Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 77 views

    Presentation 2 5

    Uploaded by

    krishbist
    The document summarizes reports from the Geological Survey of India on landslides that occurred in 5 districts of Uttarakhand, India following heavy rainfall and flooding in June 2013. Over 274 landslide incidents were recorded and the reports analyze the causes and make recommendations. The reports found that the majority of landslides involved movement of loose surface materials and were triggered by erosion from rising river water levels caused by the extreme rainfall. The reports did not find any evidence that hydroelectric projects contributed to the disaster.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Presentation 2 5

    Uploaded by

    krishbist
    77 views28 pages
    The document summarizes reports from the Geological Survey of India on landslides that occurred in 5 districts of Uttarakhand, India following heavy rainfall and flooding in June 2013. Over 274 landslide incidents were recorded and the reports analyze the causes and make recommendations. The reports found that the majority of landslides involved movement of loose surface materials and were triggered by erosion from rising river water levels caused by the extreme rainfall. The reports did not find any evidence that hydroelectric projects contributed to the disaster.

    Original Description:

    p2

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document summarizes reports from the Geological Survey of India on landslides that occurred in 5 districts of Uttarakhand, India following heavy rainfall and flooding in June 2013. Over 274 landslide incidents were recorded and the reports analyze the causes and make recommendations. The reports found that the majority of landslides involved movement of loose surface materials and were triggered by erosion from rising river water levels caused by the extreme rainfall. The reports did not find any evidence that hydroelectric projects contributed to the disaster.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    77 views28 pages

    Presentation 2 5

    Uploaded by

    krishbist
    The document summarizes reports from the Geological Survey of India on landslides that occurred in 5 districts of Uttarakhand, India following heavy rainfall and flooding in June 2013. Over 274 landslide incidents were recorded and the reports analyze the causes and make recommendations. The reports found that the majority of landslides involved movement of loose surface materials and were triggered by erosion from rising river water levels caused by the extreme rainfall. The reports did not find any evidence that hydroelectric projects contributed to the disaster.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 28

    Advance in South-West Monsoon-2013

    Advance of South-West Monsoon-2013


    GSI has submitted Interim Reports (for the five districts) to the Chief
    Secretary, Govt. of Uttarakhand in January, 2014.

    In all a total of 67 villages have been geological assessed, about 274


    incidences of landslides have been recorded and 1000 line kilometer of
    stretches along National Highways and state Highways have been assessed.

    The detailed parametric sheets for the landslide incidences mention all the
    physical geological, structural and morphological attributes about them.
    Short and long-term remedial measures for the treatment of landslide zones
    and affected stretches of National Highways and State highways have been
    recommended.

    Majority of the incidences involve movement of the overburden material


    and not of insitu rock (Blasted or even fractured by blasting)

    Out of 274 incidences 100 have been recorded in Bageshwar District where
    at present major and minor hydroprojects are not under construction
    In Rudraprayag District there are few major slide zones in Mandakini, Kali
    Ganga and Madhyamaheshwar valleys where no hydroproject is under
    construction

    Landslide zones on the left and right banks of Mandakini river between
    Gaurikund and Kedarnath (No road or Hydroproject in the Stretch)

    Landslide Zone near Jagi Bedula villages in Madhyamaheshwar valley.

    Landslide zone below Kunjethi village and Landslide zone at Kabilta


    village in Kali valley

    Which HRT passes below these locations ???????

    A number of landslides have been reported in Pindar valley and well known
    Harmani Landslide was reactivated (No hydroproject there)
    The cause of disaster as enumerated in the reports of different districts is
    mentioned as under:-
    Rudraprayag District
    The deluge 16th and 17th June 2013 at Kedarnath and other areas along
    Mandakini valley was the result of heavy and incessant downpour during the
    period and the breach of Glacial Lake Outburst Flood (GLOF) of Chorabari lake.
    The rill markes on the surface of icepace of Companion and Chorabari glaciers
    clearly indicate the unusual rainfall at that elevation (> 1200 feet) (para IV page
    62).

    Chamoli district
    It is observed that the main causative factor responsible for triggering landslide
    of Alaknanda valley is tow erosion by the river during flashflood. The flashflood
    in Alaknanda was a result of breach of temporary damming at the confluence of
    Khairon ganaga and Alaknanda. The temporary damming was due to
    accumulation of debris carried down by Khairon Ganga (Para III, page 20).
    Uttarkashi District

    The main factors responsible for triggering of the landslides are


    abnormal down pour, toe cutting, saturation of slope forming
    material and anthropogenic activities (para III, page 28). The
    report also mentions about heavy to very heavy rainfall (180 mm
    on 17th June 2013) in Uttarkashi and it states that consequent
    upon the prolonged rains in the catchment, Bhagirathi and its
    tributaries caused devastating flashflood.

    Bageshwar District

    The rainfall data pertaining to 2013 shows that the Bageshwar


    area received exceptionally heavy precipitation i.e. 600.83 mm
    and 509.83 mm in the month of June and July respectively,
    partially due to cloud burst. This appear to be a major factor for
    triggering the landslides (para ii,page 23).
    Pithoragarh District

    The effects of very high precipitation in the higher reaches of


    Uttarakhand between 15th and 18th June 2013, were felt through
    uncontrolled glacial descend, cloudburst, floods and uncontrolled
    discharge (para 4, page 43).

    The water level in the rivers rose significantly by (10-15 m) in


    narrow river stretches and 5-6 m in wider sections. Such was the
    volume of water that narrow river sections (say 20 m) were
    widened to as much as 50-70m as a result of bank erosion in short
    time (para 6, page 43).
    Historical Perspective

    Ref: R. K. Bhandari IGJ, 1987


    The above graph clearly demonstrates that the present trends
    are in line with those recorded in the past

    It corroborates the inferences drawn in GSI reports


    Scenario in Uttarakhand

    DMMC GOUK has prepared a list of about 450 villages which


    have been reportedly damaged due to Natural Disaster.

    Geological Assessment of about 90 such villages has been


    completed in 2008 -2009 by GSI, WIHG and DMMC.

    NRSC/IIRS has already prepared an inventory map indicating


    areas for potential landslides along Chardham Yatra Routes.

    GSI has published an Inventory of Landslides in North


    Western Himalayas in 2005 which includes location and
    information about landslides in different parts of Uttarakhand.
    The well known landslides in Uttarakhand e.g Gohana Tal (Rock slide) in Birahi
    Ganga (1893),

    Sirohbagad (Kaliyasaur 1920),

    Patalganga (1970),

    Mansuna (1998),

    Pakhi,

    Tangni,

    Patalganga,

    Ganai ,

    Darmi,

    Kandai Slide (right bak of Balasuti river opposite to Gopeshwar),


    Lambagar,

    Baldaura,

    Parsari

    A-T Nala,

    Karchon Slide (upstram of Dhaknala)

    Narayanbagad slide zone in Pindar,

    Phali (Chuphla gad tributary of Nandakini river)near Ghat,

    Slide zone near Tharali on the left bank of Pindar,

    Burjola on the left bank of Pinadr d/s of Devsari,

    Khanera and Kharsali in Yamuna,

    Kalindi Parvat slide ,

    Bhaironjhap Nala ,
    Kanauldia Gad (1978)

    Bhatwari (1998,)

    Charethi (2010, 2012)

    Sainj (2010)

    Dabrani in Bhagirathi (1970s),

    Ramolsari in Uttarkashi (2005),

    Jogath road slide in the left bank of Bhagirathi,

    Sukhi Dhang,

    Malpa,

    La-Jhakela, Landslide between Kwiti and Thal

    Khumti Khataunj
    Majority of the incidences are old ones when no hydroproject was
    being developed.

    Reactivation of some old incidences is happening along present


    highway locations. But still there are incidences away from the
    road and far away from hydroprojects

    Whether NO ROAD
    Compromise with Border Security
    NO INFRASTRUCTURE

    NO HYDROPROJECT

    is the only sustainable development model for Future


    Uttarakhand and Himalayan states at Large???
    From the five reports of GSI and the Historical Perspective of
    Landslides in Himalayas following conclusions can be drawn

    Maximum number of landslides incidences have been recorded on the


    slopes occupied by overburden material viz. slope wash material, old
    slide material and river Borne Material (RBM).

    Majority of the landslides have been triggered due to toe erosion by the
    rivers.

    Toe erosion on the slopes was induced by the raised water level and the
    rolling debris/ boulders.

    The water level in all the major rivers and their tributaries was raised
    mainly by heavy to very heavy precipitation (between 15th and 18th June
    2013) or cloud burst.

    The flashflood in Mandakini valley was due to heavy incessant rainfall


    and due to the breach of morain dammed Chorabari lake (Gandhi
    Sarovar). Damage at Kedarnath town and other areas in Mandakini
    valley was due to the flashflood in Mandakini river.
    The damage to the network of roads and bridges was caused by slope
    failures owing to toe erosion by the rivers or due to the bank erosion.

    The damage to the stretches of National Highways was more where the
    alignment of road was close (4-10m) to the river level.

    Damages to human habitations and other civil structures was more where
    they were located at lower level terraces of the river (T0-T2).

    Damage to hydroprojects like Phata-Byung, Singloi-Bhatwari (In


    Mandakini), Asiganga SHP (In Bhagirathi), Sobla SHP (in Dhaulganga) is
    due to the raised water levels and sediment load in the rivers.

    None of the Five reports have concluded that hydroprojects have


    contributed to the disaster of June 2013.
    It is thus, amply clear from the reports of GSI that
    hydroelectric projects in Uttarakhand have not played any
    role in the disaster of June 2013.

    The disaster has been due to natural reasons like heavy


    to heavy precipitation, cloud burst and flashflood.

    The hydroelectric project e.g. Tehri Dam Project, in-fact


    minimized the damages along Bhagirathi and Ganga Valley.
    MoWR study - Key conclusions and recommendations

    High discharges in snow-fed rivers can be attributable to:


    Natural occurrences like glacier melt, prolonged heavy rainfall,
    Occurrence of snowfall prior to rainfall, which melted rapidly due to
    rainfall.
    Temporary obstruction in natural lakes and its subsequent breaching etc.
    Toe erosion due to high flood
    Loss of human life directly proportional to Reaction Time
    Loss of property due to encroachment of flood plains
    Existence of Tehri dam reduced the intensity of flood on
    Devprayag and d/s region
    Improper drainage caused instability in the hill slopes, initiating
    landslides
    Debris deposited in the earlier floods, obstructed flow in the
    central portion resulting in the severe erosion of banks causing
    shifting of river course.

    From the above, it is evident that Hydro Power projects are not
    responsible for the catastrophe.

    Flood is a natural disaster and its impact can be minimized


    through proper planning

    MoWR study encouraged to build more no. of storage dams, for


    better flood control
    MYTHS Vs REALITY
    Myth Reality
    1. Cloud Burst It was not a cloud Burst
    (IMD)
    2. Global Warming Climate Change or Climate
    Variability

    3. Fragile Geological and It is applicable for entire


    Ecological Conditions length of Himalaya

    4.Excessive blasting for There is no road between


    construction of roads and Gaurikund and Kedarnath
    hydroprojects and also between Govindghat
    and Hemkund
    Myth Reality
    5. More than 500 Hydroprojects Bhagirathi 4 projects
    under Construction in Bhilangana 3 projects
    Uttarakhand Alaknanda 3 projects
    Dhauli Ganga 4 projects
    Mah 1453 dams (198)
    MP - 793 dams (10)
    Guj 470 dams (97)
    6. Hydroprojects Contributed in But for Tehri dam the magnitude
    the disaster of disaster could have been many
    fold. Hydroprojects instead have
    borne the brunt of disaster
    7. Despite Precise Forecast NRSC website had indicated
    Appropriate timely action not Places like Narendranagar,
    taken Rudraprayag, Kirtinagar,
    Paradox
    There has been a marked but enigmatic change in the trend and
    pattern of rain fall in Uttarakhand in recent years.

    In 2010 maximum rainfall was between 16th 18th September.

    In 2012 maximum rainfall was between 3rd 4th August.

    In 2013 maximum rainfall was between 15th 17th June.

    Rainfall at lower reach (Ghuttu) has been less as compared to


    Kedarnath (12000ft).

    Marks of Rill erosion noticed on the surface of companion glacier


    are perplexing

    IMD states that the excessive rainfall in Uttarakhand was due to


    interference of Eastern and NW systems.

    You might also like