Environmental Impacts of Hydro Power Projects in Uttarakhand

iCED Jaipur – July, 2015

Environmental Impacts of Hydro

Power Projects in Uttarakhand:

Governance & Audit Issues

Ravi ChopraPeople’s Science Institute


Uttarakhand – Land of a thousand Gangas


Glacial Rivers

Bhagirathi at Gaumukh


Spring-Fed Rivers

R. Kosi in Almora district


Hydropower Development Potential in

Uttarakhand

S.

No

.

Project Status Micro-Mini Small Medium Large Total

≤ 1MW >1MW

≤2

>2MW

<5

≥5MW

<25

≥25MW

<100

≥ 100

MW

1 Commissioned 11.96

(54)

7.15

(5)

31.3

(9)

121.6

(9)

246.15

(5)

3206

(10)

3624.16

(92)

2 Under

Construction

2.78

(15)

3.5

(2)

20.4

(5)

76.5

(8)

175

(2)

3014

(6)

3292.18

(38)

Total 14.74

(69)

10.65

(7)

51.7

(14)

198.1

(17)

421.15

(7)

6220

(16)

6916.3

(130)

Source:UJVNL, December 2013 Figures in () give the number of projects

S.

No.

Project Status Micro-Mini Small Medium Large Total

MW

≤ 1

MW

>1

MW

≤ 2

>2 MW

<5

≥5 MW

< 25

≥25

MW <

100

≥ 100

MW

1 Awaiting

Clearance

1

(1)

1.9

(1)

7

(2)

303.8

(22)

196

(3)

2808

(9)

3317.70

(38)

2 S & I Stage 21.28

(58)

32.85

(18)

101.25

(28)

1086.25

(84)

2233.8

(63)

13330

(31)

16805.43

(282)

GrandTotal 37.02

(128)

45.4

(26)

159.95

(44)

1588.1

(123)

2850.9

(73)

22358

(56)

27039.4

(450)

Source: UJVNL, December 2013: S & I= Survey and Investigation

Under Consideration Installed Capacities (MW)

Installed Capacities of Commissioned & Under

Construction HEPs in Uttarakhand


Hydropower projects in Uttarakhand


Life-cycle environmental and social

impacts of HEPs - Ia

ACTIVITY IMPACT

Pre-Project Construction

Construction of approach

roads

Land acquisition (displacement, loss of lands, homes, and

livelihoods)

Deforestation (loss of tree cover, access to CPRs, soil

erosion and landslides, loss of flora and fauna, changes in

micro-climate)

Disposal of debris and earth (loss of trees, river water

pollution)

Construction of housing

for staff and labour

Deforestation

Pollution due to sewage releases

Quarrying Noise pollution, slopes destabilization, disruption of

underground seepages and damage to houses

Project Construction

Tunneling Air and noise pollution, destabilization of slopes, damage

to houses, disturbing wildlife, drying of springs, disposal

of muck into the river, psychological trauma to people

and animals due to the repeated blasts


Life-cycle environmental and social

impacts of HEPs - Ib

Dam Construction Disruption of river flows (biotic changes, disruption of

natural functions, e.g., sediments disposal, land shaping,

nutrient cycling), river pollution, loss of aesthetic,

cultural, economic and recreational values.

Project Operation

Testing of Tunnels Slope destabilization (loss of tree cover, land,

livelihoods, water sources and access to CPRs)

Water Storage and

Release

Sedimentation (effect on river water quality)

Disruption of river flow

Secondary effects (release of greenhouse gases, warming

of valleys, increased earthquake risks, floods,

downstream urban and industrial development

Laying of Power Lines Deforestation (loss of wild life habitat), soil erosion


CAG Report - 2009

• Reviewed 48 projects (~2423 MW) of IPPs allotted between

1993 and 2006. Till March 2009 only 5 completed (418 MW).

• Delays due to land acquisition, forest clearance and capacity

enhancement problems.

• Poor quality pre-feasibility studies (loss to the state).

• No punitive action against developers for defaulting on IA.

• Poor monitoring of project execution, lack of environmental &

safety concerns, generation losses.

• Dry river beds, muck disposal into rivers & poor afforestation.

• Inadequate state government support for timely land

acquisition, forest clearance, R&R and installation of grid

infra.


An Expert Body (EB) was set up by

MoEF in October 2013 on the directions of

the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

ToRs (SC)

• Assess whether the existing and

ongoing/under construction hydropower

projects have contributed to the

environmental degradation

• Make a detailed study and evaluate as to

how far HEPs have contributed to the

aggravation of damage caused by

downstream floods.

• Examine, as observed by WII, whether

the proposed 24 projects in Uttarakhand

are causing a significant impact on the

biodiversity of the Alaknanda &

Bhagirathi river basins.

Expert Body ToRs


Minimal flows released downstream of HEPs leading to loss of river

integrity, disruption of fish migration, loss of acquatic biota and diversity.

Environmental Impacts: River Flows (a)

R. Bhagirathi upstream & downstream of MB-I


Environmental Impacts: River Flows (b)

R. Alaknanda upstream & downstream of Vishnuprayag HEP


Environmental Impacts: River Flows (c)

Courtesy: SANDRP

Construction of multiple projects fragments river length affecting the riverine

biota & diversity. Between Maneri (Uttarkashi) and Koteshwar (Tehri

Garhwal) 110 km of the Bhagirathi is disrupted, almost half its total length.


Environmental Impacts: Water Quality (a)

River water quality is severely impacted during the construction stage due to

unscientific & unlawful muck dumping from roads & tunnel construction. Poor

monitoring by regulatory authorities.


Environmental Impacts : Water Quality (b)

A comprehensive study by NEERI has highlighted the deleterious effect of the

Tehri dam on the unique self purifying ability of Gangajal in R. Bhagirathi.


Environmental Impacts : Water Quality (c)

Cascading decline of self cleansing ability of R. Bhagirathi due to multiple dams.


Environmental Impacts: Biodiversity (a)

The most serious impact on biodiversity is the loss of the riverine ecosystem

along the rim of the Tehri reservoir .


Environmental Impacts : Biodiversity (b)

Courtesy: WII


Environmental Impacts: Slope Stability (a)

The destruction does not end even after the dams are built. Landslides due to

repeated raising and lowering of the water level in the Tehri reservoir.


Environmental Impacts: Slope Stability (b)

Land subsidence and fissures in Mohan Negi village on the rim of the Tehri reservoir.

Courtesy: Navin Juyal


Environmental Impacts: Slope Stability (b)

Land subsidence at Chayeen village in Chamoli district after commissioning of

the Vishnuprayag HEP


Social Impacts

(a) Drying of springs and (b) Housing damages due to blasting

(a) (b)


Aggravate Disaster Impacts (a)

The Phata – Byung dam at Sitapur on R. Mandakini was not designed to take the

flood of about 2000 cumecs that swept down the valley in June 2013.Water level

rose almost 36 ft behind the dam.


Aggravate Disaster Impacts (b)

Himalayan rivers carry huge amounts of sediments besides water. But the dams in

the IHR are not designed for the sediment loads. Destruction at the Vishnuprayag

HEP due to the heavy sediment load.

Ravi Chopra

Navin Juyal


Aggravate Disaster Impacts (c)

Temporal changes in the landscape at Srinagar. (a) 2007 when there was no muck

dumped at the river bank. (b) 2009 muck dumping in progress and (c) after the flood

when a part of the muck and the university stadium ground was washed away.

Navin Juyal


Aggravate Disaster Impacts (d)

Geochemical analyses of flood sediments collected along the course of R. Alaknanda

below the barrage indicate significant phyllite contribution (from muck) varying

from 47% to 23% thereby raising the river bed during the flood and inundating the

lower parts of Srinagar. MD indicates muck dumping sites.

Navin Juyal


Glacier Impacts (a)

Distribution of glaciers in different river basin of Uttarakhand Himalaya (Raina and

Srivastava, 2008)


Glacier Impacts (b)

Hyperconcentrated sediment laden water was obstructed by the Vishnuprayag

barrage which caused a temporary lake. The lake finally breached along the weak

debris laden left flank. As a result the sudden sediment laden flood surge caused

large-scale damage downstream (Pandukeshwar and Govindghat

Navin Juyal


Projects in paraglacial zones

75 projects above the MCT


Recommendations for immediate action – (a)

•Cancellation of 23 out of 24 Projects recommended for review by WII

•Ensure Environmental Flows

•No Dams in the Paraglacial Zone

•Legislate Eco-Sensitive Zones and Pristine in the Ganga river system

•Review EIA Procedure and insulate the EIA agency from the project

developers.

•All projects > 2 MW in the Ganga river system shall require prior ECs

from MoEF and where necessary from the NBWL.

•Fresh Clearances for old projects like Lakhwar (300 MW) and Vyasi

(120 MW) that do not have the now mandatory EIA/EMP/DMP studies.

•CEIA/REIA/SEA:should be done by MoEF for all rivers in the Ganga

river system.


Recommendations for immediate action – (b)

•River Water Quality: Evolve technically better & ecologically sustainable

methods for muck disposal at HEP construction sites. Strengthen MoEF’s

personnel and procedures for post-sanction monitoring.

•Bumper-to-Bumper Dams: Scientific baseline studies required on diversity

and populations of floral and faunal species in different rivers of the Ganga

river system to decide the minimum distances between two consecutive HEPs.

Restoration: River bed profiles at Phata-Byung, Singoli-Bhatwari,

Vishnuprayag and Srinagar HEPs have changed significantly. Prior clearance

from MoEF after fresh analysis of the project hydrology and necessary

redesigning for river restoration.


•Catchment Area Treatment: Community-based CA and CAT plan execution

must be done by the State FD within the construction period of the project.

•Redesigning Dams: Model studies of structures needed to withstand heavy

sediment loads in the Ganga river system during floods.

•Issue River Regulation Zone (RRZ) guidelines: Civil works along the

banks of River Ganga and encroachments in its flood plains must be monitored

and avoided.

•Enforce a Total Ban on River Bed Sand Mining: In the main stem of the

river and its major tributaries.

•Assessing Cultural Impacts of HEPs on the Ganga: Assess the impacts of

HEPs on age-old traditions associated with the flow of Ganga and impacts on

holy sites, historical places.

Recommendations for medium term action


I hold that economic progress in the sense I

have put it (of material advancement without

limits) is antagonistic to real (moral) progress.

--Mahatma Gandhi


Thank You

653, Indira Nagar

Dehra Doon - 248 006

Uttarakhand

Web : www.peoplesscienceinstitute.org

Mail : [email protected]

Phone : +91 135 2763649, 2763650

Fax : +91 135 2760334


G

G


fo’oL; ekrj% loZ loZ’pso egkQyk% AbR;srk lfjr% jktu~ lek[;krk ;FkkLe`fr AA

“O king! Rivers are mothers of the world; all of them bestow great rewards.

I have enumerated as many as my memory enables me to.”

-- Mahabharat, Bhishma Parva, Ch 9, verses 37/38


Social value


Economic value


Cultural value


Aesthetic value


Recreation Value


Transporting water & sediment from the

catchment to the sea


Land forming


Supporting aquatic biota


Expected Climate Change Impacts

Temperatures in the Indian sub-continent will rise between 3.5 and5.5ºC by 2100 (Rupa Kumar et al. 2006)

Impacts are expected to intensify in the Himalayas – due to theirbeing a very sensitive system.

Many Himalayan glaciers are retreating faster than the worldaverage.

The rate of retreat of the Gangotri Glacier over the last threedecades was more than three times the rate during the preceding200 years

Rapid reduction of glaciers – impacting stream flows, hydrology andbiodiversity downstream.

Increased disasters, glacial lakes outbursts and landslides.


The Retreat of the Gangotri glacier


Houses are destroyed


Trees & Forests are mowed down


River Flows

• Shrinking glaciers, loss of year round flows and construction of HEPs

threaten river flows

• Hence reviving subsurface flows, minimizing short and long range

threats to glaciers and environmental flows d/s of dams are essential.


Protection of Wild & Scenic Rivers

• Upper reaches of Himalayan rivers have high wilderness value

• Legislation required to protect such wilderness and scenic stretches.

• 135km Gaumukh to Uttarkashi eco-sensitive area and declaration of

Tirthan river in HP as a wild river are important steps.

• Wild & scenic river stretches offer livelihoods possibilities.


• The current opposition is due to perceived loss of resources, threats

to life and livelihoods, no direct benefits to local people and cultural

issues.

• Conceptual shift from maximum resource exploitation to sustainable

& optimum resource use.

• Environmental flows d/s of dams must be guaranteed; monitoring

by local communities.

• Sanctioning of projects only after approval by affected Gram Sabhas

and open/transparent procedures

• Priority to locally owned micro and mini hydro projects.

• Community friendly R&R policies required; all villages lying above

or below tunnels are project affected villages.

• Need to reassess hydropower potential keeping in mind

environmental and social aspects.

Safe & Sustainable Hydropower

Development -- I


Safe & Sustainable Hydropower

Development -- II

• Safe technologies – tunnel boring machines, insurance coverage, new

dam designs and use of the Precautionary Principle.

• Green restoration with CAMPA funds to be done locally through

Gram Panchayats.

• A Himalayan Rivers Commission to prepare a publicly accepted

rivers conservation and hydropower policy is needed – first focus on

demand management & alternate power sources. Basin-scale

hydropower planning approach.

• Honesty in compliances – EIAs, Jan Sunwais, approval conditions.

Monitoring by local communities.

• Shares in companies & investments in local SHGs, small production

units as part of CSR activities.

• Local communities must be partners in development.

Environmental Impacts of Hydro Power Projects in Uttarakhand

Documents

Transcript of Environmental Impacts of Hydro Power Projects in Uttarakhand