CHAPTER -1 INTRODUCTION - Ministry of Environment and Forests

21 Pages·2011·0.65 MB·English

CHAPTER -1

INTRODUCTION

1.1. Assignment

The National River Conservation Directorate (NRCD), Ministry of Environment
and Forests (MoEF), Government of India (GoI), vide letter no. J11022/1/2010-NRCD-
II dated July 15, 2010 assigned a study to Alternate Hydro Energy Centre (AHEC), IIT
Roorkee, for “Assessment of Cumulative Impact of Hydroelectric Projects in
Alaknanda- Bhagirathi Basins”. The Terms of Reference of the study are given as
Annexure 1.1.

1.2. Geographical Area of Study

The study area, comprising of Alakananda and Bhagirathi Basins, is shown in the
index map (Fig. 1.1). Ganga Basin is the largest river basin in India with an area of
8,61,404 sq.km and home to for nearly 43% of India’s population (448.3 million as per
2001 census) (Fig. 1.2, Anon, 2009). The Alaknanda and Bhagirathi rivers are in the
North Western part of the State of Uttarakhand, which is cradled in the Himalayas.
These rivers have their confluence at Devprayag and lose their names to acquire a new
one “Ganga”.

Fig. 1.1 Index Map of Alaknanda and Bhagirathi Basins

AHEC/2011: Assessment of Cumulative Impact of Hydropower Projects in Alaknanda and Bhagirathi Basins
1-1
Fig. 1.2 Map of Ganga Basin (from National River Conservation Directorate,
Ministry of Environment and Forests, “Status paper on River Ganga” 2009.)

As a result of a combination of various factors Alaknanda and Bhagirathi basins
are rich in water resources. Additionally the topography provides a large number of sites
for setting up hydropower projects to generate large quantity of electricity with relatively
low investments. Some hydropower projects have already been commissioned and many
more are either under construction or are planned. For this study hydropower projects
with installed capacity exceeding 1 MW have been considered as the smaller ones will
have much smaller impact.

The present generation capacity of the commissioned hydropower projects is
1,850.8 MW. Hydropower projects under construction and development will add another
7,712.5 MW of power to the existing capacity and if all the identified sites are made
operational 9,563.3 MW of additional power will be added. (Annexure 1.2).

1.3. Components of the Ecosystem for Cumulative Impact Assessment

There is an apprehension that if hydropower potential of the study area is
developed without a study of their impact on various components of the ecosystem
(response components), then cumulative impact of these projects on various components
of the ecosystem of the basin could be significantly adverse and would therefore be
unacceptable. The components on which the impact of development of hydropower
projects needs to be assessed, identified by NRCD, MoEF are as follows:
a) geological (tectonic) stability,
b) stability of glaciers resulting in more frequent avalanches,

AHEC/2011: Assessment of Cumulative Impact of Hydropower Projects in Alaknanda and Bhagirathi Basins
1-2
c) stability of slopes resulting in landslides,
d) soil erosion reducing productivity of land and producing frequent floods,
e) requirement of environmental flow,
f) altered surface and ground water regime affecting drinking and irrigation
water sources and their potential to provide water,
g) flows in streams, tributaries and rivers and, above all, environmental flows
necessary for sustaining biotic life and observing religious practices,
h) impact on places of cultural and religious importance and
i) details of submergence area under protected area network,

1.4. Objectives of the Study

Objectives of this study are the following

a. To assess the cumulative impact of commissioned, under construction and
proposed hydro power projects in Alaknanda and Bhagirathi basins. The
assessment would consider, interalia, factors mentioned in paragraph 1.2 of
ToR, and mentioned in Section 1.3 from a) to i) above.
b. To estimate the extent to which hydropower potential identified in the basins
should be developed without risking stability of landforms and environment.
At the same time ensuring that the quality, quantity, and timing of water flows
required to maintain functions, assimilative capacity and aquatic ecosystems
that provide goods and services to people are maintained.
c. Restrictions, if any, that need to be placed in the development of hydropower
in the two basins.

1.5. Other Requirements of the Study

1.5.1. Collection of Maps

The following maps were collected

a) topographical maps of the two basins,
b) satellite imageries and geological maps of the basins.
c) satellite imageries of large completed projects to detect any discernible change
between preconstruction period and post construction period.

1.5.2. Collection of Reports

The following reports were collected

a) Detailed Project Reports and Prefeasibility reports (DPRs/PFRs) of all
commissioned / proposed Hydropower Projects and
b) EIA studies and Environmental Management Plans (EMPs) of all
commissioned/ proposed HPs.
c) Clearances accorded to all HPs.
d) Monitored observations and activities under taken post clearances as per
requirement
e) Meteorological data
f) Surface and ground water hydrology

AHEC/2011: Assessment of Cumulative Impact of Hydropower Projects in Alaknanda and Bhagirathi Basins
1-3
i. discharge upstream of hydropower sites.
ii. discharge downstream of the hydropower sites.
g) Available ground water levels in affected areas.
h) Available socio-economic data of affected areas.
i) Water quality data at each potential site.

1.5.3. Collection of Data Relating to Completed Projects With Capacity Above 25 MW

This study includes an assessment of impact of large hydropower projects on
environment and other factors mentioned in paragraph 1.2. In particular the following
data was gathered:
a) landslides
b) loss of irrigation potential, if any
c) Health hazards
d) Socio-economic survey of the area to assess the socio-economic impact of
completed projects.
e) Water quality and discharge studies in the immediate vicinity and d/s of the
project
f) Study the impact on springs.

1.5.4. Deliverables

Based on this study the following reports are to be delivered

a) The impact of large completed hydropower projects in the basin of rivers
Alaknanda and Bhagirathi, up to Devprayag.
b) Based on the above study, drawing empirical inferences in assessing impact of
hydropower projects under implementation / proposed.
c) Cumulative impact of
i. All projects on a stream on the tributary.
ii. All projects located on a tributary at its confluence with river
Alaknanda.
iii. All projects located on a tributary at its confluence with river
Bhagirathi.
iv. All hydropower projects proposed / established on river Alaknanda and
Bhagirathi upto Devprayag.
d) This report addresses the following issues
i. Whether acceptable limits of geomorphologic stability or of
environmental sustainability, particularly of environmental flows, are
likely to exceed at any small or large hydropower project site(s).
ii. Whether there will be a depletion of irrigation potential or availability
of drinking water in habitations as a result of any project.
iii. Impact on ground water and springs in the basin.
iv. Impact of these projects on places of cultural, religious or of tourism
importance.
v. Whether any restrictions should be placed on development of
hydropower in the basin.
vi. The impacts should be expressed qualitatively and quantitatively.

The Terms of Reference (ToR) of the assignment are given at Annexure 1.2.

AHEC/2011: Assessment of Cumulative Impact of Hydropower Projects in Alaknanda and Bhagirathi Basins
1-4
1.6. Background of the Problem

As is well known, the state of Uttarakhand and the country are acutely short
of electricity, a prerequisite for development. In view of rapid economic growth the
gap between demand and supply of electricity has been increasing. In this context all
sources of power generation need to be harnessed. In the last 50 years, although the
role of hydropower in meeting the power requirement of the country has increased in
terms of output, its share in the mix of power has significantly reduced and is far
below the desirable level.

Any form of power generation affects the environment. Hydrocarbons and
coal release a large amount of green house gases and particulate matter which pollutes
the atmosphere and may also contribute to global warming. Wind, tidal and
geothermal related power plants can be located only in very specific and limited areas
where suitable conditions exists, moreover, cost of power production by these plants
is invariably high. Solar energy requires panels which are made from rare earth
elements. The rare earth elements are expensive and available at the moment only in
very limited regions of the world and hence have to be imported. Moreover, cost of
production of solar panels by the present known technology is high and large scale
use of solar energy in the next few decades seems unlikely. Material required to
generate nuclear energy (nuclear fuel) is available only with large constraints and
serious environmental hazards are associated with this form of electrical energy
generation in case of an accident. The occurrence of such accidents, however few, are
serious environmental hazards.

Considering the above, hydropower generation appears to be a viable
alternative to meet the ever increasing power demand. Before a decision is taken to
harness this considerable hydropower potential in the basin under study it is necessary
to understand the cumulative impact of development of this hydropower potential on
the response components of the ecosystem. In view of the above an attempt is made in
this study to assess the cumulative impact of hydropower projects in Alaknanda and
Bhagirathi Basins.

1.6.1 Cumulative Impact Assessment

1.6.1.1 Concept

The impact of human activity or a project on an environmental resource or
eco-system may be considered insignificant when assessed in isolation, but may
become significant when evaluated in the context of the combined effect of all the
past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities that may have or have had
an impact on the resources in question. The Council for Environmental Quality
established under the US National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) came to
the view that a conventional project and site-specific approach to environmental
assessment has its limitations when it comes to assessing potential cumulative effects
on environmental resources.

AHEC/2011: Assessment of Cumulative Impact of Hydropower Projects in Alaknanda and Bhagirathi Basins
1-5
1.6.1.2 Definition of Cumulative Impact

Cumulative impact is defined by the US Council on Environmental Quality as
"the impacts on the environment that result from the incremental impact of the action
when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions (RFFA)
regardless of what agency undertakes such other actions." Thus the practice of
Cumulative Effects Assessment (CEA) of projects in a region began. Various aspects
of CEA began to be studied.

There are several reasons why Cumulative Impact Assessments should be carried out
i.e.,
i. Conceptual reasons – For a group of projects, the environmental effects of
primary concern tend to be cumulative and it will not be advisable to consider
simply the effects of individual projects
ii. Pragmatic reasons – CEA guidance and other EIA legislation of the 1990s
requires that CEs be assessed
iii. Regulatory reasons – make “room” for future developments
iv. Idealistic reasons – minimize negative CEs, promote resource sustainability

In India, so far, there is no law requiring the conduct of Cumulative
Environmental Impact Assessment before a development project is given
Environmental Clearance.

During 1980s and 1990s, it became the practice in many countries to include
Cumulative Effects in Environmental Impact Statements. CEA processes were also
developed. Litigation in courts also clarified some of the concepts. With the dawn of
the present millennium i.e., 2000s practice for project CEAs was improved; methods
of analysis developed and existing methods expanded.

In view of the above the present study attempts to deal with the issue of
cumulative impact assessment of hydropower projects in Alaknanda and Bhagirathi
basins in light of the prevailing concepts of cumulative impact assessment of
hydropower projects.

1.7. Description of Area

1.7.1. Uttarakhand State

Uttarakhand (formerly known as Uttaranchal) was carved out of Uttar Pradesh
as the 27th state of India on 9th November 2000. The state lies between latitudes
28°43N to 31°27N and longitudes 77°34E to 81°02E, with a total geographical area
53,484 sq km (1.6% of total area of the country). Forest area of 34,651 sq km, is
63.99% of the total area of the state (Kumar, 2010).

This state is predominantly mountainous, with hilly area covering 46035 sq
km (86.07%) and the plains having an area of 7448 sq km (13.93%). The state is
divided into two divisions Kumaon and Garhwal, and has 13 districts, with 78 Tehsils,
95 Development Blocks, 670 Nyaya Panchayats, 7541 Gram Panchayats and 16826
villages, excluding forest settlements, of which 15761 are inhabited. Total population
of the state, as per 2001 census, was 84,89,000. Bulk of the population, 46.24%, lives

AHEC/2011: Assessment of Cumulative Impact of Hydropower Projects in Alaknanda and Bhagirathi Basins
1-6
in the three plain districts of Hardwar, Dehradun and Udham Singh Nagar. Population
density of the state is 159 persons/ sq km as against 324 at the national level. Urban
component of population is 25.59 per cent, slightly lower than the national average of
27.78 per cent. The female population is 962 per thousand males, a little higher than
the national average of 933 recorded by the last census. However, rural areas have a
better sex ratio with 1007 females per thousand males.

In the overall ranking of different states in the country, the state ranks 20th in
terms of population, 18th in terms of area, 25th in terms of population density and 14th
in terms of literacy. District wise data for the state is given in Table 1.1.

Table 1.1 Statistical Data on Uttarakhand as per 2001 Census

District Headquarter Area Population Male Female Populati Literacy
(sq on rate
km) Density (%)
(persons
/sq km)
Uttarkashi Uttarkashi 8016 295013 152016 142997 37 65.71
Tehri New Tehri 3796 604747 295168 309579 166 66.73
Garhwal
Pauri Pauri 5230 697078 331061 366017 124 77.49
Garhwal
Rudraprayag Rudraprayag 2439 227439 107535 119904 115 73.65
Chamoli Gopeshwar 7520 370359 183746 186614 43 75.43
Pithoragarh Pithoragarh 7169 462289 227615 234674 65 75.95
Bageshwar Bageshwar 2246 249462 118510 130952 111 70.42
Champawat Champawat 1766 224542 111084 113458 126 71.29
Udham Rudrapur 3055 1235614 649484 586130 486 64.96
Singh Nagar
Nainital Nainital 4251 762909 400254 362655 179 78.36
Almora Almora 3689 630567 293848 336719 201 73.64
Hardwar Hardwar 2360 1447187 776021 671168 613 63.75
Dehra Dun Dehra Dun 3088 1282143 679583 602560 415 78.99
Total Uttarakhand 53,484 8489349 4325925 4163427 159 71.6

The state is also known as Dev Bhumi (“Abode of Gods) and tourism plays an
important role in the economy of the state. It has the famous pilgrim centers: four
dhams (Badrinath, Kedarnath, Gangotri and Yamnotri), five prayags (Vishnuprayag,
Nandprayag, Karnprayag, Rudraprayag and Devprayag), besides Hardwar and
Rishikesh which are prominent religious centres for Hindus. The famous “Kumbh
Mela” is held every twelve years at Hardwar. Hemkund Sahib, a prominent pilgrim
centre for Sikhs is also situated in Uttarakhand. Besides centres of religious
importance, many hill stations are very popular tourist destinations like Nainital,
Mussorie, Kausani, Ranikhet, Almora and Lansdown. These places are famous for
their natural beauty. The state also has several sites for winter, river and adventure
sports at Auli, Dayara Bugyal, Tehri Dam, Kodiyala etc.

The Alaknanda basin lies mainly in Chamoli, Rudraprayag, Tehri Garhwal and
Pauri Garhwal districts with small areas of Pithoragarh and Bageshwar districts also
included in it. The Bhagirathi basin is confined within Uttarkashi, Tehri Garhwal and
Pauri Garhwal districts. After the confluence of Alaknanda and Bhagirathi Rivers, at
Devprayag, the river is called Ganga. Fig. 1.3, shows districts and towns of the state,

AHEC/2011: Assessment of Cumulative Impact of Hydropower Projects in Alaknanda and Bhagirathi Basins
1-7
Fig. 1.4 shows villages in Alaknanda and Bhagirathi basins and Fig. 1.5 shows the
location of commissioned and under development power projects along with protected
areas.

Uttarakhand has consistently recorded a high rate of economic growth even
though more than 61 per cent of the area is covered by forests which contributes very
little directly to the State Domestic Product, and only a little over 13 per cent of the
area is available for any meaningful agriculture. Per capita income has been slightly
higher than the national average. Level of literacy recorded in the last census was 71.6
percent, with 83.3 percent for males and 59.6 per cent for females, much higher than
the national average.

Since the formation of the State its GDP has generally been higher than the
national GDP, except for a few years.

A decade has passed since the formation of this State. In this period
contribution of primary sector to the State GDP, which was 31%, has declined to 18%
and that secondary sector increased from 18% to 35%. Thus, roles of the two sectors
have been reversed. The share of tertiary sector has marginally declined. The
secondary sector comprises of manufacturing, organized and unorganized;
construction; and electricity, gas and water supply. Trade, hotels and restaurants, as a
sub-sector, had the largest share in the tertiary sector followed by public
administration and transport in most districts.

Contribution of Alaknanda and Bhagirathi Basins to the state GDP is low,
being only 400 million against the state GDP of 207 million, as is to be expected
because of the rugged terrain. The districts constituting the basin under had in 2008-
09 per capita NDDP about half of that of Hardwar the district with the highest per
capita NDDP.

1.7.2. Climatic Conditions

The state has two distinct climate regions (a) the predominant hilly terrain and
(b) the plain region. Alaknanda and Bhagirathi Basins fall under the first category.
The mountain regions do not have a uniform type of climate and variations are due to
location, altitude, aspect and morphology. Places situated on southern slopes of the
Himalaya receive more sunshine and a larger amount of rainfall. But due to a high
rate of evaporation and transpiration, these slopes remain generally dry. The duration
of sunshine is shorter on northern slopes, with the result that the moisture retaining
capacity of the soil is higher, even though these slopes receive less rainfall.
Uttarakhand has been divided into seven broad climatic zones based primarily on
altitude as given in Table 1.2.

AHEC/2011: Assessment of Cumulative Impact of Hydropower Projects in Alaknanda and Bhagirathi Basins
1-8
s
n
w
o
T
d
n
a
s
t
c
i
r
t
s
i
D
d
n
a
h
k
a
r
a
t
t
U
3
1.
g.
i
F

AHEC/2011: Assessment of Cumulative Impact of Hydropower Projects in Alaknanda and Bhagirathi Basins
1-9
s
n
i
s
a
B
i
h
t
a
r
i
g
a
h
B
d
n
a
a
d
n
a
n
k
a
l
A
n
i
s
e
g
a
l
l
i
V
4
1.
g.
i
F

AHEC/2011: Assessment of Cumulative Impact of Hydropower Projects in Alaknanda and Bhagirathi Basins
1-10