**"Report of the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel - Part I - 15.1. Athirappilly and Gundia Hydel projects :

Opinion
    05/10/2018
              1445

**"Report of the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel - Part I - 15.1 Athirappilly and Gundia Hydel projects :

15. Athirappilly and Gundia Hydel projects :-

WGEEP proposes that Environmental Clearance should not be given to any large scale storage dams in ESZ1 and ESZ2. Reportedly, Karnataka Power Corporation now proposes to reduce the submergence area for Gundia project by 80% from original proposal by dropping of Hongadahalla dam. Nevertheless, the other proposed Bettad kumari dam also comes under ESZ1. Likewise, the location of Athirappilly dam falls in ESZ1. Hence we recommend that the Ministry of Environment and Forests refuse Environmental Clearance to these two projects. WGEEP further notes that the process of proper assignment of rights under the Scheduled Tribes and other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Rights over the Forest) Act has not been completed in either of these areas, it is therefore quite improper to accord Environmental or Forest Clearances to these two projects.

15.1 The Athirappilly Project :-

1. The KSEB (Kerala State Electricity Board) proposes a hydro-electric dam across the Chalakudy River in Trichur district, Kerala, to generate 163 MW of power (233 Mu firm energy) to meet the deficit during the peak hours from 6 pm to 10 pm.

2. The concrete gravity dam is envisaged to be 23 m in height and 311 m in length. The water spread area would be 104 ha, whereas the total forest area required would be 138 ha. Water from the dam will be brought through a 4.69 km tunnel of 6.4 m diameter to the main power house situated north-west of the dam site and above Kannankuzhithodu into which the tail race water will be emptied. These discharges through the Kannankuzhithodu will join the Chalakudy River at a distance of 1.5 km. Two penstocks each of 3.4 diameter and 50 m length will be provided to the power house with an installed capacity of 2 x 80 MW. Apart from these, two dam-toe generators with 1.5 MW capacity each are planned 50 m down the dam, thus making the total installed capacity to163 MW.

Background :-

1. The Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India, gave environmental clearance on 20.1.1998 and forest clearances on 22.12.1997 (Stage I - Forest Clearance) and on 16.12.1999 (Stage II Forest Clearance).

2. The honourable High Court of Kerala suspended the above sanction on three Public Interest Litigations, based on the irregularities in the procedure followed for tendering and against the clearance of the MoEF which was in violation of the Environmental Protection Act. The High Court further asked the KSEB to re-examine the procedure and, directed the Central Government to withdraw the sanction given earlier and conduct a public hearing in accordance with the EIA notification of the MoEF (1994) and the amendment to it dated 10.4.1997 (Kerala High Court judgment dated 17.10.2001) and then reconsider the grant of Environmental Clearance

3. Accordingly, a public hearing was conducted by the Kerala State Pollution Control Board on 6.2.2002 at Trichur. The arguments against the reliability of the EIA conducted by the TBGRI (Tropical Botanical Gardens and Research Institute) in 1996, the impact on environment and biodiversity and, the technical feasibility of the project based on the actual availability of water were raised by the gathering. Considering all these, the Public Hearing Panel asked for a second EIA which should be comprehensive and should include inter alia consultations with local bodies, various departments of the government and the local communities of the river basin.

4. The KSEB engaged WAPCOS (Water and Power Consultancy Services, India Ltd) in January 2002 to conduct a Comprehensive Environment Impact Assessment (CEIA). Their report was questioned by the Chalakudy Puzha Samrakhna Samithi (Chalakudy River Protection Council) on various grounds: its period of study, consultations with various agencies (local bodies, various departments of the government and the local communities) suggested by the High Court, methodology, and scientific reliability.

5. The KSBB (Kerala State Biodiversity Board) in an affidavit filed in the High Court of Kerala categorically stated that the EIA report of WAPCOS was not comprehensive, and that the methods followed for the biodiversity studies were wrong and unacceptable. There was no indication that WAPCOS had any consultation with the agencies suggested by the Public Hearing Panel.

6. However, the KSEB went ahead and obtained the clearance from the MoEF on 10.2.2005. Another PIL was filed by the Athirappilly Gram Panchayat and the Kadar tribals, the actual potential sufferers of the proposed dam, challenging the sanction accorded by the
Report of the WGEEP 2011 MoEF, mainly on the ground that the report of the second EIA was not circulated and kept away from the public and that there was no public hearing on the second EIA.

7. The honourable Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala by its order dated 23 March 2006 quashed the Environmental Clearance given by the MoEF on 10.2.2005 and asked the Kerala State Pollution Control Board to conduct a Public Hearing after ‚publishing the environmental assessment report stated to have been prepared by the KSEB‛.

8. Thus, the second Public Hearing on the proposed Athirapilly hydro-electric dam was conducted on 15 June 2006 at Chalakudy, Trichur. According to the written submission made by CPSS (Chalakudy Puzha Samrakshana Samithi) to the WGEEP, more than 1200 people attended the Public Hearing where none spoke in favour of the project and, in the 252 written representations submitted to the Public Hearing Panel, the ratio for and against the project was 1:9 respectively. CPSS further states that the minutes of the Public Hearing Panel was not unanimous; of the five members, three were against the project and among them two happened to be the Presidents of the Athirapilly Gram Panchayat and the Chalakudy Block Panchayat; representatives of the people of the two Panchayats who would be affected directly by the construction of dam.

9. Pressure from civil society mounted up again, against the project. A five member EAC (Environment Appraisal Committee) of the MoEF visited the dam site and related areas, and had discussions with those opposing the project as well as officers of the KSEB at Athirappilly on April 2007. It also conducted a ‚public hearing‛ at the Town Hall, Trichur, the following day. The then Chairman of the KSBB was also present at the meeting. The members of the Committee did not seek any clarification on the points raised by those objecting to the project. Instead it was just another ‚Public hearing‛

10. Based on the report of this Committee, the Expert Committee for River Valley projects of the MoEF gave clearance for the project on 18 July 2007.

11. PILs were filed again by Ms. Geetha, representative of the Primitive Kadar Tribe, and Mr. C. G. Madhusoodhanan, a hydrology engineer, the former challenging the project on the ground of ecology and biodiversity and the impact on their life-support system, while the latter challenged the WAPCOS EIA per se and the hydrological data base used in the WAPCOS study.

12. The Kerala State Biodiversity Board discussed the issue in detail and took a decision against the project considering the rich biodiversity of the area and filed an affidavit at the Kerala High Court as KSBB has been made a Respondent.

13. The Kerala High Court heard the case twice, in 2008 and in 2009, by two Division Benches. The judgment is awaited.

14. On mounting pressure from the Government of Kerala for the clearance from the MOEF, it has asked the WGEEP to examine the issue, along with a few other projects proposed in the Western Ghats, and give recommendations.

Visits and consultations :-

1. The WGEEP visited the proposed dam site, the reservoir area, the primitive tribal settlements at Pokalappara and Vazhzchal, its surroundings and, the downstream Thumburmuzhi Major Irrigation project (Chalakudy River Diversion Scheme) on 29 January 2011. It had consultations at various levels; with the representatives of the primitive Kadar tribe at the site, the local Panchayat (Athirappilly Panchayat), and the general public who responded to the WGEEP’s press note inviting those interested to come and give their views.

2. In addition to these, the WGEEP organized a technical consultation which was attended by experts from the KSEB, Chalakudy Puzha Samrakshana Samithi, River Research Centre, KSSP (Kerala Sastra Sahithya Parishath), KFRI (Kerala Forest Research institute), KSBB (Kerala State Biodiversity Board), TBGRI (Tropical botanical Garden and Research Institute), NCF (Nature Conservation Foundation). Officers from Kerala State’s departments of Irrigation, Tribal Department, and Forest & Wildlife, Tourism section, retired forest officers, Vana Samrakhana Samithi, and KSEB’s Officers' Association were also present. It goes to the credit of the WGEEP that this was the first time that such a discussion was held between the proponents and opponents of the project.

3. The WGEEP heard the views of all sections and individuals and, the Chairman, WGEEP requested the KSEB and all other participants that if they had any additional information or more detailed answers to questions raised by both the parties, they may send them to the Chairman by e-mail/post.

4. Considering the views expressed by and the written representations received from the local primitive tribal community, Athirappilly Panchayat, the general public, technical experts including the officers of the Kerala State Electricity Board, the detailed minutes of the 14th meeting of the Kerala State Biodiversity Board held on 26 September 2007, the EIAs conducted by the TBGRI (1996) and WAPCOS (2002), the results of the three public hearings as given in the minutes of the KSBB, technical details of the project explained by the KSEB, questions raised on the technical feasibility of the project, alternatives for power and the alternatives suggested by the Kerala High Court in its judgment of 17 October 2001, the WGEEP comes to the following conclusions:

Biodiversity :-

1. Unique riverine forest ecosystem: The riparian vegetation in the Chalakudy river system is unique in that there is no such riparian vegetation at such low elevations anywhere else in the Western Ghats, especially in Kerala.

2. High endemism in the riparian vegetation: The riparian vegetation in the proposed dam site contains 155 species of endemic plants and more than 33 species of plants belonging to the Rare, Endangered and Threatened categories of IUCN

3. Richness in endemic, endangered species: The project area has a high degree of endemic species of several taxa: 21% of plants (out of 508 spp.), 16% of butterflies (out of 54 spp.), 53% of amphibians (out of 17 spp.), 21% of reptiles (out of 19 spp.), 13% of birds (out of 98 spp.) and, 14% of mammals (out of 22 spp.) recorded in the area are endemic species (WAPCOS EIA 2002).

4. Critically endangered plants: Critically endangered riparian trees such as Syzygium occidentalis and Atuna travancorica occur in the area.

5. Rare species of plants in Kerala: Gymnema khandalense was reported in Kerala only from Athirappilly. A new species of plant, namely Lagenandra nairii is reported only from Athirappilly.

6. Habitat connectivity: The riparian vegetation of the Vazhachal-Athirappilly area serves as a link between the varied habitats at lower and higher elevations.

7. The very high conservation value: According to the Biodiversity Conservation Strategy and Action Plan for Kerala prepared by the French Institute, Pondicherry, the conservation value of the Vazhachal (project area) is as high as 75%. The KFRI, in a recent study, has also classified Vazhachal area as a High Value Biodiversity Area and has brought out a detailed Biodiversity Management Plan for it.

8. Unique area for bird conservation: i) Of the 486 species of birds recorded from Kerala, 234 are sighted in the Vazhachal-Athirappilly area, ii) all the four species of hornbills found in Kerala, namely Malabar Grey Hornbill, Grey Hornbill, Malabar Pied Hornbill, and Great Indian Hornbill occur in the Athirappilly-Vazhachal area; a very rare phenomenon, iii) riparian forests of the area constitute one of the only two breeding sites of the Malabar Pied Hornbill in Kerala, the other being Aralam Wildlife Sanctuary, iv) 12 of the 16 species (75%) of the endemic species of birds seen in the Western Ghats are present in the Athirappilly-Vazhachal area.

9. Important Bird Area (IBA): The Vazhachal-Sholayar area has been identified as a globally Important Bird Area in 1995 by Birdlife International, Cambridge.

10. Extremely high fish diversity: Out of the 210 species recorded in Kerala, the Chalakudy River has 104 species including 22 Endangered and 9 Critically Endangered species.

11. Fishes found only in Chalakudy River: In an exhaustive analysis of the fish fauna of Kerala, it is reported that out of the 210 freshwater species of fishes in Kerala, 23 are found only in the Chalakudy River.

12. New species of fish: The fish fauna of the Chalakudy River is unique in that there are as many as five new species, namely Osteochilichthys longidorsalis, Travancoria elongata, Horabagrus nigrocollaris, Puntius chalakudiensis, and Salarias reticulatus were discovered for the first time from the Chalakudy River.

13. An extremely rare species of fish: The population of one fish species (Osteochilichthys longidorsalis) found only in the Chalakudy river has reduced 99% during the last two decades.

14. Fish abundance in the project area: In a single study, out of the 99 species of fish recorded in the Chalakudy River, 68 were from the project area.

15. Breeding area of fish: Athirappilly-Vazhachal area provides microhabitats for various species of fishes to breed.

16. Fish migration: Some of the species of fish migrate upstream while some do so downstream to complete their annual life cycle . Hence, construction of the dam will directly affect the survival of these species.

17. Chalakudy River as a Fish Sanctuary: Considering the rich fish diversity and its other various importance as given above, the National Bureau of Fish Genetic Resources has recommended the Chalakudy river to be declared as a Fish Sanctuary.

18. Loss of microhabitats of amphibians: Some amphibians such as the torrent frog Micrixalus saxicolus recorded from the area are confined only to the boulders submerged in the water course would lose their habitat by commissioning this project,

19. Elephant Reserve: The entire project area falls within the Elephant Reserve No.9 identified by the MOEF under ‘Project Elephant’.

20. Migratory route of elephants: The submergence area is within the migratory route of elephants from Parambikulam plateau to Pooyamkutty forests.

21. Presence of the rare Lion-tailed Macaque: One troop containing around 13 individuals of the Lion-tailed Macaque, an endemic, endangered species of the Western Ghats, lives in the riparian vegetation of the submergence area.

22. Ideal habitat of the rare Cane Turtle: The cane turtle, an endemic and endangered species, first reported here, is currently the only place where they could be seen in reasonable numbers.

23. Loss of riparian forest: Construction of the dam and subsequent submergence will cause the loss of 28.4 ha of riparian forest rich in biodiversity and endemic species.

24. Loss of animals of lower taxonomic groups: No serious attempts have been made so far to document the lower forms of life in this biodiversity-rich ecosystem. The present EIA also did not work on the lower forms. The rich microhabitats in the riverine system holds promise for the discovery of a large number of hitherto unknown species, especially invertebrates

Impact on ecology :-

1. Complete alteration of the ecology of the river system: Construction of the dam will completely alter the ecology of the river system, both upstream and downstream of the proposed dam site (from a dynamic and vital ecosystem to merely a physical water transporting system).

2. Indispensability of the flow of water for ecosystem functioning: One of the vital reasons for the high species richness and endemism of the area is the total volume of water flow and the fluctuation in it from a minimum of 7.26 cumec in May to 229 .97 cumec in August (average of 50 years; 1941–1942 to 1995–1996; table 4.10 of the EIA report).

3. Alteration of the ecology of the system: The proposal to regulate the water flow to 7.75 cumec, consequent to the construction of dam. This diversion of water for power generation would certainly affect the ecology of the system, especially the area between the dam site and the point where the tail race waters joins the Chalakudy river, a stretch of 7.89 km. The water flow in this sector would be only 7.75 cumec throughout the year.

Impact on drinking water and agriculture downstream :-

1. Impact on the availability of water in downstream Panchayats: Construction of the dam and retention of water for 20 hrs while releasing only a portion of it and subsequently releasing 5–8 times more water during an interval of four hours at night would certainly affect the flow pattern, which would affect the irrigation dynamics as well as the ecology of the area.

2. The downstream irrigation needs of the ayacut (14000 ha spread across 20 Local Self Governments in the districts of Thrissur and Ernakulam) depend on the Chalakudy River Diversion Scheme (CRDS). According to KSEB the present water discharge from Poringalkuthu Hydro-electric Project, the main source of water for the Athirappilly Project, during lean months is 6.2–7.6 cumec for 20 hours and 36–38 cumecs for four hours (peak hours – 6 pm to 10 pm). The KSEB ensures 7.65 cumec for 20 hours and 36–38 cumecs for four hours even after the Athirappilly project is implemented. Therefore, according to KSEB, the water available to the CRDS will not be affected.

3. While this variation (7.65–38 cumec) itself would affect irrigation, the Chalakudy Puzha Samrakshana Samithi (CPSS) challenges these figures and points out that the impact will be more severe. According to them, quoting the figures of the 2003 DPR (flow series from 1970–71 to 2001–02), the present discharge through the river from December to April is 14.92 cumec. Based on the maintenance schedule of generators at Poringalkuthu, the average flow for 20 hours between December and April is 13.25 cumec and that for four hours is 25–31 cumec. If the project comes through, the 20 hours flow will reduce from the average of 13.25 cumec to 7.65 cumecs, and that for four hours will increase to about 50 cumecs. This will badly affect irrigation from the CRDS. The irrigation needs from CRDS cannot be met with a flow of 7.65 cumec for 20 hrs. The change in the flow pattern would also affect the ground water in the catchments of the ayacut which in turn would affect the availability of drinking water in the area. The KSEB did not counter these arguments at the Technical Consultation held by the WGEEP at Chalakudy in January 2011.

4. It may also be noted that water scarcity is already experienced in the downstream Panchayats, and salinity intrusion is reported up to 20 km from the coast. Construction of one more dam and changes in the flow pattern would aggravate the situation.

Impact on the tribal population :-

1. Although most of the tribal dwellings in the area will not be affected by the project, their habitats will certainly be seriously affected. A few dwellings may also fall within the submergence area when the dam is full.

2. There are eight Kadar settlements in the Vazhachal Forest Division extending to 413 sq km. Two of them, namely Vazhachal and Pokalapara settlements, with 56 and 23 families respectively, are within the reach of the high impact area of the proposed Athirappilly project.

3. The Kadar tribe is considered to be the most primitive of the South Indian forest tribes that show more evidence of a Negrito ancestry with a predominant proto-Australoid element. They are a primitive hunter and food gatherer tribe originally restricted to the forests and hill tracts of Chalakudy river basin and their population is fewer than 1500. They had been subjected to various resettlements on account of construction of various dams above the proposed dam in Athirappilly.

4. Although the tribal settlements would not fall within the submergence area, except probably a few at the Pokalapara settlement, their habitats in both the settlements will be seriously affected. The Vazhachal settlement with 56 families, the Tribal Cooperative Society, and Tribal Residential LP school are all within just 400 m downstream of the dam site. The Pokalappara settlement with 23 families is on the border of the proposed reservoir and a few houses may fall within the reservoir area when it is full.

5. No action has been taken as per the statutory provisions of the Scheduled Tribes and other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, under which there are special provisions to recognize ‚rights over community tenures of habitat and habitation for primitive tribal groups and pre-agricultural communities‛.

Technical feasibility of the project :-

1. The technical feasibility of the project was questioned by the RRC (River Research Centre, Chalakudy) and CPSS (Chalakudy Puzha Samrakshana Samithi) on the following main grounds which were not countered or answered by the KSEB at the technical consultation held by the WGEEP at Chalakudy.

2. Availability of water and power generation : Varied figures are shown on the availability of water : -

a. Water availability as per 1999 DPR : 1269 MCM
b. Water availability as per 2003 DPR : 1169 MCM
c. Water availability as per CWC : 1056 MCM

3. In all these calculations, the water diverted to Idamalayar Diversion Scheme appeared not to have been considered. Data obtained by the RRC (River Research Centre, Chalakudy) from KSEB under RTI show that after deducting the water made available to the Idamalayar diversion Scheme, only 750 MCM will be available to the Athirappilly dam.

4. The Central Electricity Authority had calculated the electricity generation from the project at 233 MU per annum on the basis of the figures given in 2003 DPR; i.e. 1169 MCM. Since water availability will be only 750 MCM, the power generation will be reduced accordingly. An analysis of daily generation and discharge data from Poringalkuthu from 1987 to 2006 (received under RTI) suggests that even at 70% dependability the generation at Athirappilly hydroelectric project will be about 170 MU and 210 MU respectively with and without the Idamalayar diversion.

5. During the lean periods (December–May) and considering the Idamalayar Diversion Scheme, the power that could be generated will only be less than 25 MU. In case the Idamalayar Diversion Scheme is stopped as KSEB claims, the major portion of the electricity that is being generated from that scheme, about 60 MU (as per WAPCOS EIA), will cease to be available. That means there will be a substantial loss to the total power grid during lean periods, if the Athirappilly Project comes through.

Conclusions :-

Considering,

(1) the biodiversity richness, the high conservation value, highly significant fish fauna with type locality of five new species and as many as 22 endemic and 9 critically endangered species, the bird fauna with 75% of the endemics of the Western Ghats, and the unique riverine ecosystem not seen in other areas in the State,

(2) the impact of the project on the biodiversity and the ecosystem, some of which may be irreparable,

(3) the impact on downstream irrigation and drinking water,

(4) the questionable technical feasibility of the project,

(5) the meagre amount of power that could be generated from the project,

(6) impact on the habitats of the primitive Kadar tribes of the area,

(7) the high cost of construction even without considering the ecosystem services and environmental cost, and

(8) the judgment of the honourable High Court of Kerala made on 17 October 2001 directing the KSEB to “take all necessary steps to repair and restore to full capacity , all the existing Hydro Electric Projects to ensure that the generation of power as envisaged is obtained and also to take steps to ensure that transmission losses are minimized and that theft of energy is prevented and to the extent possible eliminated altogether”, the WGEEP recommends to the MoEF that the Athirapilly -Vazhachal area should be protected as such and the permission for the proposed hydro-electric project at Athirappilly should not be given. The WGEEP further recommends that the Chalakudy River should be declared as a fish diversity rich area, to be managed on the pattern of ‘Conservation of biodiversity rich areas of Udumbanchola taluka’ in Kerala.

NEXT : 15.2 Gundia hydroelectric project  -

To be continued ...

JAIHIND
VANDEMATHARAM