1
UPDATE ON DAMS, OPTIONS AND RELATED ISSUES
UPDATE
ON DAMS, OPTIONS & RELATED ISSUES
SANDRPISSUE FIVE SEPT 2002
INDEX
SANDRP SEPTEMBER 2002
1
UPDATE ON DAMS, OPTIONS AND RELATED ISSUES
About the Update1
Critique of Kameng & Subansiri EIA2
WCD Report Public Meeting in Kerala5
Kannur meeting on Dams6
JBIC Loan for Tehri?7
Large Dams Not Clean Sources of Power7
Dam Safety in Focus7
Criminal Case Against Bhakra Board7
Bhakra is silting up8
ECAs under attack over dams8
News from Narmada Valley9
Success of Tawa Fisheries Cooperative9
Public Hearing on Maheshwar10
SSP: Unjustified Height Increase10
Abysmal Performance of NHPC12
Visnhuprayag, Srinagar PPA to be reworked13
South Asia: Tarbela is silting up15
Around the World: WB manipulation
of Data on Bujagali16
Irrigation Options17
Irrigation: Financial Mismanagement in
WB funded Upper Ganga Project17
MKVDC fails to repay, downgraded18
WB Policies Ruinous 19
Groundwater: Villagers Oppose Coke Plant21
Water Supply Options, Water Quality21
Victory for Bheema Struggle22
Publications Available with SANDRP23
Bottled Water Business: Bisleri indicted23
Water Profiteers in Chennai24
Water Privatisation25
Quotes26
Floods26
Resolve to clean all rivers?27
Foodgrains Management29
No monsoon magic30
Beneficiaries of farm subsidy31
Sugar Export Scam33
Conservation: Will Govt walk PM’s talk?34
Small Hydro: the Big slips35
Minister agrees Power Reforms have failed36
Power Generation38
Power Finance News39
PFC money for Mahadayi, Alamatti40
CEA study on disaster management: Extracts41
Scandal at Lakhwar Vyasi Dam43
Your Responses44
SANDRP SEPTEMBER 2002
1
UPDATE ON DAMS, OPTIONS AND RELATED ISSUES
ABOUT THE UPDATEApologies for the delay in bringing out this fifth issue of the Update covering mostly the months of May and June 2002. The Update is being brought out by SANDRP with a hope that it will become a medium of useful information dissemination & interaction. The Update has been produced mainly from media sources, both from internet and printed editions and also from official websites and networks. We would be happy to know your responses and suggestions about the Update. / The Update will be available both in electronic (text and word versions) and printed versions. The Updates are also available at and
The suggested minimum annual contribution for the Updates is Rs. 100/-, which would cover the cost of printing and mailing. Please send your check/ DD in favour of YUVA, payable at Mumbai and send it to our Delhi address. For checks from banks outside Mumbai, please add Rs. 15/- for outstation check charges.
CONTACT INFORMATION: Himanshu Thakkar, Bipin Chandra, Ganesh Gaud, South Asia Network on Dams, River and People (A YUVA Project), C/o 53B, AD Block, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi 110 088. India. Ph: 747 9916. Email: Web:
SPECIAL REPORT
Comments on the Biodiversity aspects of Environmental Impact Assessments of
KAMENG & LOWER SUBANSIRI HEP
Dr Anwaruddin Choudhury
SANDRP SEPTEMBER 2002
1
UPDATE ON DAMS, OPTIONS AND RELATED ISSUES
GENERAL EIA reports are supposed to be very important documents depending upon which the HEPs actually take off. A major HEP has the potentiality to seriously harm biodiversity as well as socio-cultural life in an area and ultimately become an ecological disaster. We do not need such projects at the sites where it could cause serious damage to biodiversity, human habitations (there seems to be no logic to provide power to a section of people by uprooting another section of people!) and potential threat to humanity in general in earthquake prone areas. It is expected that EIA reports would be prepared with the best available knowledge and by engaging right-type of people.
However, the Kameng and Subansari EIAs are very carelessly written, mostly by people with no previous field experience in the area, have a lot of incorrect data. It is often alleged that the reports are being ‘managed’ and ‘manipulated’ in favour of the projects.
The two EIAs have all the discrepancies noted above. In fact such reports cause harm to the projects because even if everything is all right at the ground, the quality of reports make the society to suspect the projects.
The main potential damage done by a HEP is in the submergence area, dam site, powerhouse site, residential complex site, and the road-construction sites. It is in these areas that maximum impact is felt. But most reports have diluted everything by covering the entire catchment area and putting lot of data from those areas, which are otherwise irrelevant or scarcely relevant.
KAMENG HEP, Arunachal Pradesh
The EIA of KAMENG HEP was done by Agricultural Finance Corp. Ltd, Mumbai for North-Eastern Electric Power Corporation.
Salient features 2 dams, Bichom Dam at 4 km downstream of the confluence of Bichom and Digien rivers (27º17´54”N, 92º37´39”E). Tenga Dam is S of Gohainthan village and is at 16.5 km downstream of Jamiri Gauge & discharge site (27º13´46”N, 92º40´07”E).
96.5 m high and 200 m long Bichom Dam’s diverted flow will be picked up by Tenga Dam, 60.5 m high and 140 m long, ultimately diverted to 600 MW Kimi Power House. Estimated cost Rs 586 crores at 1982-3 price level.
Reservoirs: Bichom 300 Ha; Tenga reservoir 70 Ha.
60 Ha of Tenga RF will need diversion. Powerhouse will cover 45 Ha of Tenga RF. 650 Ha of USF will also need diversion.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS (Vol. I only)
• P xvi Para 11 of Executive summary. Very casually written. There are many more snake species found in the area. What species of Pit Viper and Pythons were recorded? Monal Pheasant is not found in the area. What is Civet cat? Is it Large Indian civet or Small Indian civet or Palm civet or Masked palm civet or Small toothed palm civet? Because NE India has all these. We have not yet heard of any animal called “Hill boar” nor are there any record with the Zoological Survey of India. Are Red panda, Pangolinand Porcupine “herbivorous” animals?I think this is too much. Did they attempt ‘reclassification’ of mammalians where carnivores such as Red panda and rodents (porcupines) could be clubbed as herbivores? Although the authors have mentioned of concurrence of ZSI, I doubt because ZSI can never accord herbivore status to carnivores and rodents.
• p. xvi. Para 12 of Executive summary. The powerhouse construction activities, development of 28 km-long road from Khuppi to Kimi and the labourers’ camps will be a major threat to Pakhui Sanctuary. During my visit to the area in January 2002, I found that the road labourers are already snaring Red Junglefowl, Kaleej Pheasant, Peacock-pheasant, Rufous-throated Hill Partridge and Common Hill Partridge in a big way (they set up crude snares everyday). Already the meat of Serow and Muntjak have been tasted by them. The road development also includes felling.
• p.19. Para 2. After the confluence of rivers Bichom and Tenga, the river is known as Bichom and not as Kameng. It is only near Bana that Bichom merges with Kameng. The source of Kameng river is in East Kameng district. Such serious errors on the major rivers in an EIA of a river-valley project, that too relating to the most important river itself is surprising!
• p.84. para 2, last line. Pakhui was never a “Game” Sanctuary. This shows that the persons who compiled this EIA are not aware of the difference between a “Game” and a “Wildlife” sanctuary!
• p.108. last para. The figure of 17 birds in such a hot spot is not only ridiculous but shows lack of both home and fieldwork. Any pocket in that area will have at least 150 species of birds occurring at different times of the year.
• p.109. para 1. 4th line. There is no state road that connects Bhalukpong with Seijosa. In fact, there is no direct road link between these two places till now. How can it be carelessly put like that? Regarding the use of words ‘deeper part’ where the animals are supposed to move if the powerhouse site is disturbed, one should remember that all the animals can not remain confined to ‘deeper part’ alone and if one by one more projects come up there will be no ‘deeper part’ left.
• Annexure 3.12. List of common fauna. It is difficult to comment on this list. There are many school students in Assam who would write a better and a correct list.
How the Golden cat could be listed as ‘common’ when it is rare all over its range? Interestingly, actual common lesser cats like the Leopard cat and Jungle cat were not even listed.
Manis crassicaudata and Hystrix indica do not occur in the entire NE India (except for a few reports from western Assam), how these could occur in the project sites?
The area has globally threatened species such as Rufous-necked Hornbill and Beautiful Nuthatch, which should have figured.
LOWER SUBANSIRI HEP, Arunachal Pradesh & Assam
SANDRP SEPTEMBER 2002
1
UPDATE ON DAMS, OPTIONS AND RELATED ISSUES
SANDRP SEPTEMBER 2002
1
UPDATE ON DAMS, OPTIONS AND RELATED ISSUES
The EIA of 2000 MW SUBANSIRI HEP was done by Water and Power Consultancy Services (I) Ltd., 76-C, Sector- 18, Gurgaon, Haryana, Pin-122015 in June 2001 for National Hydro-electric Power Corporation.
Salient Features Dam, 2.3 km upstream of Gerukamukh (27º33´15”N, 94º15´30”E).
116 m high concrete gravity dam. Estimated cost Rs 7402.69 crores at January 2001 price level.
Reservoir: 3436 Ha of which, dense mixed jungle is 1954.5 Ha.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS
• p. 53. More than 50 species of mammals have been recorded in the area (more are likely to occur) but the EIA list covers only 10 species! The common bear of the area is Himalayan or Asiatic black bear Ursus thibetanus but it is not listed at all while Sloth bear, a doubtful species of the area was listed. Similarly, the relatively commoner otters of the area, viz. Eurasian otter Lutra lutra and Smooth Indian otter Lutrogale perspicillata were not listed.
• p. 54. The area has more than 200 species of birds. By listing 13, proper justice has not been done. The area has an interesting breeding colony of Great Cormorants on the cliffs of the Subansiri river that will be submerged and lost forever. By making the Common sandpiper as Accipiter sp. (i.e., they "converted" a docile small water bird into a bird of prey!!) the authors have confirmed that the entire list could be thrown away as it is baseless, false and misleading.
• p. 54-55. The authors have specifically stated that “during field survey, none of the above mentioned rare or endangered species were observed" (last but one line on p.54) but interestingly they could elaborate in great details the relationship of those "not sighted" animals with plants. They, however, did not stop there and further moved on to describe animal-to-animal relationship of animals, which they actually did not see at all in the area!
p. 57, para 1, line 1. Is there any bird called Nutchh? Or any arboreal mammal as ‘mastheis’? At least not listed in the animal kingdom so far. Are shrews arboreal? They should have explained as to when the terrestrial shrews started to become arboreal.
p. 57, para 2, line 4. The Black eagle is not generally known to depend upon larvae as well as insect and fish nor the hornbills are known to take fish!
• p. 64. Is there any zone in the Himalayas, which is called “Arctic”? We know that “Arctic” lies in and around North Pole while Antarctic is around the South Pole. No mention of possible ‘Arctic’ in the Himalayas could be found anywhere. I think such “JOKES” with important EIAs must end.
• p. 80 Forest area required is significant (4039.3 Ha).
• p. 86. It has been indicated that annually 1700 trees or 2 Ha of forest will be lost to meet the fuel wood requirement of the lower staff. This is alarming!
• p. 87-88. Since no proper study was done by the EIA team, it is apparent that they will not get much information on wildlife. This area is very rich indeed and is part of a large contiguous forest habitat covering Taley Wildlife Sanctuary, and Taley, Panir and Drupong RFs in Arunachal Pradesh (ArP) and Subansiri, Dulung, Kakoi and Ranga RFs in Assam. Presence of 15,000+ people will definitely have adverse effect on the wildlife and vegetation of the area.
• p. 89. The presence of 15,000+ workers and their camps at Gerukamukh will seriously hamper elephant movement. From Dulungmukh the animals cross the river Subansiri and move along the southern edge of Gerukamukh housing complex. In fact, the housing complex located there since 1980s and the subsequent road construction has already disturbed the elephants although they still maintained their movement. Earlier they used to spend a great deal of time in Gerukamukh itself before and after crossing over but after construction of the colony, they only pass through. This belt of Assam-ArP has more than 500 elephants and consequent disturbance will be disastrous.
Other notable rare and endangered species recorded during the last decade in the vicinity of dam site and submergence area were tiger, leopard, clouded leopard, marbled cat (world’s largest specimen was a skin from Dirpai village [see Journal Bombay Natural History Society, 93:583-84), golden cat (often snared on the banks of the Subansiri River in Panir RF), dhole or wild dog, gaur, serow, capped langur, slow loris, gharial, etc. All these are endangered species and are listed in Schedule I of the Indian Wild Life Act 1972 [highest conservation status under existing Indian law].
• p. 90. It has been clearly mentioned that a part of Taley Wildlife Sanctuary is going to be submerged. However, some careless statements have also been made such as ‘the animals in the sanctuary are not dependent on river Subansiri. . . . no animals . . . drink water from Subansiri’, etc. Such statements put the credibility of entire report into question.
• p. 243-45. Dam break analysis is significant for this area as in 1950 there was a disaster similar to a dam break that played havoc. The great Assam earthquake of 15th August 1950, which measured 8.6 on ritcher scale had its epicenter near India-China border (approx. 28°50'N, 96°07'E) not far from this project site. Following the earthquake the Subansiri river was blocked for a few days due to heavy landslide. And when the blockade went off it was simply devastation. The river took a new course, 10 km towards west washing away an unspecified number of domestic and wild animals. The human casualty, although unknown was low due to sparse population at that time and prior warning by the govt. The flash flood in the Siang due to blocking in Tibet has devastated parts of ArP in 2000. There will always be similar threat in this Subansiri project and about half-a-million people of Lakhimpur, Dhemaji and Jorhat (Majuli) districts of Assam will have to pay a heavy price.
CONCLUSIONS Both the reports were very poorly prepared. Considering the importance of major HEPs including their consequences, it is expected that such reports will be of a high standard, technically sound and will be useful for a long time. But all the blunders listed above have made these documents virtually useless.
KAMENG The matter of concern here is the location of powerhouse at Kimi in Tenga RF. It is not only right on the boundary of Pakhui Wildlife Sanctuary and Project Tiger Reserve but is in the midst of a rich biodiversity zone comprising many reserved forests and sanctuaries. The main damage will be during construction and road-building. The powerhouse should be relocated.
LOWER SUBANSIRIThe dam site is located in a relatively important biodiversity spots. The huge reservoir (3436 Ha) will submerge primary forest zones, which are also important wildlife habitat. The submergence area will include parts of Taley Wildlife Sanctuary, Taley RF and Panir RF in ArP and Subansiri RF in Assam (all largely primary forest with rich wildlife). It is in the midst of a rich biodiversity zone comprising Kakoi, Dulung and Subansiri RFs of Assam and Taley Wildlife Sanctuary, Taley RF, and Panir RF of ArP . Further crowding and development at Gerukamukh dam site will ultimately stop elephant movement between east and west of the Subansiri river as farther south of Gerukamukh, the land is outside RF and is already under human occupation. An important elephant movement corridor will be snapped. A little-known species of bamboo Bambusa mastressi was rediscovered recently in the project area.
It has been reported that the project authorities are carrying out various activities at Gerukamukh by out rightly violating Forest Conservation Act, 1980 (Reference: Govt of Assam's letter No. FRS.2/2001 dated 5th may 2001). Why for a project like this one has to take extra-legal means? This shows that 'vested interest' has taken precedence over 'public interest'. For any disaster [cannot be ruled out in view of 1950 and 2000 experience], however, only the poor villagers will suffer, who, largely illiterate and ignorant, are actually not aware of the fact that there will be a constant threat to their life.
The area has already experienced a ‘dam break’ like situation in 1950. This dam needs to be shelved as it is not at all in the greater interest of the public or the region. Smaller dams on some of its tributaries could be explored. In fact, such huge projects should never be allowed to come up at the cost of human population and submergence of rich biodiversity.
Major earthquakes in NE India
Area/Name [Epicentre location] /Date
/Magnitude
Near Cachar (Assam) / 10-1-1869 / 7.5 on Ritcher scaleGreat Assam quake [near Shillong] / 12-1-1897 / 8.7
27°N, 97°E / 31-8-1906 / 7.0 (depth 120km)
Near Srimangal (Bangladesh) 24°5’N, 91°E / 8-7-1918 / 7.6
25°5’N, 91°E / 9-9-1923 / 7.1
Dhubri (Assam) 25°8’N, 90°2’E / 3-7-1930 / 7.1
25°6’N, 96°8’E / 27-1-1931 / 7.6
26°N, 95°5’E / 14-8-1932 / 7.0 (depth 120km)
24°5’N, 95°E / 2-1-1934 / 6.5 (depth 130km)
23°5N, 94°5’E / 16-8-1938 / 7.2
24°5’N, 94°E / 27-5-1939 / 6.5 (depth 75km)
27°5’N, 92°5’E / 21-1-1941
Mikir Hills 26°N, 93°E / 23-10-1943 / 7.2
23°5N, 90°E / 12-9-1946 / 7.5
28°5N, 94°E / 29-7-1947 / 7.75
Assam (Indo-china border) 28°5N, 96°7E / 15-8-1950 / 8.6
Manipur-Burma border 24°4N, 94°E / 21-3-1954? / 7-7.25
Manipur-Burma border / 1957 / 7.2
25°N, 94°E / 18-2-1968 / 6.2
26°1N, 94°4E / 29-7-1970 / 6.5
Cachar (Assam) / 1984 / 5.5
Indo-Burma border / 1988 / 7.3
Indo-Bangladesh border 28°5N, 94°E / 1997 / 5.3
DAMS
Two day workshop June 22-23, 2002 in Kerala