Why would the green tribunal repeatedly arbitrate on projects such as the third bridge over the Mandovi? Obviously, the petitions have judicial relevance and scientific merit. Ecological principles are routinely ignored as prevailing environmental guidelines are thrown to the winds. The following are excerpts of a larger report submitted to GCZMA, as member.
The good news about a third (signature) road bridge that bypasses the capital city came as a solace to everybody. There is no argument that, by and large, commuter traffic will improve and daily traffic jams will wane.
The Mandovi River is probably the only saline water way in the world that is being traversed by three major bridges, all located within a strip of 70 metres only. The third would now be adjusted in the narrow 48 metre space that is left between the two existing bridges. It is such a closely spaced disposition of three parallel bridges that has been the primary concern, in terms of impacts on and geomorphology of the river system.
The bad phase is that the bridge proposal, although discussed in the 99thGCZMA meeting in February 2014, was cleared within a week. Nevertheless, the GCZMA had sought several scientific parameters: (a) Impact on river bank morphology, bathymetry and sedimentation, (b) The flow of current to be regularized by keeping the alignment of column of three bridges uniformly parallel to flow in order to prevent silting. (c) No coffer dams should be constructed in the river. These topics were simply ignored; but the construction started without a basic rapid impact assessment study. And that is why the green tribunal found it fit to pass stringent strictures against the GSIDC and GCZMA.
The uglier aspects merit a thought: (a) The GSIDC had supplied a survey map prepared the Ministry of Shipping in May 2000 and April 2001. Water depth values and bathymetric contours downstream of the bridges are shown, whereas the portion between the existing bridges and the part upstream has been omitted. Therefore, a detailed depth profile upstream of the bridge is not available. (b) A close look at the bathymetry reveals that the maximum depths of the entire surveyed area is 10.4 metres, and are found close to / below the first bridge. In fact, three large depressions (roughly 25m x 25m) are noticed. The nature of these river bed features and possible reasons for their occurrence are not known. It appears that the river channel has deepened, as a 10 metre depth value is not found adjacent to the existing bridges in the NHO chart of 1970. (c) Therefore, if the NHO chart of 1970 and the present river bank morphology and bathymetry are compared, large changes in the geomorphology can be observed. The observations made above are cursory; but these topics have not been tackled from a scientific viewpoint. (d) During the GCZMA site inspection on 25 May 2016, dumping of composite mud / debris consisting of construction waste including cement, metal and plastic components was noted. The opposite river banks fall under the No Development Zone (NDZ) and the mangrove area is classified as CRZ I. As such, discarding of waste in CRZ is a clear violation of CRZ 2011 rules. (e) When the first bridge collapsed in the 1980’s, the entire structure was dismantled. However, a large portion still remains under water at the foot of the first bridge, as concrete chunks are still visible at low tide; such obstacles are bound to affect river flow. (f) Marine estuarine sediments are composed of diverse sessile and mobile benthic communities, and they constitute main food material for pelagic and demersal fish species. Any disturbance in their habitat can have drastic consequences in their wellbeing. Such studies in an area influenced by the construction of a third bridge have been flouted.
The GSIDC has produced an EIA report prepared by a group from Mumbai. The document has no date on it. Also, the names of authors of the report as well as their qualifications and expertise are not mentioned. The report does contain a lot of irrelevant data, but there is no mention about the geomorphology of the river banks or the nature of the river bed. As such, the possible effect of an additional bridge on the Mandovi river system has not been considered. And shockingly, the cover page carries a photograph of the Konkan Railway bridge!
The GSIDC has also submitted a NIO report dated October 2015. The study affirms that the new bridge piers are unlikely to cause any major impact on the local bed morphology. However, the perusal of the report shows that the current measurements were conducted for a period of 8-9 days only. The NIO report does not mention whether the observations can be validated for the entire year. It cannot be deciphered what would the response say during the monsoon when the river discharge is maximum, or say during a (likely or unlikely event) of a flood like situation. Moreover, the disclaimer clearly mentions that the document is not an EIA, and that the team will not take any responsibility. If so, who takes the responsibility in case of eventual impacts due to three closely spaced parallel bridges? In that case, why did the GSIDC commission the report?
In May 2016, the GSIDC submitted another ‘updated EIA report’ to the GCZMA in response to the NGT judgement of 07 April 2016. The EIA is surprisingly dated August 2015, a rather bizarre anomaly!
The report is authored by a scientist (?), assisted by 5 engineers. A list of participants with names and subjects is not given. The lead author is an industrial chemist; the bio-data and expertise of the engineers is not known. As in the initial report by the same firm, there is no discussion about the geomorphology of the river banks, the nature of the river bed, composition of sediment and benthic biodiversity. These topics ought to have formed the core of the EIA. It appears that these anonymous participants do not possess any proficiency in marine geology, marine biology and physical oceanography, so very essential to assess the environmental impacts of a major bridge on the riverine morphology and ecology. Therefore, the document can in no way be considered a marine EIA.
Shockingly, the conclusions of the NIO report of October 2015 have been copied verbatim and inserted at two places midway in this report, without proper pagination and without mentioning the source. Such an unethical conduct in a scientific report would amount to plagiarism. Therefore, the authenticity of the “updated EIA” is dubious.
Therefore, except for the NIO report (not an EIA) which discusses results of current measurements, albeit of a 9 day period, there is no comprehensive multi-disciplinary study related to the impacts of the bridge (old and new) piers on the river system. The bridge project does not have a valid marine EIA.
(Dr Antonio Mascarenhas is a former Scientist, NIO, Goa; former Member, GCZMA, and Member GSBB)
