Environment ministry panel relies on 'false, outdated data' to review Sharavathy project

Bengaluru: An apex body of the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) looking into the proposal to build a power project in Sharavathy Lion Tailed Macaque sanctuary took into consideration ‘false and outdated data’ while deliberating on the project during its meeting on October 27, it is said.

This is the second time the Forest Advisory Committee (FAC) has looked into the project, after discussing its salient features on July 30.

Also, the committee has ignored the blatant errors made by KPCL and the corrections made after the errors were pointed out by the MoEF&CC.

The biggest of the errors pertains to the cost benefit ratio calculated by the Karnataka Power Corporation Limited (KPCL). Earlier this year, MoEF&CC had expressed surprise at the exorbitantly high cost benefit ratio of 1:2,643.25.

The agency later reduced it to 1:75. The FAC continued its meeting based on the previous numbers.

“There is a huge difference to earning Rs 75 for every Re 1 invested and previously claiming to earn Rs 2,643.25 per every rupee. Even the revised claim needs to be thoroughly reviewed. It’s surprising that the FAC didn’t notice the drastic reduction,” an activist said.

Secondly, the committee accepted the claim that ‘there are no protected archeological monuments, heritage sites... or important historical landmarks within the project area”.

The claim has been disputed by residents who have noted that four monuments listed by Archeological Survey of India were located in the vicinity of the project.

The state government had replied that building tunnel roads - as an alternative to surface roads - to access the power house would disturb nearly 28 acres of land compared to the 16 acres needed for widening the existing road from 3.5 to 5 metres.

The state pointed to portal openings, cut and cover segments and entry/exit points for the additional requirement of land. In the end, the FAC deferred the project, citing the direction by the National Board of Wildlife for a site inspection.

It asked the state government to submit a copy of the report on the site visit as well as a report on the wildlife mitigation plan.

‘KPCL failed to assess cumulative impact’ 

The FAC however observed that KPCL has failed to do a cumulative impact assessment and a carrying capacity study.

“It (response by KPCL) does not highlight the cumulative impact of the projects existing and upcoming hydro-power projects in the basin and carrying capacity of the river basin. So the agency may be directed to take up both the studies as part of the environmental impact assessment (EIA) report” the committee said. 

It said the project components fall within an area moderately prone to earthquakes (seismic zone 3) and the construction activities will cause significant soil erosion habitat fragmentation and disturbance.

However the FAC didn’t make any observations on the possible impact of drilling and blasting even though KPCL has submitted that 18000 tonnes of industrial explosives will be utilised for the project.