CENTREFOR WILDLIFESTUDIES August3,2012 Admln. Ofrice: # {669, 31st Cross, l6th Main, Banashankari 2nd Stage, Dr.P.J. Dilip Kumar, IFS Bengaluru - 560 070, Indla. Chair,Forest Advisory Committee Tel. : +91 80 26715364,Tele Fax : +9'l 80 26715255 DirectorGeneral of Forests WEBSITE : rrvwwwcslndia.org Regd. Oflice: 26-2,Aga Abbas Ali Road (Apt.403) Ministryof Environmentand Forests Bengaluru - 560 042, lndia. ParyavaranBhavan CGOComplex, Lodhi Road NewDelhi-1 10003

Sub:Final Report of thesub-committee of the FACon the Rupsiyabagar Khasiyabarahydroelectric project i n Munsiyari (RKH PP), Uttarakhand.

Sir,

This reportpertains to the site inspectionthat I had carriedout withAIGF Sri HC Choudhryon April21-22,2012. The site inspection was relatedto the 261 MW Rupsiyabagar-KhasiyabaraHydro-Power Project ("RK HPP" for short)in Pithoragarhdistrict of Uttarakhand,proposed by the NationalThermalPower CorporationLimited (henceforth NTPC). The StateGovernment of Uttarakhand videtheir letter dated 21.12.2009 submitted a proposalto obtainprior approval of CentralGovernment under the Forest(Conservation) Act, 1980 for diversionof 217.522 hectare of forestland for 30 years,in favourof the useragency. The proposalwas examinedby the ForestAdvisory Committee ('FAC", for short)on 25.05.2010and rejected.

As you are aware,in responseto a representationfonryarded by the Nodal Officer,Forest (Conservation)Act, 1980 (Government of Uttarakhand)in his letterdated 15.09.2010, requesting the MoEFto re-considerits decision to declineapproval of the CentralGovernment, the ForestAdvisory Committee set- up a sub-committeeto undertakea site inspection.

Accordingly,the abovesub-committee of the FAC,headed by me, inspectedthe site identifiedfor constructionof the RK HPP in orderto assessfirst-hand the floraand faunaavailable in and aroundthe forestland proposed for diversion and the ecologicalvalue of the area.The mandatedinspection was carriedon 21stand 22nd April 2012. Given the shortduration of thevisit, our assessment was basedon my experienceand expertiseas a wildlifeecologist and scientist, and Sri Choudhry'sprofessional expertise as a forester.I alsodid a full reviewof existingliterature on the floraand faunaof the areaproduced by reputed scientistsfrom the Wildlife Institute of Indiaand GB PantInstitute of Himalayan Environmentand Development,I have also had informaldiscussions with ecologicalscientists from the WildlifeInstitute of Indiawho haveworked extensivelyin the region.In addition,we soughtopinion from local inhabitants aboutthe biodiversity/wildlifevalues of the areaduring our briefsite visit. The useragency (NTPC) had consistently maintained that the projectsite did not haveany ecological value. Although we couldnot obviously quantify measurementsof theflora and fauna of in andaround project site given the short durationof ourvisit, literature review and discussions with scientists and local inhabitantsshowed the siteto be of highecological/wildlife value.

Basedon my experienceas a scientist,my overallassessment is thatthe area has highbiodiversity value and is importantfor habitatconnectivity in the region. Accordingly,I had stronglyagreed with the earlierdecision of the FACto reject the constructionof the damby the useragency at the proposedsite. As the chair of the sub-committeeI had senta draftreport cleady stating this conclusionto AIGFMr. Choudhry and copied to you.

However,the originaldraft report sent by me has beensubstantially modified by the AIGF,and I findthat the originalclear-cut recommendation appears to have beenwatered down, and the matteragain pushed back to FACfor reconsideration.I am notin agreementwith such a suggestion,and have re- editedthe report.

I firmlysupport the originaldecision of the FACto rejectthe Rupsiyabagar- KhasiyabaraHydro-Power Project on groundsof itsecological impacts. This is my firm and finalview.

In casethere is stilla disagreementto thisopinion, on the partof the committee memberAIGF Sri. Choudhry, I kindly request him to add hisofficial dissent note to the end of this report,but without further editing the bodyof the textand conclusionsin thisfinal report signed by me. However,any original submissions or documentssubmitted to FAC in this regardmay pleasebe appendedas required.

I thankMr. Choudhry, the ProjectProponents, all membersof the FACand yourselffor entrustingthis work to me and trustthat this reportwill assistthe FAC and MoEFas expected.Kindly acknowledge the receiptof this letter.

Thankingyou, Yourssincerely, K\X/\W-r I K. UllasKaranth, Ph.D., F.A. Sc. Member-FAC& Chairof the Subcommitteeon RKHPP

Copyto: All membersof ForestAdvisory Committee INSPECTION REPORT OF THE SUB‐COMMITTEE OF THE FOREST ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO ASSESS WILDLIFE VALUES AND ECOLOGICAL IMPACT OF THE RUPSIYABAGAR‐ KHASIYABARA HYDRO‐ELECTRIC POWER PROJECT (RKHPP)

K. Ullas Karanth, Ph.D., F.A.Sc – Member, FAC & Chair of the Subcommittee H. C. Choudhry, IFS, Assistant Inspector General of Forests, MoEF

Introduction: The State Government of Uttarakhand vide their letter dated 21.12.2009 submitted a proposal to obtain prior approval of Central Government under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 for diversion of 217.522 hectare of forest land for 30 years, in favour of the National Thermal Power Corporation Limited (henceforth NTPC) to construct the 261 MW Rupsiyabagar‐Khasiyabara Hydro‐Power Project (“RKHPP” for short) in Pithoragarh district of Uttarakhand. The proposal was examined by the Forest Advisory Committee (“FAC”, for short) on 25.05.2010.

The FAC after examination of the proposal observed that (i) the forest land proposed to be diverted is a virgin wilderness area and is highly sensitive to erosion; (ii) construction of road proposed as a constituent component of the project will severely accentuate the problem of erosion; (iii) the wildlife management plan prepared for the project does not address the likely impact of the proposed project on many endangered species available in the area; and (iv) the proposed project is one of the seven hydro power projects and is located in the mid‐stretch of the river. The FAC, therefore recommended that the project may be rejected on merit as it is located at the center of a highly ecologically sensitive, wildlife habitat.

During the FAC meeting held on 17.06.2010, NTPC placed a request for a re‐evaluation of the RKHPP. The FAC however observed that many of its former observations still held good. After thorough deliberations, the FAC observed that no new fact related to the project has been placed before it, and therefore decided to reiterate its earlier recommendation to reject the proposal on merit.

The Nodal Officer, Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, Government of Uttarakhand in his letter dated 15.09.2010, forwarded a copy of a representation of NTPC requesting the MoEF to re‐consider its decision to decline approval of the Central Government, in accordance with Section‐2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. The Nodal Officer highlighted that certain new facts had come to light and the RKHPP needed to be evaluated anew in this light. The important facts summarized by the NTPC in their letter dated 23.05.2011, are as below: (a) Lot of human interface already exists and is increasing due to a road being constructed by the Border Roads Organisation (BRO).

1 (b) Initially, NTPC was planning to construct 18.00 km road between dam and power house of the project. After a joint survey with BRO, the NTPC has decided to follow the alignment of BRO road for 16 km. Requirement for new road has therefore been substantially reduced from 18.00 km to 1.80 km.

(c) Similarly, alignment of 12 km long road requiring diversion of 112 hectares of forest land (out of 217.154 hectares of the total forest land required for the project) proposed to be constructed in the power house area has been selected in such a manner that apart from various components of the project, it also provides connectivity to seven villages located therein. Even if the project does not get clearance, the PWD, Uttarakhand will construct the said road (under tribal sub‐ plan) to provide connectivity to these villages. The effective requirement of the forest land for the project is thus 105 hectares only;

(d) Tree coverage is less than 70 trees/hectare;

(e) As per the National Bureau of Soil Survey and Land Use Planning maps the project site is located in slight to moderate erosion zone;

(f) No rare /endangered species of wildlife are observed in the project area;

(g) Project does not lie in Eco Sensitive Zone, Wild Life Sanctuary, Bio Sphere Reserve, National Park and important migratory route of wild animals;

(h) Catchment area treatment envisages expenditure of Rs. 34.67 crore out of which Rs. 8.00 crore is proposed for wildlife management; and

(i) NTPC is ready to conduct additional studies on wild life management and soil erosion protection measures. The FAC, in a meeting held on 28th ‐ 29th November 2011, examined the revised petition. The representatives of the NTPC also made a presentation during the meeting. The FAC recommended that before making a final decision on the petition submitted by the user agency, a sub‐committee of the FAC will inspect the site identified for construction of the RKHPP in order to have first‐hand assessment of the flora and fauna present in and around the forest land proposed for diversion.

The FAC had earlier rejected the proposal on ecological grounds, after carefully considering documentary evidence as well as a presentation made by the project

2 proponents. However, this field inspection by FAC was taken up on the basis of a plea made by project proponents and others that the project area did not have wildlife and ecological values worth preserving. Therefore, the focus of the field inspection was narrow and specific: to make an objective analysis of the ecological and wildlife values of the area as well as potential impacts of the project, and to cumulatively consider the impact of other projects on the river Goriganga and its tributaries, on the basis of a rapid field visit and examination of additional evidence on wildlife values of the area based on assessment by other acknowledged experts in areas of ecology and wildlife biology.

2. The Field Inspection

The mandated inspection was carried on 21st and 22nd April 2012, by us of the project site for the proposed RKHPP, in Pithoragarh District of Uttarakhand. We carried out the inspection through a field visit during which we undertook an Helicopter borne aerial survey of the area as well as a field visit to the site. During this visit, we had detailed discussions with the local people to assess their understanding of the wildlife and ecological values of the area and potential impacts of the proposed RKHPP. Further, we interacted with and obtained inputs from local government officials.

We also received comments/ representation from several persons/ organizations and officials, including the Working Plan Officer, Pithoragarh, Divisional Forest Officer Pithoragarh Division and Sub‐Divisional Officer, Munshiyari Civil Sub‐Division after the visit. The Deputy Conservator of Forests (the statutory Wildlife Warden) submitted his views via e‐mail, as he was not made aware of the inspection in time, according to his submission. Details of the persons/organization /officials from whom we received comments during and after the visit are given in Appendix‐I.

We note that there were opposing views on the desirability or otherwise of implementing the project from a socio‐economic and developmental perspective. These do not fall within the purview of our inspection. Some of the interviewed persons indicated the presence of large mammals such as bear and leopard in the valley and several other ungulates and snow leopard in the higher areas. Most of the local residents with whom we interacted during the visit, however denied presence of any endangered wildlife species in and around the project site. The Divisional Forest Officer, Pithoragarh Division also informed through his emailed letter dated 7th May 2012 (copy enclosed as Appendix‐II) that during the last three years no damage to life and property in the villages located in vicinity of the site of the proposed project have been observed. However, in a fresh submission the DFO Working Plan who appears to be knowledgeable about wildlife clearly mentioned that bear attacks had been reported in the area, and confirmed the presence of wildlife such as goral, leopard etc. In view of this we have appended his communication herewith.

3 We would like to state that there were many local people who met us in pre‐organized gatherings, and said that there was absolutely no wildlife in the project area whatsoever. We found the highly synchronized denial of presence of wildlife, using almost identical sentences, not very credible. Furthermore, contradictory statements such as, “opponents of the projects make money from wildlife tourists” and “we sleep in the open in the forest without fear of wild animals” were also made by some individuals.

Some other local people including Van Panchayath members in the affected area whom we interviewed separately stated that livestock depredations by leopard and bear was still common and other wildlife species occurred well within the project area. However, these people appeared not have been informed prior to our visit, unlike the project supporters, and met us only later after the site visit as did another delegation consisting of elected leaders, businessmen etc. who supported the project. One goat herder we met while walking to the site without pre‐arrangement confirmed he lost his animals to leopard and bear depredations.

Our final observations and conclusions are reported below:

3. Overview of the area:

3.1. Project components: The major components of the project include dam, reservoir, de‐silting chamber, head race tunnel (HRT), surge shaft, adits (2 nos.), pressure shaft, penstock, power house complex, tail race tunnel (TRT), switch yard and muck disposal site. Project also envisages construction of 1.80 km long approach road from the BRO Road (presently under construction) and the dam site. Another 12 km long road requiring 112 hectares of forest land is also proposed to be constructed to provide connectivity among power house, adits, surge shaft and muck disposal site. Out of the above components HRT, surge shaft, pressure shaft and penstock will be located underground. Length of the stretch of the river located between dam axis and the TRT exit is approx. 9.20 km. At its full capacity i.e., Full Reservoir Level (FRL) the reservoir will submerge 4.50 hectare area covering 500 meter length of the river bed.

3.2. Project location: The project site is located in Eastern Kumaon, in the state of Uttarakhand on Goriganga river. The Goriganga river originates at the Milam glacier (at 5000 m ASL) and merges with the Kali River at an altitude of 600 m at Jauljib. The proposed dam site is located at 30° 09’ 56.39’’ N latitude and 80° 15’ 8.6’’ E longitude at 1720 meter elevation. The power house is located at 30° 09’ 23.37’’ N latitude and 80° 16’ 14.55’’ E longitude at 1258 meter elevation. Maps showing locations of the proposed RKHPP and its various components are enclosed as Appendix‐III. Tibet lies to the north of the valley, and Nepal lies in the southeast (Kali river forming the Indo‐Nepal boundary). To the west of the basin is Chamoli District, and higher reaches of the Nandadevi Biosphere Reserve form the boundary here. The basin extends over 2240 km2 (WII report, 2003). The area is in Zone 5 seismicity.

4

3.3 Project surroundings: The power house site of the proposed HPP is located at approx. 5 km distance from the Munshiyari town (headquarters of the Munshiyari civil Sub‐Division) having population (as per 2001 census) of 4,348. All major components of the projects viz. HRT, surge shaft, pressure shaft, penstock, power house complex, TRT, muck disposal site and a road to be constructed to connect these project components are located on eastern flank of the Goriganga river. On the western side of the river, a road running almost parallel to the river bed is presently being constructed by the BRO. A 1.80 km long approach road to connect BRO road with dam site is the only project component proposed to be located on western side of the river.

In between dam site and the TRT exit, four perennial streams as per details given below joins the Goriganga river:

Sl. Approx. Distance Name of stream River Bank No. from dam axis 1 Tallachira Nallah Right Bank 0.50 km 2 Pehal Gad Left Bank 1.00 km 3 Jimia Gad Right Bank 3.50 km 4 Surin Gad Right Bank 6.00 km

Few seasonal streams, such as, Chambukhola, Kultham Gad, Philyani nallah and Mungradhar also join the Goriganga river between the dam site and TRT exit.

Between the dam and power house sites of the proposed project, on eastern side of the river, where most of the project components of the RKHPP are proposed to be constructed, seven villages are located with 2 km distance from the river bank. Similarly two villages are located on western side of the river within 2 km distance from the river bank. Names and population (as per 2001 census) of these villages are as below:

Eastern Bank Western Bank

Name of Village Population Name of Village Population

Patoun 211 Dhummar 377

Bhui 276 Khasiabara 124

Kultham 140

Falyangi 112

5 Ugarali 13

Uchhayati 124

Basant Kot 215

Apart from the above, between dam and power site of the proposed HPP, another 16 villages, as per details given below, are located within 2 to 10 km distance on both eastern and western sides the Goriganga river:

Eastern Bank Western Bank Name of Village Population Name of Village Population Dhillam 140 Lilam 25 Fafa 271 Saibhat 244 Bhatkuda 139 Qurigimia 338 Dhuratoli 180 Dhapa 365 Bhonthi 149 Dharanti 308 Dhuriyadunga 57 Telikot 14 Teli 23 Matyali 17 Kainthi 21 Gopalbara 106

The nearest Protected Area i.e., Askot Wildlife Sanctuary is located at approx. 11 km distance from the project site. The boundary of the Nanda Devi National Park, one among the two core zones of the Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve (NDBR) is located at approx. 12.50 km aerial distance from the project site. The Valley of Flower National Park, another core zone of the NDBR is located at approx. 85 km aerial distance from the project site. The site therefore lies in a region that is vital for maintaining the connectivity between important mid‐ to high‐altitude wildlife regions.

3.4 Flora: The Goriganga basin originates at the Milam glacier (at 5000 m ASL). The initial part of the river flows through reaches of alpine grasslands and meadows, descending into the tree‐line at around 3,500 m ASL. Vegetation composition varies along the sharp altitude gradient of the region and distinct groups of 200 m elevation bands are present. These groups comprise of Subtropical (between 800 to <1400 m),

6 lower temperate (1400 to <2200), mid‐temperate (2200 to <2600), upper‐temperate (2600 to <3000), and sub‐alpine (3000‐3400 m) (sensu WII report, 2003).

The area in and around the project site contains lower temperate forests. In the area in and around the project site, average crown density of the crop available on eastern side of the Goriganga river is comparatively higher than the same on western side of the river where most of the project components are located. As shown in the photographs enclosed as Appendix‐IV, the project site mainly contains open degraded forests interspersed with habitations, terraced agriculture fields and few patches of moderately dense forest.

Legal status of the forest land proposed for diversion is the civil forest land (140.306 hectares) and the van panchayat forest (77.216 hectares) under administrative control of the Revenue department in the State Government of Uttarakhand.

3.5 Terrestrial Fauna: During short visit it was not feasible for us to quantify abundance of wildlife in and around the project site. The local residents and the local forest officials with whom team interacted during the visit denied presence of any endangered species of wildlife in and around the project site. The local Divisional Forest Officer confirmed that during the last three years he did not receive even a single application to seek compensation for damage to human life, livestock and crop by wild animals in any of the villages located in close vicinity of the project site. However, as mentioned previously the DFO Working Plan stated that bear attacks had been reported even recently in the area, and confirmed the presence of wildlife such as goral, leopard etc. We believe that some of the people who met us were obviously pre‐arranged gatherings, and said that there was absolutely no wildlife in the area whatsoever. Some of the locals we interviewed separately stated that livestock depredation by leopard was still common. Further, personal communications with reputed scientists from WII, who have worked extensively in the area (Dr. G.S. Rawat & Dr. Rashid Raza) clearly indicate that the area around the project site harbors many wildlife species and also forms an important corridor for animal movement.

The available literature reveals that the area upstream of the project site, especially the upper reaches of the Goriganga basin is a habitat for many endangered wildlife species. The steep grassy slopes en route to Malla Johar have scattered populations of Himalayan tahr (Hemitragus jemlahicus) and Himalayan goral (Naemorhedus goral bedfordi). Many of the side valleys around this altitude (<3000m) are densely wooded, and harbour serow (Capricornis thar), Asiatic black bear (Ursus tibethanus), wild pig (Sus scrofa), barking deer (Muntiacus muntjac), Himalayan langur (Semnopithecus entellus), common leopard (Panthera pardus), jungle cat (Felis chaus), and Himalayan Yellow‐ throated marten (Martes flavigula).

As per the available literature inner Johar region is wider and more extensive compared to the Badrinath valley. Very few faunal surveys have been conducted in this area. Brief

7 accounts of the wildlife of the area can however be found in the book ‘Alpine Meadows of Uttaranchal’, by Dr. G.S. Rawat from the Wildlife Institute of India. Beyond the tree‐ line there are extensive alpine meadows, which are typical Blue sheep ‐ Snow leopard country, flagship species for the high‐altitude Himalayas. The elusive Snow leopard has been sighted in the area (G.S. Rawat, pers. comm.). In addition, other high‐altitude species such as the Red fox (Vulpes vulpes), Siberian weasel (Mustela sibirica), Himalayan marmot (Marmota himalayana), and pika are also reported frequently. Dr. G.S. Rawat reported the Tibetan woolly hare (Lepus oiostolus) from Lapthal area for the first time in Uttarakhand, and mentioned the same in his book ‘Alpine Meadows of Uttaranchal’. The upper reaches of the project site also harbors a good population of the endangered Himalayan musk deer (Moschus leucogaster).

3.6 Avifauna: The EIA report prepared by the WAPCOS to obtain Environment Clearance for the RKHPP reports presence of only 8 bird species. However, as per the existing literature a total of 228 bird species in 30 families and 118 genera, representing more than 45% of the breeding bird diversity of the Western Himalaya and nearly 55% of breeding bird species of the Kumaon Himalaya are recorded in the region. Ten species of pheasants are found in the area, including Himalayan monal, and the Koklass pheasant, and several other altitudinal migrants. This assemblage represents 6 out of seven West Himalayan endemics found in Kumaon.

3.7 Aquatic fauna: The river Goriganga is known to be a major breeding ground for Mahaseer fish, which migrate against the stream flow during monsoon and return with the decrease in water levels. This upward migration and breeding will be hampered if the river flow is blocked due to dam construction. It has been brought to our attention by the local forest officials that the minimum discharge from the dam will be insufficient to enable successful Mahaseer migration. Forest officials also observe that this phenomenon has already been seen in Dhauli Ganga East, where after construction of NHPC dam, river fish populations have suffered drastic declines. Lack of fish in the river also compromises food and livelihood security of numerous downstream villages, which are completely dependent on daily catch of fish for sale and subsistence.

3.8. Kailash Sacred Landscape Initiative: The proposed site of the HPP also falls within the Kailash Sacred Landscape, a cross border initiative of the Governments of India and Nepal to secure the biodiversity and cultural values of the Himalayan regions. The Goriganga water shed contains nearly one‐third of this designated landscape (GBPIHED report, 2010), and is an important river feeding the Kali. The Goriganga basin also has the maximum glacier area of nearly 560 km2.

4. Potential ecological impacts of the RKHPP: Hydro power projects involve extensive civil work at the project site. Construction of dam, HRT, TRT, surge shaft, approach road, power house and other civil structures involve deployment of heavy machinery and large number of skilled and unskilled personnel for a substantial period of time which may run into several years. The disturbance caused by this sudden, heavy influx of

8 people, consequent continued, increased use of natural resources, and increase in noise levels and human‐presence will be a disturbance to local wildlife.

The potential impacts of the proposed project may be divided into following two categories:

4.1 Pre‐commission impacts

4.1.1 Increased Human Presence: Construction of the HPP will require deployment of large number of skilled and unskilled persons in and around the project site for a period of approx. 64 months. At its peak, number of persons employed at the project site may be as high as 2500. Provision of appropriate lodging, boarding and other support facilities to these persons will put pressure on local resources and thus will have direct and indirect impacts on flora and fauna in and around the project site.

4.1.2 Increased Risk of Land Slide: Though the project proponent has submitted that user agency has informed that as per the National Bureau of Soil Survey and Land Use Planning maps the project site is located in slight to moderate erosion zone. However, during visit to the project site the team was informed that geo‐exploratory drilling at the project site by NTPC had triggered a land slide. The extensive drilling for construction of underground structures such as TRT, surge shaft, penstock etc. and construction of roads at the project site may trigger landslides.

4.1.3 Use of Building Materials: It has been brought to our notice that construction of the dam, the power‐house, and other infrastructure will require about 1,30,000 m³ of coarse aggregate, 50,000 m³ of fine aggregate and 1,15,000 m³ of sand. Rocks for this will be taken from two quarries on the river, and boulders, cobble‐stones, gravel and sand will be taken from the river‐bed. Collection of building materials from the river bed might affect river bed habitat of aquatic and riparian fauna.

4.1.4 Impact on endangered and rare birds: The species‐rich areas occur in the middle part of the gradient of the Goriganga, and this is precisely the zone where the current project is proposed. The area also harbors a good representation of Himalayan bird species endemics, threatened Himalayan birds, and birds of otherwise uncommon occurrence (WII report, 2003). Presence in the study area of large assemblage of birds (81 species) listed as ‘biome restricted’ by the Birdlife International representing three global biomes makes it a strong candidature for inclusion in the Important Bird Areas (IBA) program.

5.1.5 Impact on endangered and rare mammals: The proposed project lies within the central region of the Goriganga basin and harbors the endangered Himalayan musk deer, serow, and goral amongst other species. The destruction caused by construction and functioning of the dam and the power house will wipe out the habitat for these

9 species. Further, human disturbance will compromise animals from using a large chunk of the area surrounding the project. The high‐elevation forests and meadows in and around the proposed project area is snow leopard country, and is also home to blue sheep, marmots, weasels, and pikas. Infrastructure construction on a large‐scale, as is required for the HPP will destroy valuable sub‐alpine, alpine, and temperate forest habitats for these species. The landslides, a serious anticipated problem will further compromise the habitat. The reduced flow in the river will increase accessibility to the forests and increase disturbance and extraction. Many animals like leopard, Himalayan black bear, Yellow‐throated marten etc use the lower reaches of these mountains and come down to the river. Representatives of Van Panchayat of Patoun village confirm large number of livestock depredations in the area from leopard and Black bear. The movements of these animals will be compromised with the constructions and associated habitat loss. This in effect will lead to the area becoming increasingly fragmented for the movement of various wildlife species, especially disturbance‐sensitive mammals.

4.1.4 Cumulative impacts of Rupiasagar‐Khasiyabara HPP and other proposed projects on the river basin: It has been brought to our attention by local forest officials that there are a series of dams proposed in the Goriganga both downstream and upstream of the present NTPC proposal (GBPIHED report, 2010). Some of the petitioners submitted that in case this project is given clearance, then all the other projects will have stronger grounds to seek clearance. This will severely compromise the natural flow, hydrology, and ecology of the Goriganga. The river forms a natural barrier protecting the forests on Ghandhura on the other side, and wildlife on both sides of the river. After the diversion of water, the reduced flow would make the river accessible to cross at several fjords. This might result in massive destruction of Ghandhura forests of Askot range, which currently remains largely pristine and untouched.

4.2 Post Commissioning impacts

4.2.1 Reduction/ Fluctuation of the water flow: After commissioning of the project, the water will be temporarily stored in the reservoir and will be diverted through a tunnel to meet peak load requirement. Diversion of water through the tunnel will severely reduce the flow of water in portion of the river located between dam and the TRT exit. Intra‐ day flow pattern in portion of the river located downstream of the TRT will also be significantly affected by temporary storage of the water by the dam. Unless minimum flow to support and sustain ecological functions such as breeding, migration etc. in portion of the river located between dam site and TRT exit is maintained, the project may have significant impact on aquatic life in the project especially for the seasonal migration and movement of fish and other aquatic fauna.

4.2.2 Reduction in river flow resulting in increased access to vulnerable forests: Downstream of the proposed project, the Goriganga passes through the Askot Wildlife

10 Sanctuary, the boundary of which is around 11 km from the project site. It has been argued by some of the petitioners that the river forms a natural barrier protecting the forests on Ghandhura on the other side, and wildlife on both sides of the river. After the diversion of water, fluctuation in the river flow would make the river accessible to cross at several points. This might result in massive destruction of Ghandhura forests of Askot range, which currently remains largely pristine and untouched.

4.2.3 Silting: In rivers of glacial origin there is a possibility of large amounts of silt in the flow, especially during the rains. This can severely compromise the hydrology of the region and the safety of the dam itself. The large glacial catchment of the Goriganga (GBPIHED report, 2010) makes it especially vulnerable to the effects of large‐scale silting.

5. Extent of the Impacts: The extent of area likely to be affected by pre‐commissioning and post commissioning impacts of the project are as below:

5.1 Extent of the area likely to be affected by pre‐commissioning impacts: The pre‐ commissioning impacts of the project will mainly be limited to the area in and around close vicinity of the project site. Impact on flora and fauna available in the area located upstream of the reservoir, especially the higher reaches of the Goriganga basin, which is important habitat for several species of endangered wildlife, will almost be nil as no project related activity is proposed to be undertaken in the area upstream of the dam.

Keeping in view that during the construction phase there will not be any alteration in flow pattern of the river, the project is not likely to not have any significant impact on flora and fauna located downstream of the dam site also.

5.2 Extent of the area likely to be affected by the post‐commissioning impacts: Once construction of civil structures for the project is completed and the project is commissioned, deployment of skilled and unskilled persons at the project site will be substantially reduced. Activities at the project site will be limited to the plant operation, which essentially is regulation of water flow (through turbines) and periodic maintenance. Once the project is commissioned, only 80 persons (both skilled and unskilled) will be required to be deployed at the project site for its operation and maintenance. Impact of project on the terrestrial flora and fauna, in and around the project site will thus be minimal. Diversion of water through the tunnel will however adversely affect migration and breeding of Mahseer and other aquatic fauna in the portion of the river located between dam site and TRT exit. Although the impact of diversion of water through tunnel on the stretch of river located between dam site and power house site will be limited to the 3 km stretch of the river located between the dam and power house site, storage of water in the dam and consequent variation in flow pattern in the stretch of the river located downstream of the project site will affect the aquatic fauna available therein.

11 7. Overall assessment and recommendations: The RKHPP is one of the six major Hydro Power Projects proposed to be constructed on the Goriganga river. All other projects except RKHPP are at the conceptual stage. With respect to RKHPP, important pre‐ construction activities such as survey, exploration, DPR preparation etc. have already been completed. All major clearances such as techno economic clearance (TEC) from the Central Electricity Authority (CEA), defence clearance from the Ministry of Defence and environment clearance from the Ministry of Environment & Forests for this project being implanted by the NTPC, a reputed Public Sector Undertaking (PSU) have been obtained. However, the grounds on which the FAC had earlier rejected the project still hold good and we maintain that the project will harm an important wildlife corridor.

We would like to make the following recommendations after our visit and post‐visit assessments:

Keeping in mind the ecological value of the region in terms of the vast altitudinal diversity of flora and fauna, the presence of rare and threatened species of orchids (GBPIHED report, 2010), and the importance of the area as valuable wildlife habitat, the proposed RKHPP area is not devoid of ecological and wildlife values as was implied by some groups we met, as well claimed in the proposal for forest clearance. Further, the NTPC has not taken into accounts the effects of silting and erosion.

Although the NTPC claimed that no rare or endangered flora and fauna are found in the region, literature surveys, and personal communications with scientists who have worked in the area have clearly shown that the proposed site is indeed a valuable biodiversity location with many plants, orchids, birds, and mammals belonging to the rare, endangered, or threatened classification. Further, the project lies in the ecologically important zone between the Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve and the Askot Wildlife Sanctuary (GBPIHED report, 2010) and likely is a wildlife corridor.

Apart from the RKHPP, five major and several small HPPs are proposed to be executed on the Goriganga and its tributaries. Some of these projects are located in or in close vicinity of the wildlife rich upper reaches of the Goriganga catchment and Askot Wildlife Sanctuary. It is suggested that the State Government of Uttarakhand may be asked to undertake comprehensive study through a multidisciplinary team from reputed independent academic institutions to assess cumulative impacts of the existing, under‐ construction and proposed HPPs in the entire Goriganga river basin. All hydroelectric projects proposed in the region should only be considered by MoEF for environmental and forest clearance on the basis of such a detailed cumulative impact studies.

In summary, in view of the overall wildlife and biodiversity value and ecological and geological sensitivity of the region we strongly recommend that the Rupsiyabagar‐ Khasiyabara HPP should not be accorded Forest Clearance. We endorse the earlier decision of the FAC to reject the project proposal.

12 References:

1. Chaudhary HC. 2012. Brief Note on Proposal Seeking Prior Approval of Central Government Under The Forest (Conservation) Act 1980 For Diversion of Forest Land Required for Construction of Rupsiabagar Khasiapara Hydroelectric Project.

2. Foundation for Ecological Security. 2003. A biodiversity log and strategy input document for the Gori river basin, Western Himalaya. Submitted to Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India.

3. G.B. Pant Institute of Himalayan Environment and Development. 2010. Kailash Sacred Landscape Initiative. Feasibility Assessment Report: India. Submitted to Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India.

4. Mathur VB, Gaston KJ, Raza RH. 2003. Diversity and rarity in floral and avifaunal assemblages in the Western Himalaya: A study of patterns and mechanisms to devise viable biodiversity conservation strategies. Wildlife Institute of India report.

5. Petitions to Members of the Forest Advisory Committee from the people inhabiting Goriganga river basin – site of the proposed project. Dated – 14.3.2008, 12.2.2010, and 15.5.2012.

6. Letter (via email) sent to the Members of the Forest Advisory Committee from Deputy Conservator of Forests (Working Plan), Pithoragarh Forest Division, Uttarakhand.

13 APPENDIX ‐ I

Representations Received During the Visit of the Committee

1. Shri Devendra Singh Deva, Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Kwarijimia and Chairman, Gram Pradhan Organization, Munshiyari (Pithoragarh).

2. Shri Ramnarayan K. – Co‐ Coordinator, Kumaon, Uttarakhand Save the River Campaign and Shri E. Theophilus..

3. Shri Rudra Singh, Block Head, All India Kisan Mahasabha, Munshiyari.

4. Shri R.S. Wawat, Member, V.D. A.C.

5. Joint Representation by Sarpanch, Van Panchayat, Basantkot; Sarpanch, Van Panchayat, Talla Chheeja; Chairman, Mahila Mangal Dalm, Basantkot and several other persons.

6. Joint representation from Chairman, Malla Johar Vikas Samiti, Post, Munshiyari, District Pithoragarh and several other persons.

7. Shri Pramod Kumar Dwivedi, Division Head, Bhartiya Janata Party, Munshiyari, District‐ Pithoragarh.

Representations Received After the Visit of the Committee 1. The Divisional Forest Officer, Pithoragarh Forest Division, Pithoragarh. 2. The Sub‐ Divisional Officer (Civil), Munshiyari Civil Sub‐Division, Munshiyari. 3. Divisional Forest Officer, Working Plan Division, Pithoragarh. 4. Shri Prahlad Singh, Van Panchayat, Lilam, Munshiyari. 5. Sarpanch, Mahila Van Panchayat, Paikuti . 6. Sarpanch, Van Panchayat, Teli Kathi 7. Sarpanch, Van Panchayat, Chona.

14 APPENDIX ‐ II

The value of the project, the potential impacts and other relevant local factors are captured well in a letter to the FAC, via e‐mail, made by a local Forest Working Plan Officer. The submission letter inter alia states:

“I would like to inform you that maximum persons who attended your meeting were brought by the persons lobbying for the project including the MLA Mr.Harish Dhami, all of whom are interested to do mining in the river to supply sand and boulders for the project (which they term as employment generation). The DFO Pithorgarh also did not attend the consultation or participate in the visit. The SDO who attended is also an in/charge officer actually in the rank of a Range officer. Many villagers who oppose the project did not know about your visit and nor had time to reach the site after they come to know about your visit after seeing the helicopter. I also did not know about your visit, otherwise I would also have rushed to the spot to accompany you. I regret to inform you that I have come to know that you were taken only to the powerhouse site and not to the dam site proper by road. The road under construction to Milam from Munsyari is one of the living example of how much destruction is caused by any activity in this extremely fragile zone. Had they taken you to the dam site by road and trek, the actual amount of destruction would have been visible. Between the dam site and the powerhouse site, there are several active landslides. The landslide just below village Kultham is a major example where the smallest vibration can bring down the whole village. The village of Jimia has already completely been destroyed by landslide. The town of Madkot was partially washed away in a flash flood 10 years ago. The area is in Zone 5 seismicity. The construction activity may give short term employment to the villagers, but will deprive the villagers of their whole village in the near future. The Gori ganga river is one the major breeding ground for Mahaseer fish, which migrate against the stream flow during monsoons and return with the decrease in water levels. This upward migration and breeding would be blocked if the river flow is blocked and the minimum discharge would be insufficient for this phenomenon. The same thing has happened in Dhauli Ganga East where after construction of NHPC dam, there is no fish in the river anymore. So, this is also an issue of food security of numerous poor villagers who are completely dependent on daily catch of fish for their own use, especially in the downstream. The villagers are also thrilled for the heavy compensation they would receive for their village lands in lieu of the project, though majority of these village lands have been abandoned long back and most of the actual owners of the land has out migrated to the towns and the plains. WAPCOS, Gurgaon has conducted the EIA for the project, which is a completely fraud report. There are around 300 species of birds in Munsyari area whereas they have mentioned only 8 species. The area is very rich in wildlife which is evident from the increasing incidences of Bear attack in the surroundings. Several Ghorals, leopards, 10 species of pheasants, etc. are found in the surrounding areas. The upper reaches of the

15 dam site also harbours a good population of musk deers who remain protected by the water barrier in the river. There are a series of dams proposed in the Gori ganga both downstream and upstream of the present NTPC proposal. If this project is given clearance, then all the other projects would also be subsequently cleared and then there will be no more Gori Ganga. The downstream of the Goriganga passes through the Askot wildlife sanctuary, the boundary of which is just around 10 km from the project site. The river forms a natural barrier acting as a protection to the forests on Ghandhura on the other side and numerous wildlife on both sides of the river. After the diversion of water, the reduced waterflow would make crossing the river possible at several fjords and would result in massive destruction of Ghandhura forests of Askot range, which otherwise is to a large extent pristine and untouched. The upstream of the Goriganga has the largest alpine meadows in the region which is rich in variety of flora and fauna. It is necessary to make local people aware of the disaster awaiting their lifes and not to believe and follow the words of the MLA, who is just a child. The forests of Munsyari and surrounds are already under great pressure from daily urban needs of fuel wood and timber and also grazing of cattle to supply milk to the Munsyari market. The increasing inflow of tourists has aggravated this pressure. The starting of the dam would convert Munsyari into a major city like Dharchula and if this happens, all the surronding forests will become history in matter of a few years.”

From, Deputy Conservator of Forests (Working Plan) Pithoragarh Forest Division

16 APPENDIX ‐ III

Maps showing locations of the proposed Rupsiyabagar‐Khasiyabara dam and power house in the Goriganga basin

1. Google earth image of the landscape around the project site

17

2. Map showing location of dam and power house on the Goriganga

3. Location of proposed dam and roads superimposed upon an image of the area

18

4. Proposed bridge, switchyard, and power house downstream of the dam

19 APPENDIX ‐ IV

Pictures of the habitat around the proposed Rupsiyabagar‐Khasiyabara dam and power house in the Goriganga basin

These pictures were taken during the inspection conducted by the FAC sub‐committee to the project site

1. Intact forest on the slopes around the Goriganga river

20

2. Intact riverine habitat in the Goriganga river at the project area

3. River bed at the project area

21

4. Erosion from road building activities

5. Mid‐elevation forests surrounding the dam site

22

6. Forest in the area between the proposed dam and power house

7. High‐altitude sub‐alpine forests and alpine meadows around the project site

23

8. Munshiyari town and valley with high‐elevation habitats in the background

9. Goriganga valley and surrounding high‐altitude sub‐alpine and alpine habitat

24

10. Aerial view of typical erosion that occurs over time along roads in the region

25