the clock thus damaging the marine life and benthic life. The EIA report has concealed facts only because of portraying facts to say that very less people would get affected as compared to economic gains.ii) He stated that on an average there is loss to 8000 fishermen to the tune of 80 crores if one earns just about 10,000/- per month. Mr.Nitin Gadkari said that in proposed marina at Sancoale fishermen will get job under Blue revolution Nitin Gadkari said that he want fishermen to raise but he doesn’t know that fishermen have done only masters only in fishing for last 400 to 500years and MPT is trying to displace them and MPT existing 125years but used to import and export essential goods like wheat,rice etc but now for the last few years MPT handling Coal before we didnot have problem.jj)He stated that by dumping the dredged material at a location which is 10 kms away, the pristine and untouched area would also get affected as their are studies done by the NIO at Chacalim bay clearly says that the river bed is contaminated and polluted.kk) He stated that the EIA report has failed to make a mention of the Coral life nor have they made study of the life in the Sea at the place where they want to dump the dredged material.ll) He questioned how much is the State of Goa going to earn ? The representative of MPT replied that he does not know but he would submit the submission in writing.

48

mm) He questioned which law permits a violator to come for Public Hearing after carrying out illegal acts ?nn) He stated that the MPT is trying to ruin the natural barrier by destroying the sanddunes.oo) He sought to know that when dredging is happening the benthic life is killed, how can one restore the same?pp) He stated that if on account of dredging, the big fish moves out than all inland fishermen would lose their bread and butter.

qq) He sought to know how come within a months time a draft EIA was prepared. GCZMA Expert says that it requires a study to be carried out for atleast one year and the consultant has just given a report within one month.

NGT had given a clear directives to the MPT and had formed expert committee in that Dr.Anthonio Mascaranhes and Baban Ingole dated 19 January 2017 had submitted report for restoration, now when the matter is going on for restoration who is the MPT is going ahead with fresh EIA and which laws permits them to build.rr) He stated that alteration of the soil under water which is contaminated in nature would result in polluting the entire Arabian Sea.ss) He stated that Windowpane oysters are a protected species as per the Wildlife Protection Act so also the mangroves would be destroyed. He sought from the MPT if they know about this. The representative of the MPT stated that they would give the answers to queries in writing.tt) The Chairman directed the PP to give whatever clarifications which the public has sought that could be given and the rest could be part of final EIA. uu) He stated that one windowpane oysters filters 10 litres of water per day as it is an engineer to the ecosystem and if this are destroyed then entire fishermen and health of ecosystem of the river will be destroyed like how it has happened in river Yamuna, Ganaga as once the habitant of the river is destroyed then it can’t be restored and also stated that damages done to marine life cannot be restored and if one has to restore than for the next 10 years there should be a single movement in the river.vv) He questioned as to whether 80 crores per months of CSR would be doled out by MPT to fisherman.ww) He stated that every year they witness tar balls. What measure has MPT taken till date. The MPT is acting sleek within the state. Even Portuguese Government was far more better than this Government.xx) He sought to know whether the MPT has any plan to contain oil spillage as every year we witness tar balls and this has impacted marine life?yy) He stated that exhaust gas from the vessels are significant source of air pollution. The stated that the PP is making pollution and besides that the vessels too would be creating pollution.zz) He stated that hundreds of areas of land have been destroyed by Adani’s at Mundra in Gujarat.Adani has already taken over 11 ports in India including one of the MPT which has been leased out illegally and this same adani has violated environmental norms in Australia where all Australian are

49

against him. He sought to know what do you think would be doing in Goa? Obviously they would repeat what they have done in Gujarat. aaa) He stated that the impact of huge propellers attached to the large capsize vessels of 21000HP engines would cause artificial waves and this impact is not studied and would again be a cause of concern as the collision rates of mammals would be pretty high and nothing is mentioned nor studied the draft EIA. He also said that at Coco beach due to high tourist boat activities which are using 20HP engines the shell fishes has been destroyed and imagine the impact of 21000HP engines of capsize vesselsbbb) He stated that the PP has hidden the fact the doubling of Railway lines, the dredging of river, the four lane road infrastructure etc. is all an offshoot of the dredging project.ccc) He questioned whether they are supposed to concretise the river beds. The irony of the facts is that the MPT is a natural Port but with forceful dredging it would have a wide impact on a mass of land.

He stated that MPT has make statement that this will be the deepest port in India which is false as their are deeper ports in Indai.MPT is a natural port their the impact on coastline was minimum and now when they will attain 19.5 meter depth then the impact will be 100times more over the coast and will be evident within 1year times .All ready due to 65% of illegal dredging khariwado houses have developed cracks and huge erosion on the beach and even the NGT has set up a committee headed by collector to access the damage.ddd) He stated that Analysis of sea bed profiling has not been done.eee) He stated that the data on bore holes is not finding a mention in the EIA report.fff) He stated that Beach is our Natural resource. He stated that upon dredging the entire coastline would get eroded. Instead of the desilted material being used for beach nourishment, it has been just thrown in the sea.

He said The exact rock types, the geochemical and mineralogical composition of basement rocks (that will be encountered while dredging) are not mentioned.

He said that yesterday media report at prudent about sea cliff at Sada has developed cracks and when i meet the perist he said the cliff is sinking years by years and not impact study is done on the cliff.

The navigation channel is now sought to be deepened to 19.8 m, an increase of 5 meters in just one attempt. It is precisely this sudden increase in the channel depth that may induce drastic morphological changes within the estuary. It appears highly plausible that large quantities of riverine / estuarine sediments might be flushed out of the estuary through the newly created deeper channel. In such an eventuality, the geo-morphological configuration of the entire estuary in general and the river banks in particular will be rendered unstable.

50

ggg) He stated that when sudden depth is sought to be done of 5 mtrs with a width of 280 mtrs and length of 6 kms, it is going to have geomorphological life would get changed including damage to the estuarines. hhh) He sought to know if incase of loading, what steps would they have to evacuate the foundation of the entire taluka of Mormugao would stand to lose its grip giving rise to landslides as well as flooding. iii) He stated that all three projects are interlinked to a whole lot of other projects like satellite port at Betul, doubling of railway lines, dredging on accounts of Sagarmala Project, fourlaning of roads, etc.jjj) He stated that the Verna to MPT four lane Highway is already saturated and to top it up another load of 5000 trucks would cause nuisance to the public have social impacts.kkk) He stated that all the fishing jetties would be converted into terminals and mini harbours.lll) He sought to know if there is any mechanism to check up the sewage disposal by capsize vessels. He stated that the Mandovi River is already chocked.mmm)He raised a point of order on restrictions imposed on speakers thereby allowing only those who have written their names to voice their concerns.nnn) He further linked all the three projects to other projects like Sagarmala, doubling of railway, nationalization of six rivers of Goa, Four lane roads, Satellite Port at Betul etc and as per the directives of GSPB to reduce 25% coal handling and due to huge socio impact which cannot be recorded i demand that all three project should be scraped.

Stating that Adani plans to mine coal from Australia and MPT will future expant at stallite port at betul,new terminal at khariwado beach ,then at Baina beach new terminal and then to convert all 6 fishing jetties into mini harbour and at Cutbona,Velim the work has already started in which non of the three draft EIA project have mentioned this project which is the gross violation of EIA. He also made a point of order as to on what grounds the collector has issues notice that only names written down will able to speak and this is a complete violation of EIA notification and notice was issued hardly 12hr prior to the event atleast 7days notice should have been issued. Public hearing means anyone can speak at anytime but your book used to be available at morning or afternoon but in between you have not recorded the names of the persons and i strongly protest and condemn this act

29. . Parshuram Shetye, Vaddem, Vascoa) He condemned the MPT Chairman’s statement of quoting speakers as outsiders.b) He sought to know that till date how many queries have been raised and noted till date by the Project Proponent. The MPT representative stated that all the queries are minuted and they would be replied suitably. MPT did not have an answer as they had not noted down any queries which were

51

posed to them at the time of public hearings, since you all are not giving replies to our queries, then why have you called for this public hearing, bring a senior citizens, heart patients, cancer patients and other related critical illness people to this forum in the heat, is it to waste our time..c) He stated that the point of orders are overlooked and ignored every time. d) He stated that any parliamentary engines asked for are not allowed to the general public.e) He stated that equal opportunity should be given to every person to voice their concerns as they were restricted to just 5 & 10 minutes on the previous date i.e. on 29/04/2017.f) He alleged that the attendance register is circulated at a time when the crowd is less.g) He stated that the constitution provides for right to live with dignity and this is taken for granted by the Project Proponent. He further stated that the right to breathe fresh air is also taken away by the project proponent.h) He sought to know if any survey was being conducted for bringing such a project in Goa? MPT’s answer to this was ‘no’.i) Analysis-j) He stated that there was no proper planning. He stated that dredging activity was carried out even before obtaining the EC. He further stated that the MPT fooled the people saying that it is maintenance dredging, but it was capital dredging. He demanded for criminal cases as they have spoilt the land in Goa.k) He further stated that there was no legislative approval obtained by the project proponent.l) He alleged that the EIA report is full of flaws. The sworn applicant gives an edge to authorities for punishing the Project Proponent.m) He stated that the representatives of the Project Proponent are incompetent to answer the concerns of the public.n) He stated that in a few countries convicts are penalised by in hole of poisonous gas. The project proponent should also be given similar punishment.o) He stated that the entire report is just a copy paste job. The project proponent was not even having an order based on which the Public hearing is held.

30. Sanjay Redkar, Vasco a) He questioned whether Form IA has been filed which is supplementary and

whether it is applicable to be filed? MPT representative replied “as we will come back to you”. He further sought to know how long it will take MPT to “come back to you”. Thereafter, MPT replied that Form IA is not applicable.

b) Further he questioned why it is not applicable and MPT representative replied that they have already replied to the specific question and that there is no need to answer this query.

52

c) The objector stated that Form IA should b applicable which the project proponent hasn’t filed as it relates to the impact of the project.

d) He stated that 3 million tonnes is the maintenance dredging as per CWPRS study and the 6 million tonnes is what the project proponent would be doing if the dredging is permitted after capital dredging. MPT representative maintained that the situation is from the sea side and not from the landward side as it has been by carrying out various studies including bathymetric studies.

e) He stated that rational of 1.4 million contract/tenders was questioned and the MPT replied that the out turning circle 1 is already dredged to maintain the required draft of 14.1 meters depth.

f) He sought to know when was the last dredging done ? To which the MPT representative replied that it was carried out in 2003 from 13.1 to 14.1 and 13.4 to 14.4 at certain berth.

g) He questioned as to when the Berth 7 & 8 were acquired. The representative of MPT replied that it is not related to the present project.

h) He questioned who is responsible for the dredging before 2014 in Berth 7 & 8. Dredging is the responsibility of the port.

i) He sought to know how come there was increase in the depths from 14.1 to 14.5 mtrs ?The MPT has no replies and hence the objector stated that it is a Criminal Act not done now, only to facilitate the operator of Berth No. 7 & 8.

j) The representative stated that the dredging and development of berth 7 & 8 was done by the concessionaire and that is Adani. The proposed project required the project proponent to carry out dredging and that Adani has done so.

k) He sought to know whether Adani or MPT carried out any EIA ? The representative of MPT replies that EIA was carried out and all necessary permissions were obtained.

l) He also sought to know the date, time and venue for the public hearing for the said project at Berth no. 7 & 8.

m) The representative of MPT replied saying that the question raised is not relating to the project in question but nevertheless the concerns raised would be taken note of and addressed.

n) He sought to know whether the MPT has any idea when the first capital dredging was done?

o) The representative of MPT replied that the concern raised would be addressed to the EAC.

p) The Objector stated that PP has to answer to the public, the affected people who raise their concern of the people, to the affected fishermen, to the people in the audience etc.. He explained that it is no where mentioned in the guidelines of EIA that PP can submit the answers to the questions raised by Public to the EAC directly. He demanded for the reply on the date / year when first capital dredging was done. MPT was not able to reply to their questions.

53

q) The objector stated that he is just not here to reject the project but to seek information on the project and also save destruction to the environment. The submitted the PP would have not carried out he first dredging or subsequent dredging without the sea bed topography reading. PP or MPT must be having the earlier dredging on particular date, to a particular draft, to a particular region, to a particular area and with a particular report. They the PP have carried out earlier dredging and have to clarify the earlier data of dredging since its the same similar project.

r) The Objector wanted to know the impact after the first capital dredging. MPT was unable to reply

s) He sought to know as to what was the length and breadth at the time of first dredging and the mathematical readings of that relevant time ? MPT failed to reply.

t) He stated that the study done in the last couple of days / months of years is not enough because the impact is seen after 50 years or so.

u) He questioned whether MPT have the Bathymetric readings before the first dredging carried before and after the first dredging. The representative stated that they would address the query appropriately.

v) He suggested for cancellation of the Public Hearing because the PP has failed to address the various clarifications.

w) Chairman of the Public Hearing informed that if the PP is unable to give clarifications that by itself would not give an edge to him to cancel the Public Hearing. The Chairman also read out para (vii) of the stage (3) of public consultation process which provides that the PP can very well carry out necessary amendments to the draft EIA.

x) The objector pointed out to the notice issued to media which states that the public can very well seek for clarifications from the project proponent but than inspite of being explicit in the questions / clarifications sought the PP was unable to give any reply but stated that MPT would address all queries to the EAC.

y) The objector continues and reiterated his demand for the clarifications based on the notice issue by GSPCB as that the Public can express their view s and seek information or clarification from the PP. The notice was read by the objector dated 24/03/2017 by GSPCB. He demanded the answers to his question as these were directly related to the history of previous dredging carried out by MPT and its subsequent impact on the underwater topography could be ascertained.

z) He requested to the chairman that PP should be given time to come with their answers to the questions asked by him since they were related to the similar dredging carried earlier which the PP has the records but does not want to disclose. So he requested the PP should be give time and the public should be called again once PP are ready with the answers to the objectors concerns.

aa)The Chairman thereafter gave an opportunity for the speaker to voice his concerns in the to be continued Public Hearing tomorrow i.e. (on 03/05/2017) but has also categorically stated that if in the event MPT is

54

unable to come with any concrete answers , than he would not be in a position to force them to answer. This has been done only to facilitate the PP to be ready with clarifications if any.

bb) When was the first and the last dredging done?cc)He sought to know as when was the Last and First dredging done including

Berth No. 7 & 8.dd) He questioned whether EC was granted to Berth no. 7 ?ee) He questioned whether they have obtained EC approval to increase the depth

from 14.1 to 14.5? How did the depth increased from 14.1 to 14.5 at berth no. 7?

ff) He sought to whether the EIA was conducted for Berth no. 7 for capital dredging ? If obtained than submit the documents. The notice for the EIA.

gg) He sought to know the length, breadth & depth with latitudes and longitudes including turning circles and the berth of first capital dredging of MPT.

hh) He sought to know the original sea bed (bathymetric) readings before first capital dredging along the port, navigation area, turning circle and surrounding area.

ii) He questioned as to when was the last sea bed red reading carried out within the Port limits ?

jj) He questioned has any study conducted post the first capital dredging and the impact on soil erosion , environment effect on bio-diversity of Zuari River, Khariawada Beach and the surrounding port area. Just before the first capital dredging and subsequent capital dredging.

kk) He sought to know whether the reports on the previous impact of dredging (capital and maintenance) on the sea bed alongside navigational channel, berths the turning circle area and alongside the water front of port and near Khariawada Beach and biodiversity area been made a part and parcel of the EIA Report.

ll) He questioned whether the GSPCB asked for any comprehensive EIA at any point of time before. If so than submit the copies.

mm) He questioned how many EIA’s has MPT conducted in last 40 years?nn) He sought to know the distance between the three projects (Physical

distance)oo) He questioned as to how is the inner basin & berth 5A connected or how

much distance they separate from?pp) He questioned as to how the inner basin for Berth 8, 9A and Barge Berth is

connected or how much distance they separate from?qq) He stated that Form I, sr. no. 25. Whether there is any Government order

policy relevant to the site. PP has mentioned as “No”. While my submission is “YES” since it is to be based on the 12 th Five year plan of 2012-2017. Why PP has deviated from this Plan? This five year plan does not mention for expansion of any coal handling by Cape size Vessels.

rr) He sought to know the width and increase in width of the navigational channel from the first to second and from second to third Capital dredging if any and during which years.

55

ss) He sought to know as during the current dredging what is the depth, length, breadth and area of the patches individually.

tt) He stated that the bathymetric reports of all the capital dredging done by the MPT. This will give a fair idea of the impact on dredging on the whole of MPT area. This should be before and after each dredging.

uu) He questioned as to whether there is any study conducted on the fresh water aquifers below the sea bed i.e. at -25 mts, -30 mtrs, -35 mtrs. This study should be before each capital dredging carried by PP and also for the current dredging. This is required since there are freshwater aquifers below the sea bed and are connected to the nearby Land mass whereby we loss Fresh water reservoir.

vv) He sought to know whether any scientific study by NIO regarding fresh water aquifers, native species and their impact within MPTs operational area and surroundings 15 kms of the water front.

ww) He sought to know whether any study being done on the impact on the habitat staying in Vasco, Mormugao, Khariawada, Chicalim during last 10 years especially on the health issue.

xx) He stated that several landslides happening around Mormugao like tarivaddo, jetty on the MPT area. He also questioned whether any study had done as to why such incidents are happening? This is within the Study Zone.

yy) He stated that questions on Form I will also be asked, so please carry the required documents and Form I tomorrow.

31. Sanjay Pereira, Kakra, Santa Cruz (Panch Member)a) He stated that their panchayat is not in receipt of the copy of the EIA

report.b) He stated that Kakra and Odxel words have been omitted in the EIA

report.c) He stated that the pros and cons of dredging are not known to the public.d) He stated that the fishermen community is not taken into consideration

while drafting the EIA report.e) He stated that the amount of fish caught in the river Zuari is not known.

The ICAR is conducting study for last tow years along with the local fishermen who has till date seen 218 species. He further stated that if dredging is done than not even 18 species would remain, can PP gurantee this will not deplete.

f) He stated that we as Goans should protect the Goan soil.g) He questioned whether this fight against illegalities be carried on?h) He sought to know whether the quantity of fish will increase or decrease

after the dredging activity. The Chairman clarified that in the EIA report it is already mentioned that the big fish will flee off.

i) He raised his objection towards the dredging activity because the Fisheries Department was not considered. The Chairman clarified that it was for the consultant to prepare the report as per their choice and as a Chairman he cannot force upon the project proponent to choose the different inputs from various departments.

56

32. Jacinto D’Souzaa) He stated that in 2011, there was a big agitation in Vasco in the month of

April. 66 houses were demolished. He stated that fishermen blocked the navigation of MPT. He also stated that resultantly all party meeting was conducted by the State Government, MPT and opposition leader. He stated that he has placed this on record yesterday in his submissions.

b) He stated that in the said meeting a lot of discussions pertaining to traditional fishermen, regarding Jurisdiction of MPT and all other details regarding the Land which MPT claims to be their Land took place. The jurisdiction of MPT, fishing village etc was taken.

c) He stated that the Law Secretary had clearly mentioned that MPT has got no legal title.

d) He stated that MPT came into existence only in the year 1963 under major ports act. Before that MPT was only known as Captain of Port during Portuguese period. As per the tenants of Law, if any person is in occupation of any house / land than by adverse possession they become owners. If the tenants stayed in houses, or were in agriculture land, or in forest than after this act they become owners after staying there for a certain period and were given ownership rights. He questioned as to what about the fishermen who have been in occupation and possession of the rivers / seas. Why any law can’t be done by the State Government for the benefit of the fisherman.

e) He stated that during the Portuguese period in Goa his father and forefather were fishermen and they had to seek licence even to fish. He has documentary evidence of the same licences. Captain of port maritime were issuing the fishing licences and he has enclosed copies of the licences in the submission. On this ground he says that he is the wilful owner of this Land. He stated that fishermen are the custodian of the sea and rivers. And any changes or any development that is in this land cannot be undertaken without his consent. He stated that MPT cannot do expansion at their wins and fancies. He and the fishing community were in this traditional fishing for generations. He sought for all documents from MPT and substantiate that they are the owners. The representative replied that they are the owners and they have got the documents.

f) The objector wanted the documents but the representative of MPT stated that they cannot show the document in the forum.

g) He stated that he claims to be the landlord of the same land which MPT claims to be owner of the karewada beach and has documents. He stated that on the record of the credestal plan the owners of the karewada beach in divided into landlords and the fishermen are staying there and are Mundkars. MPT had sent demolition of the structures through Municipality some years back. It is only the structure that are said they don’t have construction licences. The Mudkars are the fishermen who are staying there. How you can MPT claim the ownership of this land? If this is the case than Goa is 2/3 illegal he claimed. How can you say 2/3 of Goa is illegal?

57

He stated that its looks like MPT for their selfish expansion projects wants to finish the traditional fishermen and displace them. Most of the fishermen are forced to migrate and leave Goa and adopt Portuguese Nationality because MPT has grabbed their livelihood. Do they have any other source to earn and clear the Loan he asked?

h) He stated that ever since the expansion took place, the fish catch has reduced to a great extent. He also stated that the fish catch be checked upon the MPT from the Fisheries Department.

i) He stated that People have obtained loans to do their traditional activity but by displacement of the indigenous people they have terrorised them by forcing them to leave the place. He stated that some people have even commited suicide because of bad debt since their fishing business was affected due to Low catch of fish.

j) He questioned whether the socio economic effect analysis been done by the PP?k) The representative replied that whatever is there is mentioned in the EIA report

and that they go by it and all concerns would be addressed by them. He questioned the PP regarding data of the displaced/migrated fishermen community due to the impact of financial losses on the fishermen. He questioned how many fishermen are staying as per their EIA report which is already challenged by one of the earlier speakers.

l) He stated that in one of the Letter addressed to Hon’ble Minister for Shipping by the State of Goa in 2011. It has clearly mentioned that fishermen have been doing their activities since time immemorial as their only means of livelihood. If MPT carries put with their activities, it is mentioned that the traditional fishermen would be wiped out of not only kharevaddo but also Baina. It was requested that the MPT should immediately stop or any expansions of the MPT project.

m) He questioned as when was the project proposed? The representative f MPT replied that the application was moved on 21/10/2016.

o) He also questioned whether the MPT knows that all party delegation / meeting was conducted? Did they attend the meeting?

p) The representative of MPT replied stating that they are not aware. He states that on one side State Goverment don’t want any expansion, want to control the jurisdiction of MPT, they don’t want any polluting industries and on the other side MPT is issuing them expansion for private entities. And MPT is giving them expansion permissions. How is it possible? Does this letter all party delegation have any Value? Does’t the state Goverment have any meaning? MPT has mention in the letter that they will take care of the traditional fishing villages and no future development will carried out. He states that with regards to this letter they (MPT) have signed a agreement.

q) He stated that he reiterated to the contents of the letter written by the State of Goa to Ministry of Shipping whereby MPT should be ordered to drop all the expansion proposals in the area which is sort to be de-notified from their (MPT) Jurisdiction. He stated that currently the port operations are only confirmed from gate No.1 to the port and up to the fishing port jetty to the eastern side of Vasco bay.

58

r) He stated that Government of Goa is convinced that no expansion should be done by displacing the traditional fishermen who would be deprived on their livelihood is what he said. He question why MPT is not implementing the All party meeting delegation minutes.

s) He stated that Minutes of meeting dated 16/04/2011 were read out during the all party meeting of the State of Goa. He named the personnel present for the meeting which included the Chairman of MPT, Dy. Chairman etc.

He listed out the names of representatives of Karewada affected people. t) He pointed out that the CM of Goa had called upon to resolve the issue

amicably. The aspect of de-notifying the jurisdiction of MPT was also in the said all party meeting which was read out. As soon as the notification is issued, no other activities business is permissible except traditional fishing activities thus it exclusively meant for fishing activity.

De-notify jurisdiction of MPT is also part of the delegation.u) He stated that regularization of structures in the coastal belt was also part of

the said discussion which are reflected in the minutes of 16/04/2011. The MPT representative replied that if the matter is sub-judice then they cannot give any commitment. MPT representative also said they are always open for amicable solutions to the tri party agreement.

v) He stated that the demands of the Khariwada fishermen were agreeable to the State of Goa and that MPT should abide by it.

w) He said that on the MPT website there is a mention of Green Port Initiative. He questions whether any initiative have been taken. The MPT representative replied that they are doing harbour water tests quarterly. He questioned as to whether it is mentioned in the EIA report. MPT representative replied that it is mentioned in the EIA report at page 3-42.

x) He further questioned as to what is the pollution level of the harbour water. The MPT representative replied that phytoplankton, zooplankton, micro benthos are the types of microphybial present. The objector requested for the report at page 3-42 and submitted that there is so much of presence of coal. He stated that the people are not even going for a swim in the water as the people are affected by skin diseases since the water is polluted. The data reported is a flaw as news media has reported Coal pollution at the Vasco karewada beach.

y) He questioned since when is the channel of Vasco bay in existence i.e. before 1963 or after 1963. The MPT representative replied that the channel is in existence ever since the vessels are coming.

z) He sought to know the quantum of maintenance dredging. MPT representative replied that it is 3 million cu.m tons of maintenance dredging per annum. He claimed that the Karewada beach was 100mts earlier during the Portuguese period. Today the beach does not exist and looks like a well. He questioned where has the beach has Vanished?

aa) He charged that in the grab of maintenance dredging, MPT is carrying out capital dredging and resultantly the sandy coast of the beach has gotten eroded. He requested for an independent survey jointly by the MPT and the

59

Vasco fishermen. And unless these are done there should not be any more work.

bb) He charged that on account of dredging, cracks have developed for the houses which would surely collapse in the due course of time.

cc) He alleged that all losses suffered by the traditional fishermen including the beach are on account of MPT. He stated that the because of the activities of MPT, the fishermen community have been effected economically and become poor. He demanded economical compensation and also restoration of beach from MPT.

dd) He also mentioned that as on date the entrance of Hindu crematorium is from the back side and the main entrance to the said crematorium is submerged under water. Earlier during olden days the entrance was thro the beach. Today there is no beach.

ee) He stated that there was a vast playfield and now it is not in existence.ff) He stated that even in Vasco there was biodiversity. He stated that he used to

fish out window pane oysters and clams in Vasco itself and there is not finding a mention in the EIA report.

gg) He stated that high tension electricity line used to pass and now the same is removed. The MPT representative replied that the high tension electricity line is removed and replaced by way of underground cabling about 5-6 years back. The objector stated that this tower is now submerged in water as it was earlier on the beach and this has caused only because of dredging affect on the beach erosion. No mention of this in the EIA report.

hh) He stated that because of dredging both capital and maintenance dredging all the houses would be lost during this monsoon.

ii) He demanded the maintenance dredging to be stopped immediately or else save their houses would collapse. He also stated that he wanted to construct retaining wall at the cost of MPT and in future if any damage is caused to any house, MPT would be liable.

jj) He stated that in between berth 7 and 8 there was a small beach. He asked if MPT was aware of it because when he was young they used to go with a canoe and catch fish but as of now there is no such beach left.

kk) He questioned as to when the fishing jetty was built? MPT replied that it was built in 1997. He questioned why is the present fishing jetty sought to be shifted ? The representative of MPT stated that it is a part of modernisation. He alleged that its to fool the people of Vasco and not beach will exist.

ll) He questioned if the Vasco Bay would exist or not ? The representative of MPT replied that it would continue to exist.

mm) He questioned as to where would the POL jetty be shifted ? The representative of MPT replied that the sand shifting is under study. The objector reported saying that the future development proposes that POL would be shifted on its left.

nn) He questioned as to why the traditional fishermen canoe operators not included in this MOU ? He questioned as to what provision are made on the impact of dredging on the traditional fishermen and what study is being done to this effect? The Chairman intervened saying that this is not in the scope of

60

the present public hearing. He submitted that the EIA report must have the impact study on the traditional fishermen because there are affected by dredging.

oo) He questioned whether following international dredging standards are being followed ? The representative of MPT replied to state as Yes.

pp) He questioned as to how much one is allowed to dredge? The representative of MPT replied that upon carrying out an in depth study based on location of the Port.

qq) He sought to know the location of unloading the dredged material and the representative of MPT replied that it is dumped at a distance of 12 and 14 kms respectively away from break water after carrying out the study. He submitted that the dredged material has to be dumped on a spoiled ground and just not anywhere in the sea. Why location is not mentioned in the EIA report?

rr) He sought to know whether any base study has been done on the dumped soil. MPT representative replied that it is mentioned on page 3-7. He questioned the original depth when the study was done? MPT replied they have the record. The objector charged that wave condition study needs to be done at the karewada beach which has not been carried out by MPT. Result is that the waves are destroying their houses during monsoon.

ss) He questioned as to whether any tidal confluences have been studied. MPT replied that the tide is a natural phenomenon and that it is beyond their control.

tt) He questioned as to whether any coal enters the river during unloading form ship. MPT representative replied that it doesn’t enter the river. The objector reiterated that lot of coal was seen on the karewada beach and the news media has reported this a few day back just before the public hearing.

The objector charged that the MPT has not done any study on the tidal confluence.He said that due to the tidal effect all the coal in the sea is washed ashore and measures should be taken to stop and control it.

uu) He stated that the wind condition study is not being carried out nor early warning system has been put in place.

vv) As per 2.2.6. He stated that the port area suffers from soil erosion during monsoons. What preventive measures have been taken to contain this? He questioned as to whether any study has been done in this regards. The MPT representative stated that they are taking note of the same. So it means that no action is taken and it was promised by MPT long ago.

ww) Enviromental Aspects: He questioned as to what are the measures taken for dust suppression and curtailing pollution. MPT representative replied that spraying water on stack, covering cargo during transportation, erection of screens all along the border are some of the measures which MPT is doing presently and will be done in future. He charged that MPT is not adhering to the dust suppression system as it was also proved by one of the speakers. He charged that there should be detailed analysis of the residential areas and the health sector. Please make judgment on one of the green tribunal regarding

61

water pollution.. M. C, Mehta v/s Union of India and ors dated dated 28-04- 2017 regarding pollution control.

xx) MPT belives in SWOT analysis (Strength Weekness Opputunity and Treats anaylysis). On their Furture development it states that in this regard due to lack of space and fishermen area very close to the port and cargo, this expansion is not possible because of this two points.

yy) He stated that MPT should end the dredging without legal sanctity before starting this project and he condemns their act and as a result the indigenous community is facing turbulent times ahead. He hoped that state agencies will listen to our prayers.

33. Suraj Naik - Agassaima) He Questioned that will in future there will be availability of Shellfish Eg. Xenaneos ,Tisrayo, khubes, which are presently available will it continue to get in future as already they are affected due to Dredging.

b) MPT replied saying that they hope & expect that whatever shellfish exist and available would be available in future.

c) He questioned whether they have a copy of the hearing notice? The representative said that they do not have it right now but they have it in the office.

d) He stated that the chairman is suppressing the voice of the people and youth.

g) He questioned why was petroleum gas Tanks and chemical tanks are not highlighted in the EIA Report ? Is there MPTs plan to blast vasco?

34. Udhav Pol- Vasco: a He stated that he and other families living in Vasco are facing hardship and

health problem due to the activities of MPT. When they wake up in morning we feel week and when we walk or run we feel suffocated and we feel tired. They are suffering from health problems like suffocation, tuberculosis, coughing etc. why we are made to suffer for no faults of ours. Why is the project proponent destroying our beautiful Goa.

b) He stated that the project proponent like M/s. Adani and Jindal are like Rahu and Ketu who are creating havoc and destruction in Goa they should be made to quit Goa and save our Goa from these demons.

c) He stated the data mentioned in the Executive Summary and the EIA report are not matching to each other they have deliberately hidden many things, name of many villagers are omitted. Hence this is the valid reason to scrap the entire project. Coal is damaging our health ad we public will fight against and stop the expansions and dredging activities.

35. Fr. Gabriel Countinho : Parish Priest of St. Andrew Church, Vasco.

62

a) He stated that he was listening to the deliberations which have taken place during these days. Everybody will agree that we need clean and green environment. Over the year all of us are working foe clean and green environment. Swachh Bharat, then how can we contradict or one side for getting awards for clean and green environment and other side cause pollution.

b) If you come to St. Andrews Church and the school you will find dust on benches. When fan is put on early in the morning children start coughing sacristan cleans the church which is full of coal dust. People close their window/door because the dust is entering their houses. If you want you can make survey, why all houses are closing their doors and windows. Humble request to the authorities to give justice to people of Goa and to see what is objectively comment whether will people of Goa to live in peaceful manner. If human being is not point of reference it is not just and proper. Money should not be the sole factor for development. He further stated that one person working n MPT said that he is working in MPT and he is from Chandor, if coal is stopped he will lose his job, he wanted job, so will the priest gives us jobs. But he said development is for whom ? If human being is not considered it should not be GPP but it should be GDH. Humble request to keep the, therefore my humble request is to take the human being as point of reference. If Government is not interested nothing will happen. Government has to see justice is done. If Government is hand in gloves, then nothing can happen. Justice to be done objectively. JSW has given donation of of Rs.25/- lakhs as per their CSR development for St. Andrews School, and not to the church, this money is helping to build the school which will be used for the marginalized students of Mormugao (Vasco).

c) I personally would like to warn all leader and NGOs, please do not accept any money which will definitely be passed around to dilute this situation. I join my hands today to stay away from this Crime against humanity if taken money for starting such projects. Be objective and give justice to people don’t get influence with the money you get.

36. Sanjay Redkar.

a) He continued to seek clarification from the project proponent as to the answers or reply to the questions raised yesterday (refer his above minutes). There was no specific reply to the concerns or clarification given to the public. Chairman replied that MPT has replied saying that “this report is the draft EIA reporte concerns raised during the public hearing will be addressed in the final EIA report. They have not given a reply as such, this is a reply as such and a copy will be given of same”. He pointed out that the questions were specifically asked about the history of dredging and its effect in and around the proposed dredging location. He raised a concerned that these questions are of the public and raised in the public meeting and since they are directly related to the project the PP should answer the questions in public and not to GSPCB separately behind

63

the closed doors. He referred the Notice by GSPCB and objected to the procedure adopted in the Public hearing where by the public are debarred from getting response or clarification from the Project proponent and hence said that this Public hearing is a clear Violation of the EIA notification 2006.

b) The chairman responded that he cannot force the PP to answer and hence put on record that PP has not answered to the concerns. The chairman submitted that the reply will be given to the GSPCB which will be made available to the objector. The objector raised the concerned that the PP has to express the clarifications of Public as it’s a public forum and this public hearing is Null and Void. The Chaiman agreed to record his statement that the public meeting is Null and Void. However expressed his unwillingness to decide on it Void or Not, The EAC will decide.

c) He raised the objection that the Public hearing is fake and void and also the procedure adopted for this current hearing since the concerns raised were not answered by the PP even after giving them a time of one day.

d) He pointed out to Form I point no 10, that 15 million tonnes is mentioned and noting is mentioned about 6 million. MPT replied 6 million of maintenance dredging is not a part of the project. MPT also stated that Maintenance dredging is carried out for last 40 years

e) The objector stated that maintenance dredging being a continuous process as it affects the topography of the sea bed it should have been a part of the EIA report. The objector stated that the maintenance dredging should also be included in form 1 since it also affects the environment in the surrounding areas. It is mentioned in the EIA report that 6million cu.m will be dredged every year and along 10 years it counts to 60million cu.m which is very huge quantity. There will be Huge impact on the environment due to maintenance dredging which has happened or past several decades when MPT has stated dredging right from day 1 from their 1st Capital Dredging. Several veral speakers has mentioned earlier that there existed a Karewada Beach when the port operation were going on several decades back (60-70 year). And since MPT is carrying our maintenance dredging every year and the soil is taken out from there and dumped at some unknown locations there is being a great impact on the breath of kharewada beach and also on the surrounding area along the navigation channel, turning circle radius.

f) The question raised by me yesterday would have given a complete picture on the environment. What I asked yesterday it was very very important and MPT was unable to give any of the answers clarifications and/or are unwilling to cooperate with the data available or show any documents or replies on capital dredging carried by MPT previously and similarly on maintenance dredging, which was required to compare today’s topography or Bathymetical drawings with the 1st capital dredging readings or first recorded by MPT.

g) Point no. 17 of Form I, MPT had disclosed nearest railway station as that if 5 kms but the same is false and now the compound wall is within 2 kms.

64

h) Point no. 19 of Form I nearest town is within 1 km but they have mentioned it as 5 kms. MPT has given false distance.

i) The objector questioned if All projects are interlinked. The representative of MPT replied that all three projects are both physically and economically independent.

j) Is it within 546 acres? MPT replied that the project is within this area but 546 acres is land area. MPT replied that it is nothing to do with the area. The objector pointed out that all the 3 projects are within the said area of 546acres of MPT.

k) What is the water jurisdiction? MPT replied that port is having jurisdiction over water area. It is defined as latitudes and longitudes. But in the river Zuari it is upto the Zuari bridge towards the east only foreshore area for administrative control.

l) He stated that in Form I Point 21 the study areas is the same for all three projects and hence the cumulative effect studied as one single project as it is within their area and all are adjacent to each other. In all the 3 projects they have mentioned handling of Coal in all the 3 EIA’s. What is mention by MPT is “No” has to be Yes . Since all projects are Interlinked. The EIA should be same as the study area is common and that the cumulative effect stusy as one single project as its within their area and not separated by any distance but share a common boundaries.

m) By how much distance is berth no. 5A and 6A is separated by this dredging project. Can MPT answer? The representative of MPT replied that it is separated. The distance from the dredging area and berth no.5A and 6A is as per capital dredging project and the approach is adjacent to inner channel. The boundary is common this is what MPT stated of approaches of navigation channel, approaches (were the dredging will be carried) and also of berth 5A and 6A.

n) He questioned as to whether MPT is going to dredge the approach channel to 19.5m. The representative of MPT replied yes it is part of the scheme.

o) He questioned whether the approach channel is adjacent to berth 5A and 6A. The representative of MPT replied yes.

p) The objector stated that since berth 5A and 6A and the dredging is sharing a common boundary and required draft for approach is same how can be the projects different and not interlinked. The Objector stated that the projects are physically together and may be separated commercially or something else. Hence what is submitted in Form I point 21 is hence false is what the objector said.

q) Are berth no. 8, 9A showing common boundary to the approach channel, where the dredging will be carried out. The representative of MPT replied stating yes. The objector stated that if this is the answer than the project is common when all the three projects share the common boundaries of the dredging, how it can be different.

r) MPT replied that all three projects are different both physically and economically.

s) MPT stated that the study area for all three projects is almost common.

65

t) The objector states that since there are falsities in the Form I and the EIA report the undertaking which they have given should be banked upon should be shelved.

u) He stated that Form I Sr. No. 23 the answer given is No. MPT replied saying that since it is written as No in the Form I, they stand by it.

v) He questioned have any dolphins been sighted. MPT replied that they have not seen any dolphins in the enhanced area. There are no records of dolphins being sighted in the MPT’s operational area. MPT admits that through the media it is reported about dolphins sighted in Goan waters.

w) The objector stated that may species like dolphins, window pane oysters, corals etc are scheduled species protected if the Wildlife Act of 1972. Since the inputs given are false. Hence since they have filed the undertaking and the information is not found true the project should be cancelled or quash.

x) He stated that Form I. Sr. No. 25 he asked if there is any Government policy which is allowing it to dredge to 19.8mts? MPT said “Yes”. And futher stated that in shipping industry the vessel size is increasing and India should also be capable of handling higher capacity of ships and hence to cope up with the changing dynamics MPT has embarked on this exercise which is one of the directives of the shipping ministry.

y) He stated that as per the 12th Five Year Plan 2012-2017 it stipulates for removal of all pollutant fossil fuels and hazardous material including Coal. MPT agreed that it is one of the directives.

z) The objector stated that as per the 12th Five Year Plan 2012 -2017 and the answer given in sr.no. 25 of Form I the answer is incorrect. The policy focus is to get rid of handling of hazardous material including coal. Hence since a no true information is stated by MPT in form 1 the EIA project should be quashed.

aa)He stated that Form I Sr. No. II what is the meaning of local land use plan. MPT says that 546 acres is divided in difference zones like for warehousing area, residential area, institutional area etc.

bb) The objector stated that since he topographical changes be it beneath the sea or due to landslides is definitely going to change the geography and hence, it should have been answered as “Yes” in the Sr. No. 1.1 of Form I.

cc) The representative of MPT replied that capital or maintenance dredging is not going to alter the land pattern.

dd) He questioned where does your limit extend in the Zuari river? MPT replied as water and foreshore area.

ee) The Objector stated that what is submitted in Sr. No. 1.1 of Form I. is wrong as what would be dredged is land beneath water. And definitely there will be change in topography.

ff) He stated that at para 1.15 of Form I, he sought to know whether any study has been made on the facilities for treatment of disposal of solid waste? The representative of MPT replied that it is mentioned in page no. 2-17 of the EIA report.

66

gg) The objector stated that the study is not included as part of the EIA report like what type of habitat exists and what would be the impact on the species etc.

hh) The representative of MPT replied that what is mentioned in the EIA report is correct and they stand by it.

ii) The objector stated there is no detail study as part of the EIA report on the impact of the dredge material in the disposed designated area/off shore area and that this would lead to massive imbalance in the area having impact on fishes, corals, species, habitats, micro organisms, etc. and the entire ecosystem in that area would collapse down.

jj) He questioned in respect of Point no. 1.21 & 1.23 of Form I, whether any study has been carried out on this aspect of aquifers present in the proposed dredging area.

kk) The representative of MPT has replied saying that no study has been carried out in the proposed dredging area.

ll) The objector stated that aquifers are our fresh water bodies which are connected to our land mass also which after dredging can have huge impact on the wells, ponds, fresh water, and springs as the damage to aquifers would result in contamination of fresh water. They should have done a complete study on the fresh water aquifers before any dredging.

mm) The representative of MPT replied that they have to find out if any aquifers exists in the area and if they do exists than what should be the remedy to the same.

nn) The objector stated that since the study is not done on the aquifers the EIA report is incomplete and hence to be quashed aside. Fresh water is basic a necessity for human survival and a right to living and one cannot live without it. Also fresh water is depleting, we should not disturb the nature unless a proper study is made on the Aquifers.

oo) The objector charged that the EIA study is incomplete without there being a proper study. He further gave an example of Saudi Arabia when they began dredging for VLCC and VVLCC vessels. The aquifers were destroyed resulting in Bahrain being lost with any natural drinking water and now they depend on outside support for supply of drinking water.

pp) He stated that at point no. 1.30 of Form I, native species are also the fishermen in port and the first human habitat that would be affected. The second habitat is the window pane oysters and many more species. The objector submitted that the reply is false and the EIA report has to be squashed.

qq) He stated that at para I point 3.3, that the fisher folks are completely dependent on the sea. Aren’t they going to be affected? Yes the first people which will be affected is the fisherfolks and also there is no study done in this regards. The health of the people is also not studied and the answer given therein is thus incorrect.

rr) He stated that para 3.4 of Form I, MPT replied that capital dredging is not going to affect them and hence it is mentioned as ‘No’. The dredgers emanating smoke would add to the pollution in the air but the same is

67

negligible. The direction of wind is going to people in hospitals, children and elderly is what the objector stated. Since dredging would change the topography there would be huge change in the livelihood patterns on people living in surrounding area. Specially the elderly fishermen in the surrounding area. There will be effect on their health.

ss) He stated that para 4.7 of form I was pointed out by the objector which is synonymous to para 1.15 of Form I and he reiterated the same again to drive home the point that there are falsities in the reports. The dredge material dumped at the designated ground will affect on pecies like dolphins, window pane oysters, corals etc are scheduled species protected if the Wildlife Act of 1972.

tt) He pointed out to 5.1 and he related the same to what he just narrated in respect of para 3.4.

uu) He pointed out para 8.3 of Form I are there any changes if any landslides whilst dredging being done. MPT replied and said as no impact is to be caused the siltation which enters the channel is the silt which enters from Arabian Sea is what MPT replied.

vv) The objector stated that dredging would lead to the landslides nearby areas and even Dr. Mascarenhas report of GCZMA has clarified that there could be chances of landslides and impact human habitat residing nearby.

ww) He pointed para 9.2. of Form I. Factors which should be considered which could lead to environmental effects or potential for cumulative impacts with existing or planned activities in the locality. All the 3 projects are in the same locality and we have to come to have cumulative study on the project. This is mention and proved in the ealier in the minutes that all 3 projects are in the same locality sharing common boundaries. When we 9.2, For cumulative effect MPT has replied stating as “No”. the removal of sediments can have adverse affects both physical and chemical at the nearby site. The nearest protected area in the Chicalim bay and it is a heritage site. The grande islands and the coral reefs is not finding a mention in the EIA. If we table this history of dredging, the Kharewada beach was 100mts wide and is just having a present breadth of 10 mts as this is an impact of the earlier capital dredging and maintenance dredging carried out every year. The undertaking is false and should by quashed.

xx) He point out part III of Form no. I, Sr. No. 1 the areas under international, conventions, national or local legislation etc has not been properly disclosed. He stated that Mormugoa port, Grande island, Fronti spices of sancoale, british cementary at Donapaula, The old Goa church, reis mangues Fort, Dr.Salim Ali Bird Sanctuary, the old Goa churches, the Aguada Fort is not finding a mention. MPT has submitted as no while it should be “YES” The undertaking is false and should by quashed.

yy) He point out part III of Form I Sr. No. 2 no mention is made of the Chicalim bay which is hardly about 2-3 kms aerial distance, having direct impact on the ecological balance. MPT has submitted as no while it should be “YES” The undertaking is false and should by quashed.

68

zz) He point out part III of Form I Sr. No. 3 mention is made of the Chicalim bay which is hardly about 2-3 kms aerial distance, having direct impact on the ecological balance. It should be included in the report.

aaa) He pointed out point no. 4 underground aquifers is not finding a mention.bbb) He pointed out part III of Form I point no 7 no mention make of Naval

Airport, INS Jivanti, Naval Coast Battery Station, Naval Armamant Depot at Dabolim, Naval Armamant Depot at Chicalim, underwater ranges at Baina, Depot at Bogda belonging to the Navy, Military Training camp at Bambolim and hence the EIA report is to be quashed.

ccc) He pointed out point no. 8 of part 3 of form 1 has no mention made of the population as what is shown (28,000) is just the electoral population of mormugao constituency, here we have to add population of Vasco, dabolim Cortalim, St. Andre the cumulative population of the study area which is about 4 lakhs is just left out. It is just form the record of electoral however the actual population will be more. Because of this understanding the entire EIA on account of falsehood should be quashed.

ddd) He also pointed out that point part III no. 9 of part 3 of form 1 doesn’t bring out the number of institutions, religious places etc. Because of this false undertaking the entire EIA on account of falsehood should be quashed.

eee) He pointed out part III of Form I point no 10, Fishing points at Kharewada, Baina, Cortalim, Mandovi, etc, mangroves alongside Mandovi and Zuari rivers are left out. In St. Andre constituency, many paddy fields are not covered up resultantly the agricultural impact is not made out. The information is incomplete or they are misguiding us.

fff) He opined that para 11 of part 3 of form 1 regarding the case pending before the NGT (22nd Sep 2016) is not mentioned and hence the answer given is NO should be “Yes”. Because of this false undertaking the entire EIA on account of falsehood should be quashed.

ggg) The objector stated that para 12 of part 3 of form 1 that there was land slide at Rumadawada jetty. MPT replied that there was no land slide. Objector stated that there are several landslides close to the area like that at Bogda, Jetty, tarivado, area etc and it is within 1.5 km from the project site. The objector stated that the erosions are already happening and felt. There has been erosion of the beach at Kharewada over the past years due to dredging. So there is a impact and seen its happening. MPT submission at para 12 of part 3 of form 1 is mentioned as NO should be “Yes”. Because of this false undertaking the entire EIA on account of falsehood should be quashed.

hhh) Within the area of study within 3 kms, there are about dense population of more than 100 thousand who would have direct impact and the long term damage would be irreversible. Detailed study on impacts is required to be carried before any permissions are given for dredging as already damage has started at Kharewada beach. The future dredging will have cascading affect and irreversible. Hence there is strong objection to this capital dredging since no detail history study on dredging on this is done.

69

iii) In all 3 EIA’s the sole purpose of dredging is only for handling bulk cargo and coal and hence they should have been combined/clubbed together.

fff) A cumulative impact assessment study was required to be done as per EIA notification of 2006 scheduled 7E.

ggg) By making it look like three independent projects, they are bypassing the need for a cumulative impact assessment.

hhh) In all three EIA’s a mention is made of the depths requirement only for getting capsize vessels.

iii) What would be the length of the berth 5A upto the barge berth? MPT replied as 1800 meters.

jjj) He raised his strong objections towards dredging as it would have heavy impact on the life of people and human habitats commercially, health wise and I strongly object for capital dredging to be carried out by MPT.

kkk) Our fundamental right is to survive with our environmental, that is our basic right and for that right, I strongly oppose to the dredging as lot of families will be displaced especially the local habitats.

lll) He stated the he is a local and not an outsider. And the right to living is the first right and the government should look after us.

mmm) Asked if here is any chemical expert & MPT replied they don’t have one. Under the disaster management plan, MPT should check the chemical what they are importing and the type of gases that are released. The life of the people is at risk due to the ammonia tanks. He suggested that it is high time they appoint one.

37. Avinash Tavares.a) a) He produced satellite images of MPT area and stated that photo 1,2

and 3, dated 22/10/15, is of a dredger near the MPT port. He stated that at

the beginning of this hearing he had asked MPT if dredged in order to

reduce their fuel expense and cut cost keep their disposal door open and

dump the material along the way and MPT had said no. He stated that the

trail of mud behind the dredger in the photo is proof that the dredgers leave

the dredged material along the way to disposal site.

b) The MPT stated that on 22 Oct 2015, there was no dredging going on.

Capital dredging started from Jan 2017 onwards and maintenance dredging

of previous year ended on 3rd Oct 2014. Capital dredging was stopped in 31st

May 2016.

c) Avinash pointed out photo No. 7 which is dated 23/3/16 and stated

that this date according to MPT is when dredging was taking place. In photo

no 8, 9 and 10 the trail of sediments in the ocean behind the dredger is

clearly visible and it begins at the port. He stated that is very clear that both

70

during capital dredging and maintenance dredging; the dredger was dumping

the dredged material along the way.

d) The representative of MPT stated that capital dredging was done

almost at all the area i.e. the inner turning circle, outer channel etc.. The

Objector stated that dredging was done from eastern side near the berth and

not elsewhere as shown in one picture. The representative of MPT reiterated

what he stated about capital dredging being carried out at outer channel,

approach channel etc.

e) The objector stated that their submissions about where 60% of

dredging has been done is all false. If they were transparent they would have

shown the areas where the dredging has been done. Based on the photos it

shows that they have done most of the dredging near the berths.

f) Avinash then pointed out in Oct 2016, the photos shows that

maintenance dredging was done at MPT. The MPT denied that any

maintenance dredging was done in Oct 2016. Avinash stated that he has

already mentioned that a tender for maintenance dredging was floated in

2016.

g) Avinash asked for all the names of dredgers used in the last two years

in order to verify their operations.

h) He pointed out Photo No 6 and stated that it can clearly be seen how

sediment gets displaced southwards. Such studies were not done.

i) He referred to photo No 28 which shows sediments leaving the Zuari

River and how they travel during low tide. When they say there is no erosion

happening of the Vasco beach, it proves that they don’t have done studies

because the two small bays, Khariwada Bay and around St Jacinto islands,

small whirlpools are created in clockwise during high tide and anticlockwise

direction during low tide. This effect is caused with water enters or leaves

the bay and balances out sediments on the shoreline. However, due to the

breakwater and the port, the beach gets eroded but the sediments are not

deposited back.

j) He pointed out that in the EIA report it is stated that the sediments

shift is due to the sea and there was no mention of the impact of the river.

The whirlpool effect is not studied at all but on CWPRS website there is a

photo of Goa shipyard physical model where a whirlpool is formed in front

of their berths. He stated that the study done for sediment displacement is

insufficient since it does not take into account the role of the Zuari River.

71

k) He stated refereeing to fig 4.1 of the EIA report, purple color shows

the displacement of 0.04m. He questioned whether the PP wants to tell us

that the sediment displacement at the entire bay is even and under 0.04

meters and that the only place where sediment displacement takes place is at

the channel? His submission is that the diagram has been photoshoped and it

is not possible that only at channel there is displacement above 0.04m. He

stated that as per the Google images, sediments are displaced unevenly at the

bay.

l) He stated that CWPRS since Nehrus time used to do studies as a part

of socialism. Since capitalism took over, they are charging money and

creating shoddy. CWPRS charged around Rs 1027930 of public money for

the shoddy report. He questioned that while applying for the previous EC,

whether CWPRS had done another study at that time? He stated that in

another hearing, MPT had stated that they were already dumping at the two

new sites but the CWPRS report recommended those sites are ideal. He

questioned whether CWPRS has informed MPT that the two sites are ideal

even before preparation of the EIA report study. Mpt official stated that the

study carried out by CWPRS was on hydrodynamics and siltation for

deepening of approach channel at mormugao port and hydrodynamics and

siltation pattern whether in 2015 or 2016 remains the same. Avinash rejected

this statement. He stated that MPT directed CWPRS to select a site where

the dumping was already being carried out by MPT. MPT did not give

CWPRS any other option for dumping site and MPT paid CWPRS 10 lakhs

to tell MPT what they already now and photoshop the simulation images. He

questions why 10 lakhs were paid to CWPRS and why CWPRS took 4

months from March-July 2016 just to say that the site which MPT was

already dumping was a good one.

m) He questioned MPT whether they were doing any other study through

CWPRS.The MPT official stated that they have been working with CWPRS

for last 40 years. Avinash clarified that the studies being done on physical

models which are 40 year old out dated technology where miniature models

of the port is created and water is poured to study the hydrodynamics. He

pointed out that the model does not represent the entire bay including

donapaula area and does not represent the real depths of the Zuari bay. He

reiterated that the simulations by CWPRS were fake since they did not show

the disposal area

72

n) He stated that MPT has been pumping ground water through bore

wells at the site but have not tested the salinity of the water. He stated that

when fresh water is pumped out, the brackish water barrier shifts inland

which is called salt water intrusion. MPT has not done any study in this

regard which is very important.

o) He stated that the water table is around 20 mts and the aquifers are

around 50 meter deep. He stated that they are pumping from the aquifer

without studying the impact. He quoted a study done by Dr NR Menon, lead

scientist and Chairman of Scientific Research Advisory Board & BD of

NERC of Kochi’s Vallapadam terminal, where he stated that “after the

terminal started functioning, dredging was being carried out 24x7. With this,

the depth of the shipping channel has increased from the earlier 10-12

metres to 18 meters. Although the depth of the channel is merely 18 m, the

depth just beyond the mouth of the harbor is 1000 meters. When the depth of

the channel increases, however minor that increase is, there would be a

sudden and powerful rush of water from the sea inland, which in turn floods

low-lying areas. During high tide, the water level increases furthermore.

Vegetable such as chilies, bitter gourd and drumsticks were once grown by

residents but not the planted just wilt and die. It has also been found that

many wells which once provided fresh water, and even bore wells have

turned salty. The salinity in the soil has also weakened the structure of

houses, as the salts in the water have an impact on the durability of building

materials. This causes cracks and dampness to walls and foundations. The

salt also leads to the corrosion of metals and adds to the weakening of

structures.”. He stated that salt water intrusion is already a problem in

another port and MPT should have done the study here as well. Salt water

intrusion will effect Mormugao as well

p) He stated that Liquefaction is a phenomenon where saturated or

partially saturated soil substantially looses strength and stiffness in response

to applied stress such as earthquakes or any other sudden change in strength.

He quoted a GCZMA report dated 27/11/15 which is a part of the EIA

report, it states that the river bed is comprised of top sandy layer, a middle

stiff silty layer and a bottom rocky layer. When a trench is dug, the middle

layer is exposed to water and gets saturated which will lead to liquefaction

and cause a landslide. He pointed out that Goa has a past history of

earthquakes ranging from 2.2 to 6.5 on Richter scale. He stated that the

73

whole State is crisscrossed by 6 geological faults Parallel and sub parallel to

the faults and weak planes have been located around Goa along the Western

Ghats. The rivers Mondovi and Zuari represent possible faults possibly

associated with west coast faulting. The strange and distorted courses of

these rivers represent prominent weak planes developed perpendicular to the

west coast fault. In other words, the rivers are possibly weak fault lines. The

basic study on earthquake liquefaction has not been done.

q) He questioned MPT why the water sampling study was not done in

the eastern side near Goa shipyard or barge repair workshops. MPT stated

the marine samples are given in 3-15 which shows 8 locations of which 7 are

in 5 kms and 1 is within 5-10 kms. Avinash questioned why samples were

not collected from the eastern side to which MPT replied that they will give

their response in writing.

r) He questioned whether MPT has ever done water sampling test near

the barge repair workshops east of MPT. He stated that they have not done

water sampling there because MPT knows all the water in that area is

polluted. The land where the barge repair workshops ((Photo 28) are located

belong to MPT and they are allowing blatant violation of environmental

norms.

s) In photo 28, he pointed out the St Jacinto Island and along the river

banks where all the barge repair shops are located. It is clear that siltation

occurs in that area. He stated that MPT is a known violator of the

Environmental laws. The barge workshops that fall in the MPT area are

contaminating the ecosentive zone where clam shells and rare oysters exist

and there has never been an EIA conducted on these workshop.

t) He stated that MPT has intentionally not done water sampling in that

area because they know the water is polluted and there is an existing threat

to the ecosystem there. He stated that all the documents of Consent to

Operate permissions for these barge workshops must be brought on record

since the land belongs to MPT and falls within study area.

u) He questioned whether MPT as explored the opportunity of increasing

passenger cruise liners to the port. MPT stated that they are working on

cruise liner as well as other vessels.

v) Avinash stated that when passenger cruise liner come to Goa, they

park at berth no 10 and that berth overlooks big heaps of coal and wood

chips which is an ugly sight. They don’t have a shade for people to stand in

74

the line when people come to visit or get down. that MPT doesn’t want

cruise line ships even though they will help goan economy.

w) He questioned MPT what are the chargers for passenger cruise liners.

He stated he was told that that port fees for passengers is 5 lakhs and cargo

is 15 lakhs. MPT takes bribes from these cruise liners.

x) He stated that cruise liners are cleaner, environmentally friendly

compared to the dirty bulk cargo ship. He stated that world tourism sites

earn nothing less than 2 lakhs a day from the cruise terminal. Further 2000

passenger enters Goa and spends 1000 each in 8 hours, that is 20 lakhs

straight into the goan economy. No such comparative study had been done.

He noted that if MPT becomes a dedicated cruise line port, it will benefit

Goa as well as surrounding states. Coal on the other hand will kill goa. He

stated that MPT has not done any comparative study between bulk cargo and

passenger cruise liner.

y) He stated that on behalf of fellow Goans, he doesn’t want the port to

shut down but we want something that is environment friendly, clean and

green. Goa should have had passenger terminals and the purpose of dredging

should have been for passenger cruise liners and not for capsize vessels

filled with coal, ammonia and other poisonous gases.At present no Cruise

liner wants to come to goa because all they can see is how MPT handles coal

and wood chips

z) He submitted two tenders of maintenance dredging by MPT related to

his previous talk.

aa) He also submitted CD with a video model simulation of deepening of

dredging channel, a new clip of the crack in the road along the harbor

possibly due to erosion (due to dredging) and a 10 minute documentary of an

Australian port where the coal will be coming from to Goa where the

environment has been adversely impacted.

38. . Seby Mascarenhas, R/o. Vasco.

a) He states that he stays at Vasco bay.

b) He stated that 60% dredging is already done. He asked the representative of

MPT whether they had any expert on dredging and has it been mentioned in

the EIA report. The representative of MPT replied as ‘No’.

75

c) He questioned who has given Enviromental Clearance certificate? He

charged that the MPT has violated the law as they have done dredging

without approvals. The representative of GSPCB replied that this Public

Hearing is for the said purpose.

d) The representative of GSPCB also explained how EC is granted.

e) He stated that as 60% dredging is done. He questioned whether they know

that houses on the Vasco Bay would collapse ? He charged the MPT for the

same.

f) He pointed that MPT has a bigger plan to expand because of their hidden

agenda to shift the fishermen from Khariwada and Baina. He stated that MPT

wants to drive away the fisher folks with a hidden agenda by expanding

towards the city. He stated that the MPT itself should relocate them instead of

driving out the fishermen.

g) He questioned as to how much quantity of flammable material comes ? The

representative replied that it is in public domain. He submitted that this

information is not mention in the EIA.

h) He ststed that coal is a flammable material. He stated that the increase of coal

handling to the extent of 400% is going to have an adverse impact on the

safety of the people residing in the Vasco town.

i) He stated that the Mormugao Municipal Council resolved to ban coal transport

and how come the transportation of coal by road still happening after sunset.

How come the Collector has not taking action.

j) He stated that the existence of 50,000 people in an around the project site is

not finding a mention. By preparing a fake report the consultant is putting the

life of people and Goa in danger.

k) He stated that the MPT has intentionally separated the projects as they want

to escape from environment scrutiny.

l) He stated that the Disaster of any nature can result into a catastrophe and he

questioned if any disaster management plan is in place. The Chairman

informed that they already have a plan in place but mock drills have not been

done.

m) He stated that instead of protecting the benethic species the MPT is trying to

destroy the marine life.

n) He stated that he wanted a correct report to be sent across to the EAC. He was

placed his written submissions too.

76

The Project Proponent was directed by the Chairman to submit a clarification to the Public on their grievances. Authorised Representative of the Project Proponent submitted as follows:

The representative of MPT stated his submissions as follows.

1. The entire land based established of the MPT is located in South Goa state

and hence the District Magistrate South is the right person to chair the EPH

panel.

2. Port Authorities in the last five decades carrying out Capital Dredging and

annual maintenance dredging activities, indicates that the Geological

formation in the vicinity of the navigational channel are stable and not prone

to landslides.

3. The ship channel which is dredged upto 14.1 to 14.3 below CD and

further more till 31.05.2016 includes side slopes in the ratio 1:2 or 45 degree

and in such circumstances it is attainting stability. This slope was designed

taking into consideration peculiarity of strata present at that particular depth.

It is observed after every bathometry in pre and post maintenance dredging

that slopes provided for ship channel are stable.

4. Most of the housing colonies that have mushroomed in the recent times on

hill slopes close to the MPT are illegal and built with scant regard to town

planning and engineering safety homes. These colonies are not at all

threatened by the Port activites and instead are prone to the danger of

collapse due to the precarious slopes on which these have been built utilising

unsafe construction materials and techniques. It has been observed that most

of the houses collapse during the heavy monsoons which are located on hill

slopes which get destabilise due to rampart hill cutting and illegal

construction. Also there are many illegal houses within the foreshore area

which are subject to tidal variations and underground seepage. In addition all

the houses being illegal constructions are poorly constructions and therefore

fail or show signs of distress due to natural causes.

77

5. After five decades of activites of MPT, GSL, Navel jetty at Chicalim and

scores of Barge building / repair and all long the southern bank of river

Zuari, there is no evidence of any significant adverse impact on biodiversity

status of Zuari Sanctuary and environs. Recent studies conducting by NIO,

ICAR, Fisheries department indicate Dona Paula, Grande Island and steady

annual yields of Fishery activity in and around the Zuari Sanctuary as per

officials published statistical records. The partial study undertaken only

shows that there is depletion of the Marine micro organism during dredging

activities but no mention is made about extinction of any species. It is well

known facts that all forms of life species always tend to relocate in an

ambient area due to natural calamities if any, the animals and other living

oraganism always return to the habitat once everything settles down. It has

also been scientifically that the regeneration of organisms takes place from

time to time depending on environmental conditions. The allegations on

effect on fishing activities due to dredging has no merits as there is no

written documentation on this issue through the State government.

6. Various NIO and ICAR studies conducted on Marine environment of

Zauri Sanctuary and its surrounding, earlier and in the recent past have

neither found any significant deterioration in marine bio-diversity on any

leakage between port activities and attributes of marine environment. Read

letter issued by NIO Scientist Dr. Baban Ingole in 17th March 2015.

The Chicalim Bay is already under the direct influence of the busy

Mormuagao, Goa Shipyard Limited and several nearby “barge/ ship”

building establishments, most of which are operating for the last several

years. Despite the above operations in the vicinity “Chicalim Bay is rich

marine biodiversity harbouring more than 200 faunal and 34 phytoplankton

species in addition to mangrove and mcarophytes. Natural stocks of

windowpane oyster Placuna placenta inhabit the soft, mudy substrate of

Chicalim Bay and their population is in healthy conditions. The result of the

present study indicate that the condition in Chicalim Bay are ideal for

settlement, growth and the production of P. Placenta”

Windowpane Oysters (WPOs) are included in scheduled IV of the

wildlife act. As per the available published research data for Goa, the species

is found in the Nauxim bay (Siridao) along the northern bank of Zuari river

and Chicalim Bay along the southern bank of Zuari river. Sancoale area is

78

not known (published reports available in public domain) for availability of

the same.

Even though a small number of people consume windowpane oysters

in Goa we do not know the extent of its fisheries.

The first research work on WPOs, in Goa was carried out in Nauxim

area (Achuthankutty et al 1979). They reported a catch of 350 to 400 nos. of

WPOs per sq mt. Later in 2006 in the same area NIO also reported 335 to

420 nos. of WPOs per sq. mt. (Ingole and Clement 2006). In fact in this

paper it was concluded as follows:

“Even after long lapse of period wherein pollution and other man

made activities had taken a tall of most of the flourishing resources of the

past, the present scenario of these Oysters appears to be promising. The

number of WPOs recorded in the present study is comparable with that

observed earlier (Achuthankutty et al 1979). Moreover, only 8 pearls were

recorded in a WPO in the 1979 study compared to 14 pearls recorded per

WPO in the present study.

In a recent study conducted between October 2013 and September

2014, the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), Old Goa (Goa)

identified a total of 186 aquatic species (150 finfish and 36 shellfish) in the

mouth of Zuari Estuary. It was evidently reported that the fish and shell fish

diversity along the estuarine eco system of Zuari mouth is rich and accounts

for a significant quantity of Goa’s Marine and brackish water fish

production. The 150 finfish species comprised of 65 pelagic and 85 demersal

fishes. The shellfish fauna comprised of 17 crustacean and 19 mollusk

species.

This latest study along with conditions drawn from NIO’s 2006 / 2010

studies cited above, give credence to the view that the “tidal/wave

“dynamics and resilience of the vast Zuari estuary has been able to

“mitigate” the adverse ecological impact of the functioning of the

Mormugao Port, Goa Shipyard, scores of smaller “Barge/ Ship” yards and

constant Ore transportation activity, prevailing from 1970 onwards.

7. Port will carry out capital dredging in the same area where in the last five

decades maintenance dredging is carried out. This channel is ship channel,

movement of ships has been given preference in the ship channel. Fishing

any other related to any fishing activity is banned in the ship channel. It is

for the safety consideration that no other vessel shall cross the ship channel.

79

Ship channel is well marked by placing buoys on either sides. The buoys are

lightened during night, thus it is a well established navigational aid. The

buoys are placed at 250 mtr apart.

8. The dredged material is being dumped at a predetermined area which has

been located after carrying out proper hydraulic and wave model studies at

CWPRS, maintenance dredging is annual activities and dredged material is

dumped spoil ground. These spoil ground are chosen in such a way that due

to natural sea currents sediments are carried towards north side in the deep

sea. It has been proved on the basis of modelling study carried out by

CWPRS and also on pre port bathymetry charts. The displacement of the

micro organism mainly confined to this dumping ground and it was

observed that the local fishermen prefer to carry out these fishing activities

very close to the area as it gives this good catch due to favourable condition.

Capital and maintenance dredging or any other marine activity is kept well

informed to all the stakeholders including fishing community.

9. As per TOR Biodiversity is carried by NIO and it is planned by Port that

biodiversity study will be carried out on completion of CD project in the

next three year to determine effect on biodiversity.

10. Shore line mentioning study is also carried out by NIO since June 2016

and every six months report are being received by the Port. Reports are sent

by NIO every six months.

11. Study of hydrodynamics and siltation carried at wave tranquillity studies

carried out in January, February 2016 at CWPRS, Pune, and conclusion of

both studies are as follows.

The main sediment transport mechanism in the Mormugao Port area

and near the upstream reaches of Mormugao Bay is due to the suspended

sediment transport. The wave induced bed shear stress is mainly responsible

for bringing bad material into suspension which is further transported in

suspension with prevailing tidal currents to the other areas. The theories

those of Gole et 1971 are very useful for preliminary assessment of siltation.

For proper prediction of maintenance dredging requirement, however,

adequate data of sediment, salinity concentration and physical tidal and

wave model studies are of vital importance.

For the deepening proposal at Mormugao Port Development, the total

annual maintenance dredging quantity is predicted to be about 6.0 million

80

meter cube against 3.0 million meter cube at present. Moe than 90 % of the

siltation takes place during the four months f the south west monsoon season

and the total quantity is almost divided equally in the approach channel area

and the Harbour area.

The disposal grounds for the proposed deepening proposal are

recommended to be located at UTM 356000 E and 1705000 N in an area of

2. Km x 2.0km at (-) 27.0m contour North of approach Channel.

The hydraulic models studies carried out on geometrically similar

(scale GS1:100) physical wave model indicated that proposed deepening of

existing approach channel to -19.8 m and 19.5m below CD in the inner

channel, could not cause any adverse effect on existing port operations on

account of wave disturbance. Moreover existing wave tranquillity near all

berths in Mormugao Port area would improve by 5 to 10% due to deepening

of the Channel. The significant wave heights at all berths could not exceed

050m for both incident wave conditions, viz. Northwest and West. The

significant was heights near Mooring Dolphins MD-1 and MD-2 would not

exceed 0.80m for both incident wave conditions viz. Northwest and West.

Objections raised by the Public

a) Shri Olencio Simoes raised point of order as regards to the clarification to be given by the PP on the various issues raised by him and others during the process of Public Hearing. Further, he also wants to counter the clarification given by the PP.

b) The Chairman informed that as per the EIA Notification, the PP has to submit detailed clarification in the final EIA report which is to be given to EAC. The request to countering the clarifications was rejected.

c) Shri Cyril Fernandes raised another point of order that whatever issues he has stated during his presentation were not clarified by the PP. When the Chairman requested the PP to clarify the issues, the representative of the PP stated that most of the issues raised by them during the process of public hearing is clarified by them and the balance issues will be clarified by them in the final EIA Report and forwarded to EAC. They are not willing to clarify any other issues specially with regards to the ones that were raised by Mr. Cyril that alleged that the EIA study was flawed on account of various issues that were not properly addressed.

d) Sri Dinesh Dias referred to figure 2.2 saying that it is not legible. The Chairman assured to give him a CD which would have some clarity in the

81

pictorial figures. Thereafter wanted clarification on the said figure on page 2.25. If it makes a mention of turning Circles. The PP initially said it makes mention of only one circle but thereafter upon Dinesh Dias pointing out he concealed that there are two turning circles.

The recorded minutes were accordingly read out to the public in English and Konkani and subsequently after receiving suggestions and as agreed were signed by Shri. Johnson Fernandes – Additional Collector II & Additional District Magistrate (South) and Shri Sanjeev Joglekar, Environmental Engineer.

Chairman/Additional Collector requested the people present that if they so desire they may file their written objection/suggestion/views within 7 days from today to the GSPCB. The same will be part of the hearing and accordingly it would be forwarded to the concerned Regulatory Authority.

The public hearing was scheduled on 27 /04/2017 due to paucity of time and on account of several speakers who wanted to present their views it was adjourned and taken up on 02/05/2017, 03/05/2017 and 04/05/2017. The public hearing was spread over from 4 days and got concluded after having read out the minutes in English and Konkanni.

A total of 812 numbers of persons present for the public hearing and have signed the enclosed attendance sheet.

A total of 24 representations have been received.

On this 04th day of May, 2017.

(Johnson B. Fernandes) (Sanjeev Joglekar) Additional Collector II & Environmental Engineer, GSPCBAddl. District Magistrate (South)

(Dr. Mohan R. Girap) Scientist ‘C’, GSPCB

82

83