See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/306106258

Construction of Mandovi bridge III: final report

Technical Report · July 2016

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.1030.4243

CITATIONS READS

0 2,719

1 author:

Antonio Mascarenhas
National Institute of Oceanography
66 PUBLICATIONS   892 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Antonio Mascarenhas on 15 August 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Mandovi Bridge III, Final Report, Mascarenhas, 2016

Construction of Mandovi bridge III – final report

Ref: NGT judgement dated 07 April 2016 (Application 85/2015) (WZ)
A site inspection of the Mandovi bridge III was conducted on 25 May 2016 from the
Patto tourist jetty up to the Porvorim slopes on the opposite river bank. Mr
Raghunath Dhume and Mr Fletcher Fernandes from Goa Coastal Zone Management
Authority (GCZMA), and Mr SP Chodnekar and his team from Goa State
Infrastructure Development Corporation (GSIDC) explained about the on-going
bridge work. Officials from the consultants and contractors were also present. The
site visit did not include the stretch from KTC circle to Merces junction where a
flyover is planned. The purpose of the site visit was a follow-up of the National Green
Tribunal (NGT) judgement dated 07 April 2016, directing the GCZMA to re-visit the
site and ensure that the bridge construction is not affecting the coastal environment.

The alignment of the bridge from Porvorim to KTC circle was initially inspected on 14
February 2014 along Mr Raghunath Dhume, member of GCZMA. Officials /
engineers from GSIDC did not bother to participate in the site visit. Instead, a
technician from the consultant group showed us around; he was not aware of the
intricacies involved in such a massive project.

The proposal came up immediately in the 99th GCZMA meeting that was held on 20
February 2014. Although a project of this magnitude would demand a detailed
presentation and discussion, the proposal was cleared rather quickly, by citing
„public interest‟. An Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) was only talked about.
Nevertheless, the undersigned had raised several issues regarding the possible
impacts of a third bridge on the morphology of river banks, alterations in the
bathymetry, and changes in patterns of sedimentation in the river domain. The Chief
Engineer, Water Resources Department had also intervened. These notes feature in
the minutes of the 99th meeting of GCZMA (Item 1, Case 1.1, page 1).

The project proponents had assured the GCZMA to consult the NIO, Goa, about the
existing data in the public domain. This assurance was not adhered to but simply
ignored. The bridge work started by paying scant respect any prior study, leave
alone a mandatory EIA. The undersigned had in fact warned about the repercussion
if at least a base line study is not entertained. The consequence of haphazard
planning, by following the notion of “nothing will happen”, is the piquant situation that
the GCZMA is in, and the predicament that the entire project has now fallen into.

From the beginning, we had requested for a simple plan showing the position and
the shape / design of the new bridge foundations with respect to the columns of two
existing bridges. Such a plan was never submitted. It was only in March 2016 that
we realised that the shape of pile caps were rectangular, and not circular or elliptical,
as we had expected them to be.

The major concern is the fact that the Mandovi River is probably the only saline
water way in the world that is being traversed by three major bridges, all the three
being located within a strip of 70 metres only. The third, a cable stayed bridge 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

Page 1 of 10
 Mandovi Bridge III, Final Report, Mascarenhas, 2016

the primary concern, in terms of impacts on and geomorphology of the river system,
ever since the new bridge was conceptualized.

In view of the above, the following scientific issues related to the natural and man-
made alterations of the Mandovi ecosystem may be considered:

1. The Mandovi River has undergone maximum anthropogenic interventions and

can thus be considered as the most impacted as compared to all the other
river systems of Goa.

2. The river banks, the Panjim side in particular, have under gone systematic
and continuous modifications almost on a yearly basis since the last four
decades at least. Proliferation of jetties is one such activity. Therefore, it is not
known whether or not, and to what extent, the human actions along the river
banks have affected / impacted the river systems, as described below.

3. If the toposheet of 1964 and the Naval Hydrographic Office (NHO) charts of
1970, 1986, 2007 are physically compared with the present geomorphology,
several clear bathymetric and morphological modifications are evident, since
the year 1970 at least:

a. The tidal sand / mud flats all along the river banks at Miramar, Campal,
Panjim and Patto-Ribandar show distinct changes over time,
b. Accretion of a large sand body at Childrens‟ Park at Campal that has
occurred over the last 45 years is amazing; the source of this sand is
not known.
c. Erosion at Campal started in the late 1980‟s; whether the sand from
here has moved upstream or downstream is not known.
d. The bathymetric contours also seem to have altered based on a
cursory look at the above NHO charts; this aspect needs a proper
scientific investigation.
e. The deeper channel lies towards Ribandar (upstream of the bridge), up
to Reis Magos (downstream of the bridge), whereas a shallower river
bed is found around the bridge.
f. Severe shoaling takes place off Aguada and an annual erosion-
accretion process is observed at Miramar; this feature constitutes the
ever dynamic Miramar sand bar.
g. The Malim – Betim bank is characterized by fringing mangroves at
many places despite several jetties; these trees have grown perhaps
during the last three decades. Comparatively, the Panjim bank is
devoid of vegetation.

4. Therefore, since the Mandovi bridge was built in the 1970‟s and a second one
in 1990, could the piers of two bridges have affected the river flow, and
consequently, the morphology and sediment transport or deposition along its
banks and along the course of the river?

5. There is no scientific research dealing with these riverine issues, although

some papers have been published only on Miramar beach dynamics, and
some on the river sediment geochemistry.

Page 2 of 10
 Mandovi Bridge III, Final Report, Mascarenhas, 2016

6. And now that a third bridge is being built between the existing two bridges, the
long term impact may difficult to visualize, pending a thorough scientific study.

Figure 1 represents the scenario from Miramar to Ribandar that prevailed in 1970.
The geomorphology of the Mandovi river banks as well as the physiography of the
river bed can be deciphered. The maximum depths of 8 metres are noted in the
channel off Betim whereas a depth of 6 metres is found adjacent to the first bridge.
The chart also shows the mud flats along both the banks. The Malim bank is plain
whereas the Patto bank shows a narrow mud flat that was already in existence along
the causeway.

Figure 1. Naval Hydrographic Office (NHO) Chart, 1970.The physiography of the river bed from
Ribandar to Miramar along with the geological features along the Panjim and Betim banks are
depicted. The maximum depth at the bridge site is 6 metres. Note the fishing stakes on either side of
the bridge.

For the sake of comparison (1970 – present), two recent Google Earth (GE) satellite
images are given (Figures 2 and 3). Along the Malim bank, a strip of dense
mangrove trees is found. The patch is about 420 metres long and protrudes to a
maximum of 75 metres into the river. A narrow concrete ramp for small boats is
located within the mangrove fringe. In comparison, the southern (Patto) bank is built-
up. Although a small tourist jetty existed since the last 10 years or so, the structure
has been extended significantly in 2015. The stretch is devoid of vegetation, except
for a few mangroves planted by the Forest Department in the small bay. Here, a mud
flat is evolving into the river, all along the 2.6 km long adjacent causeway up to
Ribandar. Therefore, the northern (Malim) bank and the southern (Patto) bank
present significantly contrasting scenarios (see page 7).

The Goa State Infrastructure Development Corporation (GSIDC) has supplied a map
prepared by BN Sandhya and DSR Satyaprakash from the Ministry of Shipping. The
survey was carried out in May 2000 and April 2001. The map depicts the water depth
values and bathymetric contours downstream of the bridges, up to the Panjim ferry
point. 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.

Page 3 of 10
 Mandovi Bridge III, Final Report, Mascarenhas, 2016

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 need to be confirmed. Based
on this bathymetric map, 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.

Therefore, if the NHO chart of 1970 and the present river bank morphology and
bathymetry are compared, large changes in the physiography can be observed.
Similarly, drastic alterations can be noted all along the Patto – Miramar strip and, to
a lesser extent, from Malim up to Aguada. The observations made above are
cursory; but issue definitely warrants a systematic scientific investigation.

During the site inspection on 25 May 2016, dumping of composite mud / debris
consisting of construction waste including cement, metal and plastic components
was noted. Irrespective of the bridge, both 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.

In addition, the Mandovi has served as a sink for a variety of thrash. When the first
bridge collapsed in the 1980‟s, the entire structure was dismantled. The remnants in
the form of concrete blocks were transported and dumped in front of the erstwhile
secretariat. Some of these chunks are still visible under the extended two lane road.
However, a large portion still remains under water at the foot of the first bridge.
These pieces are visible at low tide.

It is well known that marine estuarine sediments are composed of diverse sessile
and mobile benthic communities. Majority of the benthic species have pelagic larval
forms and they constitute main food material for pelagic and demersal fish species.
Any disturbance in their habitat may have drastic consequences in their wellbeing /
functioning. Research by NIO scientists has already proved this fact. Although
scientific research has shown that re-colonization of species does take place, data in
an area that is subjected to the construction of three bridges is not available.

The GSIDC has produced a report entitled “Environment Impact Assessment Report
of Proposed Mandovi Bridge”, prepared by Fine Envirotech Engineers, 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 data,
but most of it is not at all related to the bridge and appears irrelevant. 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 on the Zuari River rather than a photo of the existing bridges
on the Mandovi.

The GSIDC has also submitted a NIO report entitled “Study on influence of new
bridge piers on bed morphology and river banks of Mandovi River”. The report is
authored by Jayakumar Seelam and team, and prepared in October 2015. The study

Page 4 of 10
 Mandovi Bridge III, Final Report, Mascarenhas, 2016

affirms that: the new piers will not affect the river bed morphology, no impact on river
banks morphology, no significant change in hydrodynamics along river banks, some
deposition between the old and new piers, and deposition outside the navigation
channel. The report concludes 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 from 04 September 2015 to 12
September 2015, for a period of 8-9 days only. Interestingly, diagrams shown on
pages 44 to 48 of the report indicate that there is indeed an obstruction of currents at
the pier location. But according to the report, the effect is negligible.

The NIO report described above does not mention whether the observations carried
out during 9 days 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 (in bold letters) an
Environmental Impact Assessment report, and that the team will not take any
responsibility due to the usage of the said report. If that is the case, 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 a letter dated 06 May 2016, the Manager of GSIDC submitted another „updated
EIA report‟ to the GCZMA in response to the NGT judgement of 07 April 2016. The
EIA report is however dated August 2015.

The above report shows that the document is authored by US Kulkarni, assisted by 5
engineers. A list of participants with names and subjects is not given. The lead
author is chemist with expertise in industrial waste water treatment; the bio-data and
expertise of the engineers is not known. As in the earlier report by the same firm,
there is no mention about the characteristics of the river system. Published data has
not been reviewed and not even consulted. There is no discussion about the
geomorphology of the river banks, the nature of the river bed, composition of
sediment and more importantly, the benthic biodiversity. These topics ought to have
formed the core of the EIA. It appears that these officials / anonymousparticipants do
not possess any proficiency in coastal geology, marine biology and physical
oceanography, so very essential to assess the likely environmental impacts of a
major bridge on the riverine morphology and ecology. Therefore, the document can
in no way be considered a marine EIA.

A perusal of the same report also indicates that the presentation is poor. The index
often does not correspond to the text. Large parts are identical to the report by the
same firm submitted earlier. Pages are not numbered sequentially. The exception is
that a new section on “biodiversity assessment of proposed Mandovi bridge” is
added, but this section covers the land part. Some annexures are also included; here
again, the annexures are not listed in the index.

It may be mentioned here that the conclusions of the NIO report of October 2015
(described above) 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 entire report may be highly questionable.

Page 5 of 10
 Mandovi Bridge III, Final Report, Mascarenhas, 2016

Therefore, except for the NIO report (not an EIA) which discusses results of current
measurements, albeit of a very short period, there is no EIA related to the impacts of
the bridge piers on the river system that the GSIDC can boast of. As such, the bridge
project does not have a valid marine EIA that deals exclusively with the river
ecosystem (geomorphology of banks, physiography of river bed, benthic biodiversity)
within which four major piers are being located.

The undersigned also wishes to record a personal opinion that, irrespective of the
prevailing guidelines about the mandatory EIA‟s, the very concept of such quick
studies raises serious doubts in the minds of the public at large. At present, a site is
generally pre-selected, the project is approved, drawings are made, builders are
chosen, contracts are given, and only then an EIA is (after) thought of. Such has
been precisely the case of the third Mandovi bridge. Such rapid studies over a short
period may be scientifically defective, and would also be, to a point, untruthful. From
a scientific perspective, an EIA would mean a study of a large area, check the
feasibility of the proposal, and only then should the site be selected. Moreover, and
rather surprisingly, modern EIAs rarely go against, but mostly favour the clients. The
reasons for such „friendly‟ EIAs appear obvious.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Page 6 of 10
 Mandovi Bridge III, Final Report, Mascarenhas, 2016

Figure 2. GE satellite image of 23 March 2016: A perfectly natural mangrove lined river bank is
showing a blot in the form of loose scrapheap / mud being dumped at the water line, and within
mangroves, as indicated by the yellow arrow.

Figure 3. GE satellite image of 23 March 2016. A built-up river bank; an existing jetty has been
extended laterally as well as into the river; a few planted mangroves are seen on the right (upstream)
along the causeway.

Page 7 of 10
 Mandovi Bridge III, Final Report, Mascarenhas, 2016

Figures 4 and 5. Mandovi bridge III pier (Patto side) under construction; note the rectangular pile
caps. Piling for piers is in progress (Malim side); a steel gangway leads to the piers under
construction (Photos: A Mascarenhas, 25 May 2016).

Figures 6 and 7. A large quantity of composite construction waste has been dumped along the water
line at Malim bank; the loose mud is prograding by finding its way into the river domain; note the
turbid waters and uprooted mangroves (Photos: A Mascarenhas, 25 May 2016).

Page 8 of 10
 Mandovi Bridge III, Final Report, Mascarenhas, 2016

The following recommendations may be relevant for the well-being of the Mandovi.
These issues include a thorough scientific investigation of the river system after the
construction of the bridge is completed:

A. The present state of the river bed around the bridges appears to be of prime
importance at the moment. A bathymetric survey using an echo-sounder is
imperative; this effort would give the depth profile. Similarly, a side scan sonar
survey is necessary so as to obtain a complete three dimensional picture of
the river bed. Tracks along, across and oblique to the river axis will give a
complete story about the morphology of the river bed, including notable
protuberances on the floor. With this output, river bed maps can be generated
to ascertain the health of the river bed.

B. Benthic productivity and biodiversity is another crucial component in rivers.

Hence it is necessary to investigate the impact of bridge construction on
benthic fauna and ultimately the response of fishery to such an activity.

C. The existence of the remnants / debris of the collapsed bridge in the river and
its impact on the river bed / flow have rarely been considered, but has in fact
been overlooked. The concrete debris of the collapsed bridge remains in the
river, and can still be seen at low tide, even after three decades. This material
needs to be cleared immediately.

D. On the Malim side, a large amount of waste in the form of loose mud, cement
bags and plastics is lying along the bank, adjacent to the bridge site. This is a
mangrove area. A part of it has already slumped into the river. Such activity
amounts to violations of CRZ rules (see figures 6 and 7). This material needs
to be removed forthwith so that the original mangrove bank can be restored.

E. Any obstacle within a river affects the flow regime. It appears that the coffer
dam made for construction of bridge II is still partly in place, but now lying
under water. This issue needs confirmation, and if true, the material be
removed as well. These aspects need to be taken into consideration during
and after the completion of the bridge.

F. The rectangular shape of the pile caps has come as surprise to many
engineers. Such a configuration is bound to affect the long term river flow and
tidal dynamics, although NIO studies prove otherwise. The pile cap shape had
to imperatively be circular, but preferably be elliptical. Any correction, if
possible, may be explored.

G. Along the Porvorim - Malim slope, the construction debris and associated
loose material must have reached the river, considering the steep gradient. If
precautionary steps are not taken, a lot of sediment will end up in the river
due to run-off, thus adding up to the turbidity of water, and unwarranted
siltation of the channel.

H. The most adventurous task is yet come: the fixing of superstructure and the
cable stayed deck on the river. During this period, a lot of material is bound to
(accidentally) topple into the river. Such material needs to be scooped out.

Page 9 of 10
 Mandovi Bridge III, Final Report, Mascarenhas, 2016

I. The luxuriant mangrove fringe under the three bridges, along the northern
bank at Malim, is a blessing of sorts. Mangroves trap sediment, and ensure
the stability of river banks; this ecosystem has to be preserved at all costs.

J. Comparatively, the Patto side of the bridge does not offer much scope for
mangroves. Mangroves rarely grow along hard structures due to turbulence
created by reflected waves. Concrete walls along rivers prove this fact.
Nevertheless, restoration of the concretized Panjim bank with appropriate
vegetation needs to be explored.

K. It is established that traditional fishing activity still continues at Patto –

Ribandar and Campal – Betim. This report does not include floral and faunal
analyses. This topic has to be dealt with separately.

L. A gangway is presently used by workers to access the piers. Builders should

ensure a complete removal of this walkway, right from its foundation, and
ensure a river free from any impediments.

M. The GSIDC may requisition an underwater survey by qualified divers to

physically and visually check and video graph the river bed under all the three
bridges. This exercise, to be conducted in fair weather only, will lay to rest any
doubts if undesirable objects are lying on the river bed.

Although the completion of the bridge appears nowhere in sight, it is strongly

recommended that the GSIDC prepares a time bound schedule of study, clean up
and restoration, starting from September 2016, till post completion of the new bridge.
If accepted, such an effort will clear all doubts in the minds of the public. The GCZMA
may monitor this exercise from time to time.

This report does not contain any measurements. The document is primarily based on
available maps, relevant published data and documents supplied by GSIDC,
supplemented by extensive field observations undertaken over the last two decades
by the undersigned.

The Mandovi has suffered from various anthropogenic influences over the last
century or so, but particularly since the 1970‟s. As the Panjim bank is entirely built-
up, banning of any further “development”, the jetties in particular, need to be
considered. The river system has to undergo a thorough check-up, to be undertaken
by a reputed marine organization, after the completion of the third bridge, so that the
vital lifeline of Goa may be preserved for posterity. More importantly, so as to ensure
a flawless functioning of the Mandovi ecosystem, the waterway may be left to itself,
so that the river system maintains its resilience, and simultaneously evolves in space
and time, the nature‟s way.

Dr Antonio Mascarenhas
31 July 2016

Page 10 of 10

View publication stats