MINUTES OF THE 55th MEETING OF EXPERT APPRAISAL COMMITTEE FOR RIVER VALLEY AND HYDRO POWER PROJECTS

 

                        The 55th Meeting of the Expert Appraisal Committee for River Valley and Hydro Power Projects (EAC) was held on 10th–11th February, 2012 in SCOPE Convention Centre, Opp. Jawahar Lal Stadium, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. The meeting was chaired by. Dr. B. P. Das, Vice-Chairman, EAC on 10th February, 2012 and by Shri Rakesh Nath on 11th February, 2012. Dr. Surendra Kumar Mishra and Dr. T.S. Nayar could not attend the meeting due to preoccupation. The list of EAC Members and Officials from various Projects who attended the meeting is enclosed at Annexure-1.

                                  

           After welcoming the Members, the following Agenda items were taken up for discussion-

 

10th February, 2012   

 

1.                  Agenda Item No. 1: Welcome by the Chairman and Confirmation of                                                     Minutes of 54th Meeting held on 26th -27th                                                                December, 2011.

 

            The minutes were confirmed after the following amendments –

 

a)           In item 2.1 the following may be added on page 4 after the sub-para (xi)-

 

  “(xii) Synthetic Unit Hydrograph (SUH) may be re-drawn with a steeper rising limb for design flood and accordingly revise the design flood. This may be included in the Hydrology chapter of EIA/EMP report.

 

    (xiii) Sedimentation study should be carried out for determining useful life of storage.”

 

b)          In item No. 2.9 for Naitwar Mori HEP, on page 23, the condition No. (iii) may be read as - 

 

“(iii) Besides keeping Environmental Flows, fish hatchery will be developed and stocking of fingerlings will be done for both upstream and downstream of the Dam site”.

 

2.                  Agenda item No. 2 : Discussion on Environmental Issues pertaining to                                               River Valley and Hydroelectric Power Projects.

 

            Shri Samir Mehta from International Rivers, Dr. Latha Anantha from River Research Centre, Kerala and Shri Himanshu Thakkar from SANDRP highlighted the following issues which need to be considered by the EAC/MOEF for giving environment clearances to the River Valley and Hydro Power Projects-

 

(1)             There is an urgent need for identification of Basins where dams and hydropower projects are coming and to undertake Basin Studies to assess the optimum capacity of the water resource giving due consideration to the requirement of the human beings, cattle, ecology / environment etc. Whether a river can take in more dams or diversions would depend on outcomes of the Basin level studies. These Basin Studies should precede any Cumulative Impact Assessment Studies.

 

(2)             Till Basin Studies are carried out, there should be a moratorium on sanctioning of dams.

 

(3)             Public consultation should be carried out before finalisation of ToRs for Basin Study to take advantage of expertise available within civil society.

 

(4)             The Basin Study should consider impacts of climate change which is multi sectoral. Therefore, the Basin study should be conducted by a multi disciplinary team of a consortium and not by a single agency.

 

(5)             There is an urgent need to identify rivers that should remain free flowing and no dams should be allowed on it. On rivers where dams are allowed, at least 50% of the river should be left in free flowing condition i.e. should remain undammed, un-tunnelled and not submerged by reservoir. Stretches of rivers that should remain free flowing when dams are proposed on it should be identified.

 

(6)             The number of dams, their locations and whether the dams should operate as base load or peaking power should be decided through the Basin Study.

 

(7)             No dams should be considered on the main stem of the river or at the junction of the tributary with the river.

 

(8)             No interventions in first and second order streams (except community run pico hydel) should be allowed. Complete diversion of river / stream should not be allowed for any project.

 

(9)             The environmental flows should be determined using Building Block Methodology and it should mimic the natural flows including flood pulses.  To maintain the environmental flows, reservoir reoperations in already dammed rivers should be scheduled. All these may be decided with community participation. It should be made mandatory.

 

(10)        There should be a public consultation before finalisation of the Basin Study Report.

 

(11)        In high altitude areas, particularly Himalayan areas which are ecologically fragile, projects above a certain elevation should not be considered. The Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel has recommended that projects should not be permitted at high elevation in Western Ghats. Projects in alpine regions should not be considered.

 

(12)        Pending basin studies, the minimum distance between dams in the case of cascading dams needs to be reviewed.

 

(13)        EIA study should be based on flow data in the Detailed Project Report (DPR). Downstream impact assessment should be undertaken in EIA study till a distance where impacts of a project are likely to be felt and downstream affected communities should be identified by the EIA study. Also these downstream affected people be considered as project affected persons (PAPs).

 

(14)        Public hearings should be held in all downstream areas also.

 

(15)        EIA Study should also consider impacts of climate change and explain how the project would function in the climate change scenarios (e.g. melting of glaciers, changes in monsoon etc.).

 

(16)        Environment risk assessment in EIA Study should go beyond ‘Dam-break analysis’.

 

(17)        Impacts of peaking power should also be considered in EIA study.

 

(18)        Cost-benefit analysis (CBA) should be included for environment clearance. It should be clearly stated in the EIA study with the assumptions and social discount rate used.

 

(19)        The Ministry should include a condition in the environment clearance that it reserves the right to stipulate additional release of water and/or appropriate changes in flow regime at a future date.

 

(20)        Decommissioning of dam or a fresh environmental clearance when life of the dam is over should be mandated by the MoEF. MoEF should also prescribe / draw up parameters / criteria under which a dam should be decommissioned or re-evaluated even if it has not completed its life.

 

(21)         EIA, other studies, clearance letters and compliance reports should remain on the project developer website throughout the existence of the project. Project Proponent should form an empowered monitoring committee, with community representation, before commencing construction. It will have the mandate of ensuring compliance of clearance conditions and EMP and should have the authority to ask for stoppage of construction / operation when the EMP and clearance conditions are not being followed.

 

(22)        The implementation of catchment area treatment plan, with involvement of all stakeholders should also be mandated.

 

(23)         Post project impact assessments every 10 years and formulate new Environment Management Plan based on findings should also be prescribed by MoEF. The assessment should include siltation studies, actual generation and efficiency versus installed capacity for hydro power projects, projected irrigable area versus actual irrigated area and efficiency for irrigation projects, reservoir induced seismicity, downstream impacts on river ecology and livelihoods, fresh cost benefit analysis, etc.

 

(24)        MOEF should prescribe lifespan analysis every 25 years for Dams.

 

(25)         EAC for RV&HEP should invite those NGOs that have sent representations against a project when the project is being discussed. MoEF should provide complainant with copies of replies by project proponent. EAC should consider projects only after minutes of Public Hearing have been made public and also put up on MoEF and developer’s website. Further, the EAC should ensure that the ToRs have been complied with in the EIA and that the EIA is as per the EIA manual and as per flow data in the DPR.

 

(26)        Regional Offices and State Pollution Control Boards should meet with Committee once in 6 months to provide feedback on status of compliance.

 

(27)         There is no effective penal mechanism in case of violations by project proponents. Projects of and by violators should not be considered till remedial actions and measures have been taken by the violators. The parent / holding companies of the violating company should be included else the parent / holding companies will float another company to bypass this.

 

            The EAC felt that some of the suggestions are already being taken care of like condition in environmental clearance for stipulating additional release of water and any other additional condition, display of EIA/EMP and compliance report on the website of project proponent, Impact Assessment on environment after every five years of commissioning of project etc. EAC is already looking into the authenticity of the data provided in the EIA/EMP reports. The Ministry has launched a scheme of accreditation of consultants with the very objective of improving the quality of EIA studies. Some of the suggestions like public consultation for TORs and basin studies, moratorium on projects till basin study, leaving certain river stretches free, public consultation in downstream area etc. require changes in EIA Notification, 2006 therefore, MoEF should look into these issues.  Regarding Basin studies, while agreeing with the suggestions, the EAC felt that in view of the decision of the Government for not withholding environment clearance in want of Basin studies, the EAC continues consideration of projects. However, MOEF is prescribing a condition that the Project Proponents shall abide by the outcome of any perspective Basin study in for the Basin of their Project. It was informed to the representatives of civil society that a number of Basin study are in pipeline like Subhansri, Siang, Satluj and Chenab. Alaknanda and Bhagirathi, Bichom, Lohit and Teesta Basin studies have already been carried out and Ministry is in the process of implementing the recommendations.

 

3.        Agenda item No. 3: Discussion on TORs for Cumulative Environmental                                Impact Assessment Study for Chenab Basin by                                                       Directorate of Energy, Government of Himachal                                                             Pradesh.

 

After providing the basic outlay of Chenab River, Shri Deepak Sanan, Principal Secretary, Energy, Government of Himachal Pradesh presented the objective and scope of the proposed Cumulative Environment Impact Assessment   study for Basin level Hydropower Development Plan in Chenab River Basin.  He presented that the total catchment area of River Chenab is 61,000 Sq. Km.  out of which only 7,500 Sq. Km. falls in Himachal Pradesh.  As per Indus-Water Treaty, India can create 1.75 MAF Storage on the tributaries of Chenab. The Government of Himachal Pradesh is proposing three storage projects on the River out of which two projects namely Gypsa and Gondhala with a total of 1.1 MAF  storage have been identified.  No irrigation is being carried out from the main River in H.P. and only small tributaries/streams are used for irrigation.  The Chandra and Bhaga Rivers meet at Tandi and become Chenab River. 

 

He presented that the Government of Himachal Pradesh has identified about 49 major projects with a potential of generating 3482.90 MW in the Basin having an area of 7,500 Sq. Km. Out of these, 6 small projects having a total generation capacity of 6.4 MW have been commissioned. Fifteen (15) Projects with a total capacity of 2712 MW have been allotted to various developers and about 19 projects with a total capacity of 582 MW are under investigation. Nine (9) projects having a capacity of 182.5 MW have been forgone due to various reasons. The Committee noted that the total annual runoff is 2735.24 MCM and maximum and minimum discharge is 313.60 and 15.70 Cumec respectively.

 

            L-Section of the full River was shown and the scope of the study, study area, data collection, impacts due to Hydropower Development, key aspects in impact assessment and expected outcome of the study were discussed in detail by the Committee.  It was submitted that the interim report of the study would be submitted after 12 months to MOEF/EAC for any mid course corrections. The study shall be completed within 24 months. 

 

            The Government of Himachal Pradesh submitted that the Study is likely to take at least two years therefore ToR and EC of individual HEPs may not be linked with completion of CEIA Study Report. Further, GoHP and all projects shall abide by findings of the CEIAS. GoHP is also committed for CEIAS for other basins in HP.

 

            While appreciating the efforts of GoHP in conducting CEIAs, the Committee expressed its displeasure on the way the whole River has been intercepted by Hydropower Projects which seems one after the other.  A broad calculation revealed that not even 10% of the River has been left free flowing.  The Principal Secretary submitted that so far there is no conclusive study indicating that the Hydropower projects have detrimental effects on the river health as hydropower generation is not consumptive and the water is released back into the river. In fact, the CEIA study shall reveal the impact of these hydropower projects on the river, if any. If the study suggests dropping certain power projects, then the Government would do so but in the absence of any study, presuming that the HEPs are affecting the river adversely, is not justified. The discussion on this issue ultimately led to the need of an impact study due to commissioned projects. It was decided that, GoHP may undertake a pilot study to study the impacts on downstream of Pandoh Dam which was commissioned in 1978.  The Principal Secretary agreed to initiate such a study.

 

The requirements for sustaining aquatic flora and fauna in the River shall be met by the environmental flows which shall be left by the HEPs.  The different environmental flows prescribed by the HP Govt. and EAC were also discussed. The Committee made it clear that the projects needing environmental clearance from the Centre would need to leave at least 20% of the average of four consecutive lean months flow and 30% of the monsoon discharge as environmental flow. The Committee would also look into the flows during remaining months i.e. October, November and March, April. Further, a minimum of 1-2 km should be left as the natural free flow river between the tip of the reservoir i.e. FRL of one project and TWL of upstream project. The Committee also informed the criteria for identifying the muck dumping sites from HFL of the river which has to be 30 m away from HFL of the river.

 

            After detailed deliberations, it was decided that besides, the aspects included in the study by Govt. of HP, the following may also be included-

 

(i)               The entire river-regime including requirement to purify itself, maintaining aquatic bio-diversity, recharging ground water, supporting livelihoods and irrigation, providing recreation, maintain sediments movement, preventing saline intrusion in estuarine and delta areas and fulfilling cultural and spiritual needs of the people in vicinity of the river should be study for requirement of E-Flows.

 

(ii)            With respect to the allotted 15 projects, their location and features/components such as FRL, TWL, length of HRT etc. may be reexamined to help the river to maintain its integrity and health.

 

(iii)          Availability of water in the tributaries and its requirements for various purposes should also be studied.

 

(iv)          Long term Discharge data of each project should be studied.

 

(v)             Impacts on aquatic life due to variation in releases from the diurnal storage based peaking power projects needs to be studied.

 

(vi)          Change in river morphology due to change in flood pulses. The number of flushing required for each project and its duration.

 

(vii)        The entire length of the river should be studied and sites for fish migration and breading grounds may be identified. Effect of HEPs on these as well as availability of nutrients for juvenile fishes should also be studied. The siting of the proposed HEPs should be reviewed with respect to the above requirements and change in site of HEPs may be suggested, if required.

 

(viii)     Environmental water flow requirement for each project should be studied separately for three segments i.e. monsoon, lean season (November to March) and intervening period (April to June and October) with reference to aquatic life.

 

(ix)           Social impacts of the projects should also be included in the study.

 

(x)             Scheduling of power generation from various HEPs and reservoir management shall be suggested.

 

            It was further informed to the GoHP that the study should be awarded to the accredited consultants only, to the extent possible.  Further, the study should be overseen and monitored by the State Environment Department or alternatively a Committee with representation from relevant departments including environment department may oversee the study.

 

4.             Agenda Item No. 4:    Discussion on Environment Clearance to Gundia                             200 MW Hydroelectric Power Project in Hassan                                                    and Dakshina Kannada Districts of Karnataka by                                            M/s Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. in view of                                              recommendation of Western Ghats Ecology Expert                                             Panel.

 

            The Environment Clearance to Gundia 200 MW Hydroelectric Power Project in Hassan and Dakshina Kannada Districts of Karnataka by M/s Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. was recommended by EAC in its meeting held on 30.06.2010.  However, while recommending the Project, the EAC observed that the Ministry may consider the recommendations of Expert Panel constituted under the Chairmanship of Prof. Madhav Gadgil before according environment clearance to the project.  Accordingly, the project proposal was referred to the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP) who has now classified the area as Ecologically Sensitive Zone–I (ESZ-I) and has recommended that no large storage Dam should be permitted in this area. The WGEEP has further recommended that the execution of Gundia project in three stages and two phases will cause large scale land covered changes in this Basin. The impacts on the Habitat on the bio-diversity would come not only from the submergence but also associated activity including building constructions as well as roads to access the various project site. The Panel therefore, recommended not permitting execution of this Project as the loss of bio-diversity and environmental impacts would be significant. 

 

            While processing the case for rejection, it was felt that opinion of the EAC on the observations of the WGEEP regarding this Project may be sought. The relevant extracts of the WGEEP recommendations for Gundia project were provided to all the Committee members.  The members of the Committee desired to know the criteria of classification for Ecologically Sensitive Zones for which members were requested to go through the project report which is available on the Website of the Ministry.

 

However, the members felt that the recommendations of the Panel are too general and whole of the Western Ghats area, as it is, is very rich in bio-diversity. Moreover, the flora and fauna species mentioned for Gundia Project area is not only endemic to the area and are endemic to the entire Western Ghats area. The Committee felt that the project proposal was considered by the Committee three times i.e. on 21st November, 2008, 21st -22nd October, 2009 and 30th June, 2010 followed by a site visit on 4th -6th December, 2009 and the EC was recommended adopting the principle of “Sustainable Development”.

 

            During the site visit, the Committee had looked into the land use classification and forest cover issue. The Committee had also desired total description of the bio-diversity of the total land at each site being used for the project by taking a study engaging an institute of eminence.  A suggestion was also made by the Committee to avoid construction of a road which involves 2 ha of primary dense tropical rain forest by constructing a bridge at turning point.

 

            On the insistence of the Committee KPCL decided to abandon the Hongadhalla Dam from the scheme which reduced the land requirement from 1041 ha to 478.96 ha.  The forest land was also reduced from 275.56 ha to 113.22 ha. Therefore, the Committee felt that it had looked into the bio-diversity of the area and after making the project more environment friendly by reducing the forest land and deleting one Dam, of the project was recommended for environment clearance. The Committee also observed that Dr. K.N. Ganeshaiah who was the consultant for the project was a member of the WGEEP. This seems conflict of interest.  The Ministry should look into the matter. 

 

            It was decided that the matter shall be discussed again in the next meeting, once the members go through the entire Report.

 

5.             Agenda item No. 5 : Consideration of Project Proposals for Scoping and                                      Environment Clearance

 

5.1       Triveni Madadev 78 MW Hydro Electric Project on River Beas in Mandi and Kangra Districts of Himachal Pradesh by M/s. Himachal Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd.- For TORs.

 

      The Himachal Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. (HPPCL) proposes run of river scheme on the right bank of river Beas in Sidhpur and Harsi villages in Mandi and Kangra Districts of Himachal Pradesh respectively to generate 78 MW of power.  The project envisages the construction of a diversion gated barrage of 32 m height on Beas river at Beri village in Dharampur Block in Mandi District and a raised crested weir on Binwa Khad at Babal village in Baijnath Block of Kangra District.  Water conductor system for Binwa Tunnel will be of 3.22 m dia and 2513 m long while the same shall be 9.40 m dia and 2992 m long head race tunnel (HRT). The project will have a surface power house at Harsi village in Lamba Gaon in District Kangra in HP.  Design discharge for the project is 242.03 cumec. The estimated cost for the project is Rs. 538.68 crores.

 

      The L Section of Beas River was shown and the Committee noted the FRL and TWL of upstream HEPs which are Larji and Pandoh which are 20 km upstream of Thana Plaun- the immediate upstream project.  There is free flowing river stretch of 5 km available between Thana Plaun and Triveni Mahadev and 6.7 km distance between Triveni Mahadev and Dhaulasidh HEP which is the downstream project. The FRL of the project is EL 597.5 m and TWL is EL 550.0 m.  

 

      Total land requirement for the project is 482 ha out of which 384 ha is forest land and 98 ha is private land.  Total affected villages are 27.

 

      The discharge data for the river is taken from Sujanpur Tihra downstream of the proposed project by Bhakra Beas Management Board (BBMB).  The utilizable flow for both the dams is the regulated release (spill) downstream of Pandoh diversion dam and the contribution of intermediate catchment for which 28 years data is available as gauged at Sujanpur on river Beas.

 

      However, the data did not match with rain fall data and the Committee did not get convinced with the water availability and preliminary data on bio-diversity, aquatic flora fauna etc.   It was decided that complete hydrology with actual rain fall data for justifying availability of water for the project should be provided. Spill from Pandoh Dam may be separated from Sujanpur data and submitted.

 

      After detailed deliberations, the Committee desired information on the following issues-

 

(i)            The 10-daily discharge series of the Pandoh release in the 90% dependable year as well as contribution of the intermediate catchment has not been detailed for both the projects. It is also mentioned that the discharge data of downstream gauging station at Sujanpur on Beas river has been utilized in developing the flow series. The above details need to be clarified and furnished.

 

(ii)         Complete hydrology with discharge data of Sujanpur and rain fall data to substantiate the same. Complete 10 daily series with 90% dependable year may be submitted. The hydrology may be justified with the intermediate catchment area and spill from Pandoh Dam, including monsoon spills. Pandoh spill may be separated from Sujanpur data.

 

(iii)       The Committee noted that another stream namely Binwa- a left bank tributary is proposed to be diverted by a 5.85 Km long tunnel to supplement the flow diverted at the main barrage on Beas. In the absence of these details the flow series proposed for utilization cannot be clearly defined. A total riverine length of 9 Km gets deprived.

 

(iv)       The reservoir submergence details could not be clarified hence may be submitted.

 

(v)          Map of the catchment area may be provided.

 

(vi)       All small and big projects, proposed and existing should be provided with their FRL and TWL along with the free riverine distances between the two projects.

 

(vii)     All tables and maps should be provided in clear legible quality.

 

(viii)  In form 1 under Environmental Sensitivity in point no.1 the third column should have ‘yes’ instead of ‘no’ since the forests areas are protected under the Indian Forest Act 1927.

 

(ix)        There is a mistake in the list of fauna on the page 162 of the PFR where the scientific name Sus scrofa has been given for Indian Wild Bear instead of Indian Wild Pig which needs to be corrected. The scientific names of many other species have spelling mistakes which need to be corrected. Also the prefix ‘Game’ to animals and birds is no longer in vogue owing to total ban on hunting in India and so should be deleted.

 

      The project will be reconsidered by the Committee after submission of relevant data. However, it was recommended that the following points may be included in EIA/EMP studies, as and when TORs are approved-

 

(i)             The environmental flow release as 15% of lean season flow needs to be increased to 20%. The flow in the monsoon released from the barrage should be about 30% of the pristine flow, maintaining the flood pulses.

 

(ii)          Under base-line survey of aquatic biotic components of the river, periphyton should also be included for the study.

 

(iii)        As per altitudinal location the river stretch must hold migratory fishes–mahseer and snow-trouts, hence need be studied thoroughly for presence of the above fishes, their migratory route, breeding grounds and existence of deep pools in the river.

 

(iv)        The habitat diversity of the river like rapids, pools, substratum should also be included in the study.

 

(v)           Kangra area is seat for 8.0 M earthquake (1905) and the region is seismically highly active. It is necessary to monitor the micro earthquake activity near the dam site and power house by 3-4 seismographs. The outcome of the microseismic survey will be helpful for identifying the local active faults as well as the same data will be used by the IIT Roorkee in calculating the g value. As MEQ uses the data from IMD for calculating the seismic design parameters.

 

(vi)        Detailed geomorphological mapping of downstream portion is absolutely required, which is going to be significantly modified due to controlled flow from the P/h.

 

(vii)      The faunal lists given in Form –I needs to be corrected.

 

5.2       Thana–Plaun 141 MW Hydroelectric Power Project on river Beas in Village Thana of District Mandi of Himachal Pradesh by M/s. Himachal Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd.- For TORs.

 

      The Committee noted the salient features of the project. However, it was decided that since it is upstream of Triveni Mahadev HEP, it will be considered when the hydrology data substantiated with rain fall data shall be submitted for the entire Basin.  The comments of the Committee for Triveni Mahadev HEP shall also be taken for this project also. 

 

5.3       Bina Complex Irrigation and Multipurpose Project on Bina and Dhassan in Madia in Rahatgarh Tehsil of Sagar District of Madhya Pradesh by Water Resource Department, Sagar, Madhya Pradesh – For Environmental Clearance.

 

      The Government of Madhya Pradesh proposes to build four reservoirs on Bina and Dhasan rivers and Dehra Nala in Sagar and Vidisha Districts of Madhya Pradesh to irrigate 27,747 ha of culturable command area in Kharif and 70,000 ha in Rabi season. Besides irrigation, two power houses of 22 MW (2x11 MW) and 10 MW (2x5 MW) a proposed to be constructed.  The project shall also provide water for drinking and industrial use.  The numbers of villages to be benefitted by the project are 226. A total of 533 km of canal network is proposed.

 

      Madia Earthen Dam of 23.5 m height and 2069.7 m long is proposed on Bina river in Sagar District of Madhya Pradesh with gross storage capacity of 313.11 MCM.  An HEP of 22 MW (2x11 MW) is proposed on this Dam.  The Design discharge for the project is 80.25 cumec.  The power house shall be for peaking requirements running for eight hours daily in morning and evening. 

 

      Dhasan Earthen Dam of 21.6 m height and 7402 m long with gross storage capacity of 86.47 MCM shall be constructed on Dhasan River in Sagar District. 

 

      The third Dam namely Dehra Dam shall be constructed on Dehra Nala in Sagar District.  This will be a concrete gravity Dam with 35 m height and 3509 m length. The gross storage capacity will be 72.36 MCM. Two Saddles of 5 m height and 2148 m length and 30 m a propoed to accommodate the diverted flow from Dhasan reservoir.

 

      The fourth Dam namely the Chakrapur Dam shall be on the Bina river in Sagar District.  It will be Earthen Dam with gross storage capacity of 74.31 MCM. The Dam height shall be 25 m and length will be 751.682 m.

 

      The total catchment is 1853 Sq. km out of which 1139 Sq. Km is for Madia Dam 464.5 Sq. km for Dhasan Dam, 62.50 Sq. km for Dehra Dam and 187.00 Sq. Km for Chakarpur Dam.

 

      The gross annual yield is 835.75 MCM having 496.98 MCM at Madia, 199.25 MCM at Dhasan, 34.92 MCM at Dehra and 104.59 MCM at Chakarpur.

 

      The land requirement for the project was not clear therefore, total submergence was also not clear although, the Project Proponent provided Dam wise submergence however, it did not match with the total land requirement.   

 

      The project will affect 69 villages out of which, 12 villages will be fully submerged and 2957 houses will be affected.  The Committee felt that it is not clearly stated how many families will be displaced. The details of PAF survey given in the Appendix do not indicate total number of families/persons. The population data is broken into many tables, which is not clear whether these are village-wise or Panchayat-wise.  No budget for R&R plan is given in the EMP. The Chapter 16 replicates the R&R policy and no information on projects specific R&R plan has been given. 

 

      The Committee expressed its displeasure and unhappiness on the most casual way the EIA/EMP has been prepared. No relevant information has been provided in the EIA/EMP report for appraising the project.  The Committee felt that the whole report needs to be redone with the following specific information- 

           

(i)                   The hydrology detailing the yield, the flow series at Madia, Dhasan, Dehra and Chakarpur Dams as well as simulation for the 75% dependable year of 10-daily release from the reservoir should be provided.  Availability of water for meeting the irrigation demands of 536.08 Mm3 for 27,747 ha of Kharif and 70,000 ha of Rabi coverage need to be furnished. Detailed mass balance for water availability may be provided.

 

(ii)                It was indicated that rainfall-runoff modeling has been done for which no clear information was available. Detailed rainfall information over the basin was lacking. The yield 104.59 Mm3 from free catchment area of 187 Km2 between Madia Dam and Chakarpur Dam as shown in the presentation is much higher in comparision to other abstraction location. This all needs to be clarified.

 

(iii)              The crop water requirement also needs to be provided in detail.

 

(iv)              Pressurized irrigation for improving water efficiency may be included and detailed plan may be submitted.

 

(v)                The implementation schedule for the CAD Plan should be provided. OFD works to control water logging and water table rise also need to be explained.

 

(vi)              For Catchment Area Treatment (CAT) Plan, SYI Method has not been used hence, the plan need to be remade.

 

(vii)           For implementation of CAT plan, only local species should be used.

 

(viii)         At many places the EIA report has wrong data regarding flora and fauna, it needs to be corrected. Only tree species has been provided in the EIA report.  List of shrubs, hurbs along with RET species should be provided. The same is the case with animal species.

 

(ix)              The names of the species for flora-fauna should be written as per standard scientific practice (for example Catla catla instead of Catla-catla) in all the reports.

 

(x)                 No details about the fish in the river are given. Details of prevalent of fish species, their breeding grounds and migration routs should be provided along with a fish management plan. A fish hatchery should be provided at the suitable site of the river bank for stocking of the depleted river stretch and reservoir.

 

(xi)              In Section 4.3 of the EIA report, only the codes of the broad forest types have been given. The names of the forest sub-types from Champion and Seth classification (1968) needs to be provided along with the codes. IVI calculations should also be provided.

 

(xii)            In Section 4.12.1 of EIA report at ‘Bird species’ a good list has been provided. However the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 schedules also need to be given for the bird species and specific suggestions need to be given for addressing the conservation of Schedule I and RET species.

 

(xiii)         The butterfly and reptile lists are deficient and need to be made complete.

 

(xiv)         In Section 4.12.7 of EIA report, a mention of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 schedules of the mammalian species needs to be made. A more detailed account on the mammals from Schedule I and other RET species should be provided and specific suggestions need to be given for addressing their conservation in the EMP.

 

(xv)            In Section 2.3.1.3 of the EMP, very general but ambitious suggestions have been given but the corresponding budgetary allocation is too meager which needs to be enhanced. Also how much area is to be taken up for invasive species removal needs to be provided.

 

(xvi)         In Section 2.3.1.4 of the EMP, scientific names of the threatened tree species to be taken up for afforestation needs to be provided. It is proposed to afforest 50 ha area but financial outlay for only 25 ha has been given which needs to be explained.

 

(xvii)       In Section 2.3.1.8 of the EMP, it is stated that ‘no major wildlife is available’. It may be explained what is meant by ‘major’. It is suggested that the definition of wildlife as per the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 may be used in the document. The amount proposed for the Wildlife Management Plan is too small considering the large submergence involved.

 

(xviii)    In Section 2.4 of EMP, 3 anti-poaching check posts with 2 guards and one Dy. Range Officer each has been proposed along with communication equipment and other facilities. The annual salaries for 6 guards and 3 Dy. Range Officers (for all the 3 checkposts) is likely to be much more than the estimated cost of 15 lakhs provided in the EMP. Thus it needs to be re-checked.

 

(xix)          PMF study and Dam break analysis may be carried out as the Dam height is more than 20 m.

 

(xx)            Details of social impacts of the project along with budgetary provisions for R&R should be provided.

 

(xxi)          Environment Management cost has not been provided. Detailed break-up of the same should be provided.

 

(xxii)       Local Area Development Activities (LADA) along with the budgetary provisions should be provided. 

 

(xxiii)     A separate SIA with all details as per the NRRP 2007 need to be prepared. The R&R chapter should be re-written providing information on projects specific R&R plan.

 

The project shall be reconsidered after submission of the revised EIA/EMP report including the above mentioned information.

 

11th February, 2012

 

5.4. & 5.5 Lower Yamne Stage-I 88 MW and Stage II 90 MW Hydroelectric Power Projects on Yamne River in Upper Siang District of Arunachal Pradesh by M/s. Yamne Power Private Limited – For TORs.

 

      M/s. Yamne Power Private Limited proposes two run of the river schemes on Yamne River in Upper Siang District of Arunachal Pradesh namely Lower Yamne 88 MW Stage I(LYS-I) and Lower Yamne 90 MW Stage II (LYS-II).  Yamne River is a tributary of Siang River and four hydropower projects have been proposed on this River. The upper most is Yamne I HEP at FRL 713 m followed by Yamne II HEP having FRL of 536 m. It was informed by the Project Proponent that these projects have taken scoping clearance and are carrying out investigations to prepare the DPR and EIA/EMP reports. Next is Lower Yamne Stage I at FRL 425 m followed by Lower Yamne Stage II at FRL 318 m. Downstream of Lower Yamne Stage II, Yamne River meets Siang River and Lower Siang 2700 MW HEP is proposed on Siang River, just   downstream of the confluence of Yamne and Siang Rivers.  The submergence area of Lower Siang HEP will also spread along Yamne River with its FRL at 235 m. Lower Yamne Stage I has 1.16 Km of free flowing river stretch from the tip of its reservoir to the tail water outfall point of Yamne II HEP(436 m). Likewise the free flowing river stretch between TWL of Lower Yamne Stage I and FRL of Lower Yamne Stage II is 1.2 Km.

 

      Lower Yamne Stage I (the upstream project) is in village Padu in Upper Siang District and proposes to construct a 22 m high barrage from river bed level at FRL 425 m. The MDDL shall be at 420 m.  The project will have 8.4 Km long HRT of 7.1 m dia on the right bank and surface type desilting basin with four chambers. Surge shaft will be of 50 m high with 25.5 m dia. Surface powerhouse with two vertical francis type turbines of 44 MW each are proposed. The design flood discharge (SPF) is 5240 cumec and design discharge shall be 135.49 cumec.  90% dependable flow is 16.3 m3 /s. Catchment area of LYS-I is 967 sq. km. Total land requirement has been estimated as 128.25 ha including 60 ha for submergence and 32 ha for muck disposal. Out of 128.25 ha, 77 ha is Unclassified State Forest (USF) and remaining is private. Proposal for diversion of forestland under Forest Conservation Act 1980 has been submitted to Conservator of Forests cum Nodal Officer, Government of Arunachal Pradesh. Land requirement will be further optimized during the preparation of DPR.

 

      Lower Yamne Stage II (LYS-II) proposes to construct a 25 m high barrage from river bed level near Jeru village.  HRT of 4.05 Km long with 7.7 m dia will be on right bank.  Desilting basin will be on surface type with four chambers.   Surface powerhouse with two vertical francis type turbines of 45 MW each are propsed. Catchment area for the project is 1149 sq. Km.  SPF is estimated as 5705 cumec and design discharge as 162.50 cumec. Total land requirement is estimated to be 105.89 ha including 47 ha for submergence and 26 ha for muck disposal. Out of 105.89 ha, 63.5 ha is Unclassified State Forest (USF) and rest is private. Proposal for diversion of forestland has been submitted to the Conservator of Forests.  Land requirement will be further optimized during the preparation of DPR for this project also.

 

      No National Parks/Wildlife Sanctuaries/Biosphere Reserve is falling within 10 km radius of the project. D’Ering Memorial Wildlife Sanctuary is the nearest protected area located about 30 Km and 22 Km away from Lower Yamne Stage I and II respectively.

 

      The project proponent informed that the flow series computation has been based on the CWC approved 10 daily water availability series for 25 years (1978-79 to 2008-09) for immediate upstream project i.e. Yamne II HEP having Catchment Area of 890 Km2. The runoff depth of 3306 mm as approved by CWC for Yamne II, has been kept for Lower Yamne Stage I also which has a Catchment Area of 967 Km2. The flow series for both the projects has been generated by catchment area proportion method. Hydrological aspects including flow computation, availability of discharge and precipitation data was discussed at length. The rainfall data was collected from IMD for four locations in the project area viz. Bombo, Passighat, Rotung and Yingkiong. Consistency Checks of Rainfall Data have been carried out by plotting Mass Curve and Double Mass Curve. Year 2004-05 with 92% dependability has been used in power potential study. The Committee was of the view that the water availability presented in the pre feasibility report seems to be on the higher side.

 

      Flow for the power generation has been worked out by working out environmental flow release during the lean season based on the 20% of the average value of flow available in four leanest months. During the four monsoon months, flow available for power generation has been worked out by keeping a provision of at least 20% release whenever the flow available is less than the design discharge. For other months i.e. October, March, April and May, the project proponent has proposed that the flow requirement will be established during EIA/EMP study. Committee also noted that the Cumulative Environmental Impact Assessment study of the Siang Basin has already been initiated and the accepted recommendations on the flow release requirement will be applicable to Yamne Lower Stage I and II projects.

 

      Project proponent informed that a G&D site has already been made operational at the Dam site. EAC observed that a run-off depth of 3306 mm out of 3400 mm rainfall appears to be on higher side and asked the project proponent to firm up the hydrology during DPR preparation based on the observed data. EAC further asked to assess the discharge of nallahs meeting Yamne River in the intermediate stretches of both the projects.

 

      EAC observed that in each project two units have been proposed i.e. 44x2 MW for Lower Yamne Stage I and 45x2 MW for Lower Yamne Stage II, however, a review of the flow series of 25 years prepared for each location show that 3 unit options could be more viable. Therefore, during the preparation of the DPR, power potential should be studied for 3-unit option as well.

 

      EAC observed that environmental flow should be maintained in all seasons for fish fauna in Yamne River as baseline secondary data show presence of fish species in the river. Fish passes should be provided in the barrages and reservoir fisheries plan should be included in the EMP report.

 

      After the detailed deliberations, the scoping clearance and ToRs for conducting an EIA study was approved with the following observations of the Committee which may be included while preparation of EIA/EMP report -

 

(i)             Explore the possibility of reduction of HRT length while preparation of DPR.

 

(ii)         To firm up the hydrology during DPR preparation considering   the observed G&D data.

 

(iii)       To assess the discharge of nallahs meeting Yamne River in the intermediate stretches of both the projects.

 

(iv)       During the preparation of the DPR, power potential should be studied for 3-units option as well, as discussed with project proponent.

 

(v)          Detailed Fish Management Plan should be provided including provision for fish passes/lifts in the barrages and reservoir fisheries in the EMP report.

 

(vi)       Project is located in Seismic Zone V, therefore, the site-specific seismic study needs to be carried out and submitted to NCSDP for approval.

 

(vii)     Land use pattern of the acquired land to be studied and included in the EIA/EMP report.

 

(viii)  Lower group of plants should also be studied during primary survey and reported in the EIA/EMP report.

 

(ix)        List of Project Affected Families should be prepared during EIA/EMP report and R&R Plan should be prepared keeping in view the State and National R&R Policy.

 

(x)          Environment Management Plan and Local Area Development Activities should be practical with measurable milestones.

 

(xi)        Barrage Break Analysis need to be carried out for both the barrages, as they are over 20 m high from riverbed level. PMF should also be estimated for dam break analysis.

 

(xii)     SPF may be verified with 500 years flood obtained from frequency study.

 

(xiii)   In Form 1 under Environmental Sensitivity in point no.1 the fourth column should specifically relate to areas up to 15 km and not just project affected area.

 

(xiv)   According to the PFR section 8.11, Tiger is one of the common mammal species found in the area in the upper reaches and the upper catchments of the proposed project. Source of the information needs to be given; else the statement needs to be corrected.

 

(xv)      The projects are located in Siang district of Arunachal Pradesh, which is the seat of 8.7 M earthquake of 1947 and caused lot of changes in the river channels of Brahmaputra and its tributaries. Therefore, micro-earthquake monitoring for 4-6 months at dam site and power house for identification of significant active seismio-tectonic features in the vicinity of project area should be included in EIA Study. The detailed geo-morphological mapping of the downstream portion is absolutely necessary due to the regulated flow of water after the generation of energy from the project.

 

(xvi)   Downstream impacts of the project up to 10 km distance.

5.6             Request for Revision of Capacity from 60 MW to 84 MW for Tagurshit Hydroelectric Project in West Siang District of Arunachal Pradesh by M/s L&T Arunachal Hydro Power- at TORs Stage.

              

      M/s L&T Arunachal Hydro Power has requested for revision of capacity from 60 MW to 84 MW for their Tagurshit Hydroelectric Project in West Siang District of Arunachal Pradesh. The TOR was issued for the project on 13th March, 2010.  The increase in capacity is due to the optimization and power potential studies carried out for the project. The Government of Arunachal Pradesh has no objection for the revised capacity.

 

      The Project Proponent submitted that three season baseline data has been collected as per the TORs. After obtaining ToR, L&T has carried out survey and investigation works for the Project and found that the installed capacity of the Project could be enhanced from 60 MW in to 84 MW by shifting the location of power house while maintaining the same FRL of EL 1220 m. Earlier the power house was located near the Tagurshit-Siyom rivers confluence and now the same is shifted 1.2 km downstream of the confluence, along the right bank of Siyom River Instead of Tagurshit River.  By doing so, an additional head of 40 m could be achieved as the Tagurshit River is a steep river.  However, Tail Water Level will now be changed to EL 810 m from EL 850 m. There is a slight reduction in land requirement, earlier it was 41.7 ha while now for 84 MW, it is 39.47 ha. The Project Proponent submitted that the submergence has decreased from 10 ha to 2.5 ha. The Committee desired to know the reason for which the Proponent informed that the earlier figures for submergence were not calculated correctly.

 

      Further, now the discharge has also increased from 18 cumec to 24.05 cumec due to refinement in the study. The Tagurshit basin has a catchment area of 191.6 sq km at the dam site. Earlier, during the initial stages of 2008-09, it was completely an un-gauged basin. Based on the preliminary water availability assessment at that time, a design discharge of 18 cumec was arrived at which was good enough for 60 MW capacity. Subsequently, after detailed studies to assess the water availability, based on the approved water availability series of Central Water Commission (CWC), a design discharge of 24.05 cumecs has been finalized. This has been approved by CWC in August 2011. Therefore as per the water discharge and available increased head, the final capacity works out to be 86 MW.

 

      It was further submitted that DPR for the Project is under progress and water available study has been completed and approved by CWC. Based on the water availability, power potential   studies have been submitted to CEA for their approval.  

 

      The Committee observed that an annual average flow of 519.32 Mm3 equivalent to annual runoff of 2710 mm has been used as per CWC. This has been extrapolated from the Siyom project data, much downstream on the main river with catchment area of 6000 Km2,  obviously fed by much higher precipitation in the lower reach influenced by Passighat rainfall. The similarity in hypsometric data to justify extrapolation of the rainfall needs to be established. The Committee after deliberating on the hydrology, felt that rainfall and run-off data is not for the same area therefore, it is not convincing. Further, the annual run-off computed from Kaying and Pangin G-D sites in Table-9.1 appear to be on higher side. The mean annual run-off of about 3m exceeds the mean annual rainfall of about 2m.This may be due to the correlation of 0.0506x0.9 used to derive the run-off from the above G-D stations. The Committee advised the proponents to develop a rainfall–runoff model from observed rainfall-runoff records in the given basin and then develop the flow series from observed rainfall in adjoining basins. Further, rational formula should not be used for flood computations since it is not applicable for catchment area larger than 25 sq. km.

 

      The Committee desired to know the environmental flow for lean and monsoon season and remaining months. The Proponent informed that for the lean season, it will be as per the norms of 20% of average of four consecutive lean month’s flow however, the Committee felt that there is not enough monsoon discharge therefore, asked the project proponenet to explore the possibility of lowering the design discharge to about 20 cumecs, so that river health is not affected adversely in the downstream reach.  The Committee also observed that there is a discrepancy in average annual rainfall vs. average annual yield of the approved water availability series.  

 

      After deliberation, it was decided that the request of the Project Proponent shall be reconsidered after submission of the above mentioned data. The members had observed certain inconsistencies in the data provided in Form-I which may be rectified/included in EIA/EMP report. These are as below -

 

(i)         The Committee further desired to know the turbine flow, environmental Flow and spill flow in separate columns.

 

(ii)      Under base-line survey of aquatic biotic components of the river, plankton, periphyton and macro-zoobenthos should also be included for the study.

 

(iii)    The habitat diversity of the river like rapids, pools, substratum need also be included in the study.

 

(iv)    Inventory of wildlife given in table 2 under section 10.4.5 of the PFR has included Wild Buffalo which is unlikely to be present in the area. Also frogs have been included in the bird list which needs to be corrected and the lists need to be arranged family wise as per the accepted classification.

 

(v)       As the recorded rainfall in the basin upstream is less than 2000 mm, the average runoff figure of 2710 mm is considered high. Although the developers were given scoping clearance two year back they should have at least two year rainfall and discharge data at the project site now. They may furnish the actual observed rainfall and discharge data for justifying the higher drawal.

 

(vi)    Sediment study is inadequate. Based on available water and sediment flow records, develop sediment rating curve and use it for estimating sediment load. Add bed load either from observed or from estimated bed load.

 

5.7.     Dhaulasidh 66 MW Hydroelectric Power Project on River Beas in District Hamirpur and Kangra of Himachal Pradesh by M/s. Satluj Jal Vidlyut Nigam Ltd. – For Environmental Clearance.

 

      The Satluj Jal Vikas Nigam limited (SJVN) proposes a 66 MW Hydro Power Project on river Beas at Dhaulasidh in Hamirpur and Kangra Districts of Himachal Pradesh.  The scoping clearance for the project and TOR for EIA/EMP study was given on 20th May, 2010. Public hearing for the Project was conducted on 15th & 16th September, 2011.  Stage-I Forest Clearance has been recommended on 29th November, 2011. Techno-Economic Clearance (TEC) has been accorded by GOHP on 25.06.11. The Public Hearings have been conducted on 15.09.11 for District Hamirpur and on 16.09.11 for District Kangra.

 

      Shri Sushil Mahajan, Head of Project presented that a concrete gravity Dam of 51 m height above the bed level is proposed for the project. The FRL of the project is EL 520 m and TWL is at EL 473.30 m.  The elevation of the top of the Dam is 5230 m. A diversion tunnel of 227.71 m length and 10.2 m dia is proposed.  There is Dam Toe Power House located on left bank, with 2 generating units of 33 MW each with Vertical Shaft Francis Turbine. There are two penstock of 4.3 m dia & 60.5 m long. Tail Race Channel is of 15 m base width and 69 m length. Total cost of project is Rs. 497.67 Crores.

 

      The Total land requirement for the project is 338.2 ha which includes 57.7 ha of forest land, 28.3 ha of Govt. land and 252.2 ha of private land. There is no wild life sanctuary with in 10 km distance of the project.  Out of above 252.2 ha of private land, approx. 226.5 ha land is non-cultivatable, barren, river bed and vertical rocks. Only 10.2% land is cultivable.

 

      Minimum environmental flows of 20% of average lean season (Nov. to Feb.) flow for 90% dependable year, which works out 6.35 cumecs, will be released.

 

      During construction of project about 0.630 Mm3 of muck is expected to be generated out of which about 0.118 Mm3 of muck shall be re-utilized. The remaining 0.764 Mm3 will be disposed off on two disposal sites of 4.30 ha (1.20+3.10 ha) having a capacity of 0.801 Mm3 (i.e. 0.190+0.611). These sites are about 1 km and 8 km away from the river respectively.

 

      There are 427 families to be affected in 40 villages of 18 gram panchayats. No. of families to be rendered landless are 5 and houses of 4 (four) families will get affected. In addition to R&R plan, a budget of Rs. 74.65 million (about 1.50 % of project cost) has been earmarked for construction of Infrastructure and Local Area Development Committee Works such as up gradation of footpaths/roads/bridges, community centres, PHCs, mahila mandal bhawans, anganbaries, infrastructural facilities in schools, student scholarships, improvement of water resources, c/o cremation grounds, bus stops, public toilets etc., in the area. Rs. 31.44 has been budgeted for EMP which includes Fisheries management, CAT Plan, Compensatory Afforestation etc.

 

      The list of flora-fauna and aquatic bio-diversity specifically fishes given in EIA Report was found deficient as well as incorrect at many places. The Committee expressed its extreme displeasure at the EIA study.

 

      After the deliberation, the Committee decided additional information on the following -

 

(i)                 L-section of all existing and proposed small and major hydroelectric projects on river Beas from Pandoh dam to Pong dam with their FRL and TWL should be given. The free stretch of river flow between various hydroelectric projects should also be given.

 

(ii)               Plan and cross-section of various muck disposal sites should be provided.

 

(iii)            Break-up of land use of private land to be acquired for the project.

 

(iv)             Financial Assistance of families losing homestead be increased from Rs. 50,000 per family to Rs. 100,000 per family accordingly R&R budget may be resubmitted.

 

(v)               Environmental Flow in lean season to be increased to 20% of average lean season flow for 90% dependable year. This may be done by Building Block Method. Flow for social and religious needs may also be included. Monsoon flow and remaining months’ flow needs to be computed and submitted.

 

(vi)             The list of flora in EIA report is found to be deficient. Bryophytes, Pteridophytes, fungi, lichens etc. should be updated. The periphyton diversity should be mentioned in the proper units (cm2) in the place of M2 shown in EIA Vol.1, page 6-45.

 

(vii)          Aquatic Biodiversity has been dealt with casually. Breeding season of Tor putitora and Tor tor has been mentioned as September-October (EIA Vol.1, page 6-79, Table 6.34), while both the fishes breed during April-July. Availability of Neolissocheilus hexagonolepis has been mentioned from the river site (EIA Vol.1, page 6-82, Table-6.35), while the fish is not available in the region because it is endemic to N-E Himalaya. Hence need be corrected. Surprisingly, availability of the cold water fishes (Schizothorax richardsonii etc.) and warm water fishes (Cirrhinus mrigala and Catla catla) has been mentioned in the river stretch. Availability of the warm water fishes in the cold water riverine condition is not possible at any situation, therefore need be thoroughly checked and corrected. Further presence of Salmo gairdneri (rainbow trout) and Salmo trutta fario (brown trout) has also been mentioned in the stretch (EMP Plan Vol-2). As per altitudinal location the presence of these species in lower Himalayan reaches is again not possible. The matter needs serious verification, correction and resubmission. The entire Fish Management Plan should be redone.

 

(viii)        The list of fauna is also not complete.  List of birds, amphibians and reptiles is also deficient and needs to be updated.

 

(ix)             The Schedule I mammal species have been left out from the table 6.10 while they have been mentioned in the text on page 6.40. The table needs to be updated. List of birds indicating 16 species and that of butterflies with 15 species are grossly deficient and fresh surveys need to be conducted to update the lists. The lists should be presented with species listed under families arranged as per the approved classification. The impact on Schedule I and RET species has to be specifically mentioned for all taxa.

 

(x)                The sampling sites are all along the river therefore do not represent the entire study area (up to 10 km from project components). Fresh sampling should cover areas away from the river as well.

 

(xi)             Install a G&D station at the proposed dam site to justify the flow series used for finding turbine flow.

 

(xii)           Measure bed load to justify assumption of 20% suspended sediments as bed load. Give the sediment rating curve and find mean annual sediment load from frequency plot. Unit weights assumed to convert measured sediment weight into volume should also be provided.

 

(xiii)        Kangra area is seat for 8.0 M earthquake (1905) and the region is seismically highly active. It is necessary to monitor the micro earthquake activity near the dam site and power house by 3-4 seismographs. The outcome of the micro seismic survey will be helpful for identifying the local active faults as well as the same data will be used by the IIT Roorkee in calculating the g value. As MEQ uses the data from IMD for calculating the seismic design parameters.

 

(xiv)         Detailed geo-morphological mapping of downstream portion is absolutely required, which is going to be significantly modified due to controlled flow from the P/h.

 

(xv)           Effect of diurnal flow variation should be provided. 

 

(xvi)         Effect on the downstream upto 10 km need to be evaluated. 

 

(xvii)      A separate chapter on social impacts may also be provided.

 

 

      The Committee felt that there is a need to redo the sampling, may be for one season.  The project shall be reconsidered after submission of the above mentioned information.

 

5.8.     Morand and Ganjal Complex Irrigation Project in District Hoshingabad, Madhya Pradesh by Narmada Valley Development Authority – Regarding TORs.

 

      The Narmada Valley Development Authority (NVDA) of Government of Madhya Pradesh presented that to use the allocated 18.25 MAF of the share of MP from the Narmada Water Distribution Treaty (NWDT), Morand and Ganjal Complex is a major Irrigation Project proposed for an area of 52, 205 ha in Hoshingabad, Harda and Khandwa Districts. The total allocation of water is 465.48 MCM out of which 442.826 MCM shall be used for this project, which includes 15.15 MCM for drinking water.  The irrigation intensity shall be 135%.  The total culturable command area is 58,052 ha.

 

      Two Dams are proposed namely Morand and Ganjal on Morand and Ganjal Rivers respectively. These rivers are tributaries of Narmada River. The catchment area of Morand Dam is 1031.99 sq km and that of Ganjal Dam is 413.49 sq km. The total water storage in Morand reservoir will be 271.17 MCM and for Ganjal reservoir it will be 100.1 MCM. The water from Morand right and left bank canal and Ganjal left bank canal shall ultimately be transferred to the combined canal to irrigate command area A&B having irrigable command area of 35,330 ha and 16,875 ha respectively. Total cost of the Project is Rs. 1400 Crores.

 

      Some of the members felt that they did not receive hard copies of the documents therefore need time to analyse and review the project. However, some preliminary observations are as follows-

 

(i)            Complete map of various projects in both the Districts should be provided.

 

(ii)         Complete land use pattern and land requirement for the project should be provided.

 

(iii)       Detailed water availability study in 75% dependable year is required at both sites to justify water storage. Detailed hydrology of both the Dams covering rainfall and yield information and drainage systems may be provided.

 

(iv)       Provide detailed study of water requirement for Kharif and Rabi crops including water losses in transport and application, evaporation etc.

 

(v)          Adopt conjunctive irrigation by using ground water in order to reduce surface storage requirement.

 

(vi)       Pressurised irrigation should also be considered, where ever possible.

 

(vii)     Considering water logging problem in adjoining Tawa command, it is desirable that proper drainage of surface application should be introduced. Details of these measures should be submitted.

 

(viii)  Hydrology data may be substantiate by installing  River gauges near the dam sites for measuring water and sediment flow in the rivers instead of deriving/estimating from the data available in adjoining basins.

 

(ix)        Give detailed hydro-meteorological analysis for PMF and Dam break analysis.

 

(x)          In Form 1, under Environmental Sensitivity in point no.1 the third column should have ‘yes’  instead of ‘no’ since the forests areas are protected under the Indian Forest Act 1927. Likewise, under Environmental Sensitivity in point no.3 the answer should be ‘yes’ since a large forest area is involved.

 

(xi)        The summary of the pre-feasibility report provided is extremely concise therefore, inadequate to understand the components of the schemes, their location and water scenario such as yield and demand etc.  The complete version of the PFR must be provided with clear maps of the project components such as dam, spillway, the reservoir, the canals, the command area and sample CAD plan for OFD works.

 

(xii)     Clear cropping pattern also needs to be provided. 

 

(xiii)   Under Impact Assessment para 4.3, the impact on ground water over the entire command must be studied. As very large scale submergence of 2415 ha for Morand dam and 923 ha for Ganjal dam is envisaged, the impact on terrestrial biodiversity has to be studied in great detail.

 

(xiv)   MPV cost seems very high, hence the project cost. This may be rechecked.

          

      The project proposal shall be reconsidered after receipt of the above mentioned information and hard copies of the documents by all the members.

 

2.              Any other Item with the permission of Chair.

 

Representation by Debal Small Hydro Power (Debal SHEP) by Chamoli Hydro Power Private Limited regarding Devsari 252 MW HEP of SJVN: The Committee had discussed and cleared the project for environmental clearance during its last meeting held on 26th -27th December, 2011. One of the issues discussed was submergence of Debal Small Hydro Power (Debal SHEP) by Chamoli Hydro Power Private Limited of Sadasiva Reddy.  SJVN had submitted that Debal SHEP had violated the allocated levels as per the DPR.  However, the Chairman, EAC has received a complaint from Shri Reddy saying that the information submitted by SJVN is incorrect.  The Committee discussed the issue and decided that following the principle of natural justice, the Committee may provide an opportunity to Debal SHEP to present their case. SJVN may also be invited for the discussion.

 

           The meeting ended with vote of thanks to the Chairman.

 

*********

 

Annexure-1

 

List of EAC Members and Project Proponents who attended 55th Meeting of Expert Appraisal Committee for River Valley & Hydroelectric Power Projects held on 10th – 11th February, 2012

 

Members of EAC

 

1.           Shri Rakesh Nath- Chairman

2.           Dr. B.P. Das - Vice Chairman

3.           Dr. Dhananjai Mohan

4.           Shri G.L. Bansal

5.           Prof. S.K. Mazumdar

6.           Dr. (Mrs.) Maitrayee Choudhary

7.           Dr. Praveen Mathur

8.           Dr. K.D. Joshi

9.           Shri A.K. Bhattacharya

10.       Dr. J.K. Sharma

11.       Prof.  Arun Kumar

12.       Ms. Sanchita Jindal, Director, MoEF - Member Secretary

13.       Dr. Subba Rao, MoEF

 

Directorate of Energy, Government of Himachal Pradesh

 

1.             Shri Deepak Sanam Principal Secretary, Govt. of Himachal Pradesh

2.             Shri D.S. Verma, DGM(CP), HPPCL

3.             Shri Yogesh Verma, Consultant(Environment), HPPCL

4.             Shri P.M. Nanda, Senior Engineer, Department of Energy

5.             Shri Vimal Garg, Director

 

Triveni Madadev and Thana Plaun HEPs by M/s. Himachal Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd.

 

1.             Shri Ajay Kumar Patyal, General Manager, Triveni Madadev                 Ltd.

2.             Er. D.S. Verma, DGM, Corporate Affairs

3.             Shri Yogesh Verma, DFO, Consultant

4.             Er. Kaminder,  AE

5.             Shri Sunny Shanik, JO

6.             Shri Prashant, DPR

7.             Shri Vikash

 

 Bina Complex Multipurpose Project by Water Resource Department, Sagar, Madhya Pradesh 

 

 

1.            Shri M.G. Chaubey, Engineer-in-charge

2.            Shri S.K. Nigam, Senior Engineer

3.            Shri Devesh Garg, Electrical Engineer

4.            Shri M. Kumar, Princiapal Consultant

 

Lower Yamne Stage-I and Stage-II HEPs by M/s Yamne Power Private Limited

 

1.             Shri Sunil Kedia, Director

2.             Shri MSJ Varma, Director

3.             Shri V.L. Moorthy, Director

4.             Shri P.S. Agrawal, C.E. (Senior Advisor)

5.             Dr. Arun Bhaskar, Environment Consultant

6.             Shri Ravi Bhatia, Environment Consultant

7.             Shri Vimal Garg, Environment Consultant

8.             Shri Narendra Singh, Design Consultant

9.             Shri Rajesh Mohan, Design Consultant

10.         Shri Chau Mitra Singh Yadav, Design Consultant

11.         Shri Kartik Muppale, Yamne

12.         Ms. Wanita Sharma, Yamne

 

Discussion for environmental issues pertaining to HEPs

 

1.                Shri Samir Mehta, International Reivers

2.                Dr. Latha  Anantha, River Water Research

3.                Shri Himanshu Thakkar, SANDRP

4.                Shri Nitin Kaushal, WWF – India

5.                Shri Suresh Babu, WWF- India

 

Tagurshit HEP by M/s L&T

 

1.                Shri D.K. Sharma, Head, Power Development

2.                Shri Aman Sharma, Consultant Wapcos

3.                Shri B. Bhattacharjee, Head Design

4.                Shri D.K. Kalita, DGM, Hydra

5.                Shri Ratnakar Pandey, Manager- Environemnt

6.                Ms. Renu Singhal, Manager, Design

7.                Vikesh Sharma, Manager, Project Implementation

 

Morand and Ganjal Complex Irrigation Project by Narmada Valley Development Authority 

 

1.                Shri Vinod K. Dewada, Chief Engineer, (ISP)

2.                Shri K.N. Tripathi, Executive Engineer,

3.                Shri P. Singh,  Superintending Engineer (ISP)

4.                Shri H.S. Kataria, Liaison Officer, NVDA, Govt. of M.P.

5.                Shri Sunny S. Surti, Executive Environment

6.                Shri K.N. Kishore, Environment Specialist

7.                Dr. DI Bhatt, Senior Consultant

8.                Dr. Yogi Narsinhan, Senior Consultant

 

SJVN for Dhaulasidh

 

1.                Shri  S. K. Mahajan, DSHEP

2.                Sh. P.K. Shekhri

3.                Dr. Aman Sharma, WAPCOS

4.                Sh. S.S. Sharma, DSHEP, SJVN

5.                Sh. M. K. Sharma

6.                Sh. Awadhesh Prasad

7.                Sh. Surinder Pal, DSHEP, SJVN

8.                Sh. Milind Sangtiani

9.                Sh. D.K.Kaushik, SMEC

10.            Sh. Vikas Gupta, SMEC

11.        Sh. Vivek Khare, SMEC

 

***************

 

 

 

 

 

Untitled Page