Pathrakadavu Hydroelectric Project - at a glance
Pathrakadavu Hydroelectric Project - at a glance
The Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) proposes to construct a Hydroelectric Project across the river Kunthi at Pathrakadavu approximately 500 m from the southern border of the Silent Valley National Park
The project aims at generating 70 MW of power. The cost of the project is approximately Rs. 247.06 crores (1999 estimate) which has now been revised to approximately Rs. 420.00 crores.
The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
The Environmental Resources Research Centre, Thiruvananthapuram has done EIA of the project.
The report contains the result of a Rapid EIA, and a comprehensive EIA is in progress.
The EIA has tried to cover various aspects of the projects such as geology, soil, land use, seismicity, hydrology, water quality, aquatic biology, socio economics and cultural environment, impacts on land, water and air, impact on human environment and attempted to give an environment management plan based on inter-alia calculating the labour force to be employed for the project, waste water treatment, facility for disposal of solid waste.
Based on five-months study, the EIA has listed the major floristic and faunistic elements in the project area.
There are, as per the report , 381 species of flowering plants, out of which 55 are endemic and seven are rare according to the IUCN category.
The EIA reports the occurrence of the following:
Species No
Mammals 23
Birds 79
Reptiles 22
Amphibians 14
Fishes 18
Butterflies 43
The mammals include 13 endangered and one endemic species. Among them the most highly endangered is the Lion-tailed Macaque.
The report is not certain whether the Lion-tailed Mecaque is resident in the project area or is it an occasional visitor from the Silent Valley area. The team look forward to confirm it during the remaining part of the comprehensive EIA study.
Of the 79 species of birds, four are endemic.
Of the 14 species of amphibians, eight are endemic to Western Ghats.
Eighteen species of fishes have been recorded out of which 10 species were not reported in the Silent Valley.
Forty-three species of butterflies have been reported out of which 5 are protected species.
Under the impact assessment, the report says that there would be a loss of 22.16 ha of forests.
A total of 3500 trees belonging to 30 species having a GBH above 70 cm would be lost. However, there is no mention about the loss of trees below 70 cm GBH and also the loss of herbs, shrubs and aquatic plants.
The EIA highlights that laying of road to the dam site would make easy approach to the Silent Valley National Park. Currently, the major approach to the national park is only through Mukali. The new road for the project would therefore be disastrous for the protection of the Silent Valley National Park and hence the EIA suggests proper check posts at the dam site.
Under the economic impacts, the EIA feels the project is beneficial to the people, as laying the road would increase their transport facilities for better education, health care and even frequent visits to the kith and kin. It also says that price of the land will go up.
The report deals extensively on the ethnographic profile, dealing with the religion-wise composition of people, their olden and present life styles and the way the marriages are arranged in different groups!
Under the Environment Management programme, the report has elaborately dealt with water requirement of labourers, waste water treatment, facilities of disposal of solid waste etc and total cost for such facilities is estimated at Rs. 158.99 million (15.9 crore).
The total number of labour forces required is estimated at 1100 and their fuel requirement is estimated at 1 kg per day/per person working out to 400 tonnes per year.
Comments on EIA
The floristic and faunistic study of the EIA, that too just for five months itself shows that it is a biologically rich area with high endemism and hence needs to be protected.
The location of the sampling sites appears to be skewed towards deciduous and disturbed habitats as evergreen elements are not reflected in the samples as one could easily see in the field.
The location of the sampling sites are only in the project area and does not reflect the surrounding area. It is normally accepted that the EIA should cover 10 km radius from the main disturbance point (here it is the dam site)
The methodology is not self-explanatory, especially in the case of floristic studies.
Location of sampling sties is also not clear from the report. Coordinates would have been more useful.
The floristic and faunistic estimates appear to be quite on the lower side, as the study was conducted only for five months. A year-round study, at least seasonal sampling, is required to get a realistic picture.
For example: the avian diversity at the project area is recorded as 79 species while in Silent Valley it is 192. It may be noted that there are species which would occur only during the migratory season. The breeding season of the birds are also different. Therefore, the sampling of five months can be considered as only indicative. It does not give the full picture.
The five months data on the flora and fauna give convincing picture about the biodiversity value of the area and the need for protecting it. However, the recommendations advocating the project appears to be drawn not on the basis of the data given in the text
The expected project period: The project is expected to be completed within four years. The history of the incomplete Kanjirapuzha project even after four decades is a stark reality.
SACON’s observations
The EIA team of SACON along with the Director made a visit to the project area on 17-18 May 2004, trekking through the left bank of the Kunthipuzha almost up to the dam site on one-day and through the right bank up to the dam site on the other day.
The proposed project area in Pathrakadavu is contiguous to the forests of Silent Valley from the Nellikkal area. Between Nellikal area and the Pathrakadavu there is a cliff.
There is certain amount of changes in the vegetation on the southern aspects of the cliff.
The distance from the Park border and the dam site appears to be less than 500 m.
Many of the endemic species of birds recorded in the Silent Valley (15 species) could be expected in the project area also.
In many cases the project area would become within the feeding range of some of the larger species such as hornbills. It has been estimated that the feeding range of hornbills is about 5 km
Dr Ramachandran, Wildlife Biologist at Kerala Forest Research Institute, Peechi in his four year-long study (KFRI Report No. 143; 1998) has reported that in about 2 km radius there are 112 Liontailed Macaques belonging to 5 troops; and in a 5 km radius there are another 126 Liontailed belonging to 8 troops. Thus, in a 5 km radius from the dam site there are 13 troops of Liontailed Macaque with a population of 238.
In a usual EIA, minimum 10 km radius will be covered. Had this convention been followed, the conclusion of the present EIA report would have been totally different
The present Park border is an artificial one laid in the early part of the last century, not considering the forest contiguity and ecosystem viability.
The Silent Valley and Pathrakkadavu areas are contiguous and come within an ecological landscape and hence have to be protected as one unit for the long-term conservation of the biodiversity of the existing National Park.
Dr Ramachandran (KFRI Report No. 143) has brought out this point clearly and recommended that all adjacent areas of the Silent Valley National Park should be declared as buffer zones. This would include Pathrakadavu area also.
Currently, the entire Silent Valley National Park is considered as core area, and there is no buffer
The Pathrakadavu area does not have any human habitation at the moment although, there has been large scale fire during the season. Opening a road up to the dam site would lead to the deterioration of the remaining forests.
Apart from the Lion-tailed Macaque which was observed by the EIA team and also one of our local assistants who accompanied us to the dam site, there are Nilgiri Thar, another endemic, endangered species, at the very vicinity of the dam site.
The floristic and faunstic survey is quite inadequate, as it covered only five months from January to May.
Our observations, spreading three hours in one-day and 9 hours on the following day could yield nine additional species of butterflies, one species of reptile and two species of amphibians, indicating that the area is faunistically much richer.
There are much more evergreen elements in the project area than what has been given in the EIA report.
It appears there is a grave mistake in the calculation of the water availability in the reservoir. It may be noted that from the place where water flow is estimated (down stream of the dam site) and the exact dam site, there are about four major rivulets on the right bank. Therefore, the water available in the reservoir will be much less than what is given in the report.
It might also be erroneous to estimate water flow exclusively based on the annual average rain fall as a number of factors such as vegetation, drainage, and quality of the substratum such as rock, geological forms affect the water flow.
Construction of road and other activities will enhance erosion and siltation, which however, is not covered in the EIA report.
It is wrongly stated in the EIA that the dam site is separated from the National Park by a cliff. The rocks and cliffs are integral parts of an ecological landscape covering the Silent Valley National Park. So also is the vested forests adjoining it on the southern side i.e. the proposed project area. In other words, Pathrakadavu is an integral part of the Silent Valley ecosystem
The 64.5 m high dam very close to the Silent Valley National Park would lead to large scale disturbance to the biota of the Park and would defeat the very purpose for which the National Park was created.
The road to the construction site will be disastrous to the ecology of the area and it will be the gateway for large scale destruction of the wildlife and forests
The EIA correctly appreciated the importance of riparian vegetation, especially for nesting birds. Apart from this, the boulders on the riparian belt are also important for nesting of certain species of birds and, also is habitat for a variety of lower vertebrates. Any alteration on the flow would lead to the disappearance of these species.
Construction of the dam will certainly affect the upward migration of the fishes for breeding. Such species, however, are not recorded in the five months study. It is hard to accept that such species do not occur here. Only an intensive survey could bring out the fact.
The number of species would go very high, if the surveys are conducted throughout the year, covering various seasons.
It appears that the area is rich in endemic species, as just one season study reported by the EIA shows that 20% of the plants recorded are endemic.
Although, the EIA has covered various aspects including sanitary disposal of the labourers, one major aspect which is very essential for taking a crucial decision like this, is the cost benefit analysis considering the environmental cost; costs of habitat loss, species loss and ecosystem service loss for the gain of 70 MW of power. This was not done in the EIA. Hence, the EIA is incomplete.
While considering such an analysis for the proposed hydroelectric project, one should consider the forests of Silent Valley also as the proposed site is only a continuation of the Silent Valley within the ecological landscape.
Any major disturbance in the downstream will affect the entire river course upstream. The ecosystem services will certainly outweigh many times the benefits that may be derived from 70 MW of power.
The EIA report itself says that a more comprehensive study has to be done to conclude various biodiversity aspects of the area including the occurrence of the Lion-tailed Macaque as resident or occasional visitor.
Bharatapuzha is the lifeline of at least 60 lakhs people in the districts of Palaghat, Malappuram and partly of Trichur. This vital river is drying up at an alarming rate. Bharatapuzha basin, the largest in Kerala, has around 14 dams.
Kunthipuzha, one of the tributaries of Bharatapuzha, is the only river which does not have a dam. This is the only river valley in the area which is relatively undisturbed and hence, has to be protected at all costs.
Considering the crucial ecological values of the Kunthi river system, the biodiversity values as indicated in the present short-term EIA and other studies conducted in Silent Valley, the project’s adverse impact on biodiversity, and ecology of the entire area including Bharatapuzha and, all the more, on the people who have been enjoying the tangible and intangible benefits of the free-flowing Kunthipuzha for ages, it would be wise to abandon the proposed Pathrakadavu project and protect the Kunthi river system in its entirety for the present and future generations.
The floristic and faunistic study of the EIA, that too just for five months itself shows that it is a biologically rich area with high endemism and hence needs to be protected.
The location of the sampling sites appears to be skewed towards deciduous and disturbed habitats as evergreen elements are not reflected in the samples as one could easily see in the field.
The location of the sampling sites are only in the project area and does not reflect the surrounding area. It is normally accepted that the EIA should cover 10 km radius from the main disturbance point (here it is the dam site)
The methodology is not self-explanatory, especially in the case of floristic studies.
Location of sampling sties is also not clear from the report. Coordinates would have been more useful.
The floristic and faunistic estimates appear to be quite on the lower side, as the study was conducted only for five months. A year-round study, at least seasonal sampling, is required to get a realistic picture.
For example: the avian diversity at the project area is recorded as 79 species while in Silent Valley it is 192. It may be noted that there are species which would occur only during the migratory season. The breeding season of the birds are also different. Therefore, the sampling of five months can be considered as only indicative. It does not give the full picture.
The five months data on the flora and fauna give convincing picture about the biodiversity value of the area and the need for protecting it. However, the recommendations advocating the project appears to be drawn not on the basis of the data given in the text
The expected project period: The project is expected to be completed within four years. The history of the incomplete Kanjirapuzha project even after four decades is a stark reality.
SACON’s observations
The EIA team of SACON along with the Director made a visit to the project area on 17-18 May 2004, trekking through the left bank of the Kunthipuzha almost up to the dam site on one-day and through the right bank up to the dam site on the other day.
The proposed project area in Pathrakadavu is contiguous to the forests of Silent Valley from the Nellikkal area. Between Nellikal area and the Pathrakadavu there is a cliff.
There is certain amount of changes in the vegetation on the southern aspects of the cliff.
The distance from the Park border and the dam site appears to be less than 500 m.
Many of the endemic species of birds recorded in the Silent Valley (15 species) could be expected in the project area also.
In many cases the project area would become within the feeding range of some of the larger species such as hornbills. It has been estimated that the feeding range of hornbills is about 5 km
Dr Ramachandran, Wildlife Biologist at Kerala Forest Research Institute, Peechi in his four year-long study (KFRI Report No. 143; 1998) has reported that in about 2 km radius there are 112 Liontailed Macaques belonging to 5 troops; and in a 5 km radius there are another 126 Liontailed belonging to 8 troops. Thus, in a 5 km radius from the dam site there are 13 troops of Liontailed Macaque with a population of 238.
In a usual EIA, minimum 10 km radius will be covered. Had this convention been followed, the conclusion of the present EIA report would have been totally different
The present Park border is an artificial one laid in the early part of the last century, not considering the forest contiguity and ecosystem viability.
The Silent Valley and Pathrakkadavu areas are contiguous and come within an ecological landscape and hence have to be protected as one unit for the long-term conservation of the biodiversity of the existing National Park.
Dr Ramachandran (KFRI Report No. 143) has brought out this point clearly and recommended that all adjacent areas of the Silent Valley National Park should be declared as buffer zones. This would include Pathrakadavu area also.
Currently, the entire Silent Valley National Park is considered as core area, and there is no buffer
The Pathrakadavu area does not have any human habitation at the moment although, there has been large scale fire during the season. Opening a road up to the dam site would lead to the deterioration of the remaining forests.
Apart from the Lion-tailed Macaque which was observed by the EIA team and also one of our local assistants who accompanied us to the dam site, there are Nilgiri Thar, another endemic, endangered species, at the very vicinity of the dam site.
The floristic and faunstic survey is quite inadequate, as it covered only five months from January to May.
Our observations, spreading three hours in one-day and 9 hours on the following day could yield nine additional species of butterflies, one species of reptile and two species of amphibians, indicating that the area is faunistically much richer.
There are much more evergreen elements in the project area than what has been given in the EIA report.
It appears there is a grave mistake in the calculation of the water availability in the reservoir. It may be noted that from the place where water flow is estimated (down stream of the dam site) and the exact dam site, there are about four major rivulets on the right bank. Therefore, the water available in the reservoir will be much less than what is given in the report.
It might also be erroneous to estimate water flow exclusively based on the annual average rain fall as a number of factors such as vegetation, drainage, and quality of the substratum such as rock, geological forms affect the water flow.
Construction of road and other activities will enhance erosion and siltation, which however, is not covered in the EIA report.
It is wrongly stated in the EIA that the dam site is separated from the National Park by a cliff. The rocks and cliffs are integral parts of an ecological landscape covering the Silent Valley National Park. So also is the vested forests adjoining it on the southern side i.e. the proposed project area. In other words, Pathrakadavu is an integral part of the Silent Valley ecosystem
The 64.5 m high dam very close to the Silent Valley National Park would lead to large scale disturbance to the biota of the Park and would defeat the very purpose for which the National Park was created.
The road to the construction site will be disastrous to the ecology of the area and it will be the gateway for large scale destruction of the wildlife and forests
The EIA correctly appreciated the importance of riparian vegetation, especially for nesting birds. Apart from this, the boulders on the riparian belt are also important for nesting of certain species of birds and, also is habitat for a variety of lower vertebrates. Any alteration on the flow would lead to the disappearance of these species.
Construction of the dam will certainly affect the upward migration of the fishes for breeding. Such species, however, are not recorded in the five months study. It is hard to accept that such species do not occur here. Only an intensive survey could bring out the fact.
The number of species would go very high, if the surveys are conducted throughout the year, covering various seasons.
It appears that the area is rich in endemic species, as just one season study reported by the EIA shows that 20% of the plants recorded are endemic.
Although, the EIA has covered various aspects including sanitary disposal of the labourers, one major aspect which is very essential for taking a crucial decision like this, is the cost benefit analysis considering the environmental cost; costs of habitat loss, species loss and ecosystem service loss for the gain of 70 MW of power. This was not done in the EIA. Hence, the EIA is incomplete.
While considering such an analysis for the proposed hydroelectric project, one should consider the forests of Silent Valley also as the proposed site is only a continuation of the Silent Valley within the ecological landscape.
Any major disturbance in the downstream will affect the entire river course upstream. The ecosystem services will certainly outweigh many times the benefits that may be derived from 70 MW of power.
The EIA report itself says that a more comprehensive study has to be done to conclude various biodiversity aspects of the area including the occurrence of the Lion-tailed Macaque as resident or occasional visitor.
Bharatapuzha is the lifeline of at least 60 lakhs people in the districts of Palaghat, Malappuram and partly of Trichur. This vital river is drying up at an alarming rate. Bharatapuzha basin, the largest in Kerala, has around 14 dams.
Kunthipuzha, one of the tributaries of Bharatapuzha, is the only river which does not have a dam. This is the only river valley in the area which is relatively undisturbed and hence, has to be protected at all costs.
Considering the crucial ecological values of the Kunthi river system, the biodiversity values as indicated in the present short-term EIA and other studies conducted in Silent Valley, the project’s adverse impact on biodiversity, and ecology of the entire area including Bharatapuzha and, all the more, on the people who have been enjoying the tangible and intangible benefits of the free-flowing Kunthipuzha for ages, it would be wise to abandon the proposed Pathrakadavu project and protect the Kunthi river system in its entirety for the present and future generations.
Does the state require Pathrakadavu Hydroelectric Project?
It is not convincing whether a 70 MW capacity Hydroelectric Power Project has to be built in such an important, vital ecological area, which is an integral part of the Silent Valley ecosystem.
It is noted that the present transmission loss is about 35%. If only around 3-5 % transmission loss is saved, Pathrakadavu project could be dropped, averting a serious disaster to Silent Valley ecosystem.
Before taking a decision on the project, one should consider the order of the Honourable High Court of Kerala on Athirapally delivered on 17 October 2001 on a Public Interest Litigation which reads:
"It appears to us that the first step to be taken by the Board is to take up the rectification or repair works in the Hydro Electric Projects so as to restore the optimum generation of energy in those projects and also to take steps to minimize the transmission loss and eliminate theft of energy. Since we are concerned with public interest in these proceedings, we think it is just and proper to issue a direction to the Board to take all the 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"
It is not known whether KSEB has done anything on above lines as required by the Hon’ble High Court. Apparently not. If there was a determined effort to save the transmission loss or to prevent the power theft, the present project proposal would not have come up.
Note on the Public Hearing conducted on 21 May 2004 Mannarkad
Palghat District, Kerala
Palghat District, Kerala
A Public Hearing, as per the statutory requirements, was conducted on 21 May 2004 at Mannarkad under the Chairmanship of the Chairman of the State Pollution Control Board. The District Collector also joined, some time during the course of the proceedings.
It was arranged in a small class room in a primary school. The room was so small that all the people who came for the meeting could not be accommodated. Before the proceedings started, around 10.30 am, a large number of people entered the hall and started shouting that those who are not from the local area should vacate the hall and that they have no right to speak. They took possession of the public address system also. This was followed by heated arguments from both sides. The scene was charged with emotions and anger. A large contingent of Police force entered the room and tried to pacify the violent mob. Still the situation could not be brought under control, as people went on shouting against the conservationists who were present there.
Ms Sugathakumari, one of the renowned Malayalam poets, who was active in the Silent Valley movement and, myself were in the front row, but were surrounded by the angry mob. Thanks to the Police, we were not hurt. They put the blame on us for stopping the Silent Valley project, and shouted that they will not allow the same fate for the present project. The Chairman could not control the mob. Finally the local MLA took up the mike and started pleading the people to listen both sides. The unruly crowd calmed down for a while, though reluctantly.
In the melee, names of the people who wanted to speak were collected in which our names were also included. However, the people who were for the dams managed the entire show. Three or four people who tried to explain the adverse impact on ecology were whistled and shouted down. Nobody could hear them. The same thing happened to Ms Sugathakumari also. When she was called to speak, the mob did not allow her, as they went on whistling and shouting.
I was not given a chance to speak. The Chairman abruptly made an announcement that the Public Hearing is over. There were so many people in the audience who wanted to explain how the project will adversely affect the ecology and people of the area. But they were not given an opportunity. Everything was over within two hours. By 1.30 pm, the Chairman called off the meeting.
It was very unfortunate that the Chairman could not control the audience and give opportunity to the participants to air their views whether it is pro or against the dam. It is so happened that 99% of the people who spoke was for the project. Others were either not called for speaking or they could not be heard because of the chaos.
Therefore, the Public Hearing conducted on 21 May 2004 could not be accepted.
It was arranged in a small class room in a primary school. The room was so small that all the people who came for the meeting could not be accommodated. Before the proceedings started, around 10.30 am, a large number of people entered the hall and started shouting that those who are not from the local area should vacate the hall and that they have no right to speak. They took possession of the public address system also. This was followed by heated arguments from both sides. The scene was charged with emotions and anger. A large contingent of Police force entered the room and tried to pacify the violent mob. Still the situation could not be brought under control, as people went on shouting against the conservationists who were present there.
Ms Sugathakumari, one of the renowned Malayalam poets, who was active in the Silent Valley movement and, myself were in the front row, but were surrounded by the angry mob. Thanks to the Police, we were not hurt. They put the blame on us for stopping the Silent Valley project, and shouted that they will not allow the same fate for the present project. The Chairman could not control the mob. Finally the local MLA took up the mike and started pleading the people to listen both sides. The unruly crowd calmed down for a while, though reluctantly.
In the melee, names of the people who wanted to speak were collected in which our names were also included. However, the people who were for the dams managed the entire show. Three or four people who tried to explain the adverse impact on ecology were whistled and shouted down. Nobody could hear them. The same thing happened to Ms Sugathakumari also. When she was called to speak, the mob did not allow her, as they went on whistling and shouting.
I was not given a chance to speak. The Chairman abruptly made an announcement that the Public Hearing is over. There were so many people in the audience who wanted to explain how the project will adversely affect the ecology and people of the area. But they were not given an opportunity. Everything was over within two hours. By 1.30 pm, the Chairman called off the meeting.
It was very unfortunate that the Chairman could not control the audience and give opportunity to the participants to air their views whether it is pro or against the dam. It is so happened that 99% of the people who spoke was for the project. Others were either not called for speaking or they could not be heard because of the chaos.
Therefore, the Public Hearing conducted on 21 May 2004 could not be accepted.
posted by shaiju @ 11:20 PM
0 comments
