navi mumbai airport final
TRANSCRIPT
MET Institute of Computer Science (2013-15)
Subject: LEGAL ASPECTS OF BUSINESS MANAGEMENT
Topic: LEGAL AND REGULATORY ASPECTS
OF NAVI MUMBAI AIRPORT
Submitted By:
NIKITA AHUJA 42
AGRATA DHAKAR 47
AHANA PARKER 58
SAIGAURAV PRABHU 16
1
INDEX
SNO. TOPIC PAGE NO.1. Introduction 3
1.1 Need 3
2 Overview 5
2.1 Other options of Locations 6
2.2 Chronological order of Events 8
3. Policy, Legal and Administrative Framework 11
3.1 Environmental Issues 11
3.1.1 Mangroves 11
3.1.2 Flattening of Hill 14
3.1.3 Rehabilitation 15
3.1.4 Farmer’s Compensation 15
3.1.5 Karnala Bird Sanctuary 15
3.1.6 Fight between Center and State to own Airport Land 16
3.1.7 Chinchpada Village 17
3.1.8 Flora and Fauna 18
3.1.9 Noise Pollution 19
4. Recommendations 22
4.1 Mangrove Issue 22
4.2 Diversion of Gadhi River and Ulwe water body 30
5. Infrastructure 31
6. Advantages of Navi Mumbai Airport 32
2
1. INTRODUCTIONNavi Mumbai International Airport (NMIA) is one of the world’s largest ”greenfield”state-
of-the-art international airports, currently proposed for development, offering world-class
facilities for passengers, cargo, aircrafts and airlines.
The proposed second airport for Mumbai Metropolitan Region (MMR) is located at Navi
Mumbai for several reasons. Prominent among them is the fact that Navi Mumbai is expected
to cater for the future growth in population, business and commercial activities of MMR.
The availability of excellent physical and social infrastructure coupled with an environment-
friendly site with least resettlement and rehabilitation makes the Navi Mumbai Airport
project both technically feasible and financially viable.
The Airport master plan will be developed in modules, operated and managed to
internationally recognised standards. The design and development of high quality facilities
will provide enhanced service to passengers, airlines and other customers.
The proposed greenfield international airport, is to be built in the Kopra-Panvel area of
the Mumbai Metropolitan Region in India. The airport is being built through public-private
partnership (PPP). The yet to be chosen private sector partner will hold 74% equity while
the Airports Authority of India (AAI) and the Government of Maharashtra (through CIDCO)
each holding 13%. The airport project, aimed at easing Mumbai's air traffic congestion, has
been delayed due to property disputes. Its first phase was supposed to be operational by 2014,
but that deadline will not be met, as construction had not even begun by July 2013.
1.1 Need:
The current airport at Mumbai, is fast reaching saturation level and scope for further
enhancement of passenger and cargo handling facilities along with aircraft
maintenance and city side facilities are very much limited.
Enhancement of aviation facilities in MMR is essential for maintaining Maharashtra's
leadership in attracting Foreign Direct Investment and cementing Mumbai's future as
an International Financial Centre .
Mumbai is experiencing congestion. The congestion of traffic particularly becomes
excessive during the peak hours. Thus the airport has reached its saturation level.
With the proposed expansion after modernisation, the capacity of this airport would
3
be 40 mppa capable of meeting the air traffic demand upto 2013-14. Thus there is a
need to develop the second airport
4
2. OVERVIEW OF THE NAVI MUMBAI AIRPORT
The sea – shore land required is about 11.4 km² for the core airport activity and will have two
parallel runways each 3700 metres long. It is to be located on highway NH 4B near Panvel,
about 35 km from the existing ChhatrapatiShivaji International Airport . The International
Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) has already given clearance to the Navi Mumbai airport
on technical parameters. The Airport construction is at global tendering stage
The cost of the project, which is being developed through the public-private partnership
route, is estimated at 52.6 billion (US$800 million). The airport will have a terminal area of
250,000 m² and a cargo area of 100,000 m² and handle 50–55 million passengers
annually.The site of airport is located in an area of 9.5 km² accommodating two parallel
runways for simultaneous and segregated parallel operation with provision of full length taxi
ways on either side of the runways. The airfield has been designed to accommodate the new
large aircraft compatible to aerodrome code 4-F.
The new airport will cater to 10 million passengers a year in its initial phase (end-2014),
25 million by 2020,
45 million by 2025, and
60 million by 2030, according to CIDCO.
The site had several environmental problems in dealing with mangroves and rain/storm water
drains in Panvel. There is an NGO fighting government agencies regarding Panvel. The
ministry of environment and forests (MoEF) gave its clearance for the Navi Mumbai
international airport on 14 May 2008. The environmental ministry finally cleared the project
on 23 November 2010.The location of the proposed airport at Navi Mumbai has been
considered on several parameters. Prominent among these is the fact that Navi Mumbai is
expected to absorb the future growth in population, business and commercial activity of the
region. The availability of physical and social infrastructure coupled with environmental
friendly site with minimum resettlement and rehabilitation makes the Navi Mumbai airport
project technically and financially viable.
5
2.1 Other options of Locations: The original option of locating near RewasMandwa:
The proposed airport site is centred around the region of Rewas and Mandwa near
Alibaug, where the original proposal of second international airport existed on all
regionaldevelopment plans, and the location was commented to be the most fit and correct
barring the excessive financial cost involved in building a sea-link/creek bridge over the
Karanja Creek connecting Uran-JNPT area to the proposed airport at RewasMandwa. It is
only at a distance of 20 nautical miles (37 km) by sea make it a viable location. If the current
location at KopraPanvel does not go through, the one at Rewas - Mandwa location will have
again to be considered for this Airport project. This option is now ruled out.
The other option of locating near Kalyan- Nevali:
The second option includes the one off village Newali nearKalyan-Ambernath55 km
awayfrom the current airport in Mumbai. There exists an old and abandoned air-strip of
WorldWar II era and the Union Defence Ministry owns the 1,500 acres (6.1 km) of land on
whichit is located. The proposal is now centred on 1,500 acres (6.1 km) of land. If the
currentlocation at KopraPanvel does not go through, then the Kalyan-Nevali location would
beconsidered for a futureKalyan International Airportwhich would serve as a much
neededsecond International airport for the Mumbai Metropolitan region.
KopraPanvel Location:
As a result of the recent objections being raised by the Union Ministry of Environment
andForests on the current proposed location of theNavi Mumbai International
airportnearKopraPanvelarea, apparently because the construction of the airport would
involvereclamation of low-lying areas in an ecologically fragile zone as well as destruction of
severalhectares of Mangroves. There are serious environmental issues. Its construction
woulddamage mangrove cultivation in the 2,000 hectares, besides the diversion of Gadhi and
Ulwerivers, which according to the Union Environment and Forests Ministry is a very
seriousissue considering the destruction Mumbai faced during the 26th July 2005 floods. As a
resultof these new developments other locations were considered.
Environment minister Jairam Ramesh had disfavoured the proposed Navi Mumbai
Airportsaying it would have serious environmental implications and suggested an alternative
6
site forthe second airport in Mumbai. He said that the proposed airport construction in
NaviMumbaiwill have serious environmental implications and the flooding ofPanvel could be
one amongthem.Mumbai needs a second airport. But where that airport should be located is a
matter that hasto be decided coolly, dispassionately, taking into account all environmental
matters, Rameshsaid. Strongly refuting the charge that he was stalling the development of the
city, theminister said environmental approval is not a mere formality and that he had no
problem withNavi Mumbai. Environmental clearance is not a formality. It has to be gone
through. CoastalRegulation Zone (CRZ) 1991 did not allow the building of an airport in
NaviMumbai.Though it was amended in 2009, it was not to build an airport in Navi Mumbai,
he said.The MPs told that 1,800 acres of land, available near Kalyan which is now in the
possessionof the defence establishment, can be used for the second airport instead of Navi
Mumbai. Theministers said there are three major environmental issues regarding the
proposed NaviMumbai Airport site, with mangroves and diversion of two rivers being the
most seriousissue.Recently, IIT-Mumbai had done a study on the environmental implications
of theconstruction of the new airport and submitted their findings to EAC. On the basis of
thatstudy, EAC sought clarifications from CIDCO, the developing agency. To a query,
Rameshsaid the Expert Committee of Airport Authority of India (AAI) had found Rewas-
Mandwaasthe best site for a second airport in 1996. But later in 2000, following a
recommendation fromMaharashtra government, AAI selected Navi Mumbai for the second
airport taking intoconsideration the developed infrastructure and easy connectivity the
location will provide,this site has been finalised.
The Airport is proposed to be developed in four phases. In the first phase, North
runway & attached taxi way system, terminal building & concourse (2,69,000 sq. m.),
Contact Gates – 20; Remote Gates – 5; General Aviation Apron 6,000 sq. m.;
Technical building and ATC Tower; Cargo complex (part) are some of the main
facilities proposed to be developed.
The above facilities will be enhanced in modules to suit the air traffic demand.
7
Includes Cost of Pre-Development Works (Costs of Land Acquisition, R&R,
Land Development, Shifting of EHVT Lines, Recoursing of Ulwe River.) of ` 4017
Crores.
2.2 Chronological event of Navi Mumbai airport: Nov. 1997: Ministry of Civil Aviation (MoCA), Govt. of India (GoI) constituted a
Committee to examine the various sites for second airport for Mumbai.
June 2000: The GoI Committee, which had a Member from the Ministry of Environment &
Forest (MoEF) recommended Rewas – Mandawa site as suitable, since Navi Mumbai Airport
was proposed with one runway.
Sept. 2000: CIDCO / Govt. of Maharashtra (GoM) revised the original proposal to provide
for two runways and submitted a feasibility report to MoCA.
Nov. 2000: A sub-Committee constituted by Airports Authority of India (AAI), examined the
Navi Mumbai site and found it technically and operationally feasible and suggested carrying
out a detailed Techno-Economic Feasibility Study (TEFS).
Sept. 2001: CIDCO / GoM submitted TEFS comprising various technical studies. The
technical queries and clarifications raised by AAI were successfully answered by CIDCO.
AAI then suggested carrying out a Simulation Study to examine the inter-operability of the
two airports (Mumbai &Navi Mumbai) in a single airspace.
Aug. 2006: International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) conducted Simulation Study
sponsored jointly by CIDCO / GoM& AAI. The Study confirmed that simultaneous operation
of two airports is possible with appropriate procedures in place.
Feb. 2007: CIDCO / GoM submitted Project Feasibility and Business Plan Report to MoCA /
GoI.
July 2007: MoCA obtained in-principle approval from the Union Cabinet for
the development of a second Airport for MMR in Navi Mumbai and conveyed the decision to
GoM. GoI constituted a Steering Committee to oversee the structure and implementation of
NMIA Project.
Aug. 2007: Development of NMIA by CIDCO approved by its Board.
Aug. 2007: CIDCO made application to MoEF for approval of Terms of-Reference (TOR)
for carrying out EIA.
8
Sept. 2007: CIDCO appointed IIT Bombay, for Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) study
and CW&PRS, Pune for conducting required hydraulic model studies.
Nov. 2007: National Coastal Zone Management Authority (NCZMA) recommended
amendment to CRZ Notification of 1991 to make Navi Mumbai Airport development
permissible in CRZ areas with mitigation measures for environment damage.
Feb. 2008: Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority (MCZMA) recommended the
proposal for amendment to CRZ Notification of 1991 for NMIA with compensatory
afforestation.
March 2008: CIDCO appointed consortium led by M/s. Louis Berger Group (LBG), Inc
USA as Prime Consultant for the proposed Airport development.
July 2008: GoM granted approval for development of NMIA project on PPP basis and
appointed CIDCO as the nodal agency for its implementation.
Feb. 2009: MoEF directed CIDCO/GoM to obtain approval from Hon’ble High Court
Mumbai for amendment of CRZ regulations.
April 2009: Hon’ble Mumbai High Court allowed the Prayer of CIDCO / GoM for
Amendment of CRZ Notification of 1991.
May 2009: MoEF issued notification amending the CRZ Notification of 1991 permitting
Green Field Airport at Navi Mumbai in CRZ areas, subject to environmental safeguards.
June 2009: CIDCO submitted fresh application for approval of TOR for carrying out EIA
Study to MoEF& MCZMA for CRZ clearance.
July 2009: MCZMA considered proposal of CRZ clearance for NMIA and recommended it
to MoEF for approval.
Aug 2009: MoEF conveyed the TOR for carrying out EIA study and IITB, commenced
the EIA Study work in consultation with Central Water Power & Research Station
(CW&PRS), Pune, Dept. of Life Sciences, Mumbai University, Ground Water Survey Dept.
Agency (GSDA), GoM, Gujarat Ecology Commission (GEC), Govt. of Gujarat, M/s.
HemantSahai & Associates (Legal Consultant), M/s. DHI, India and M/s. Lewis
Environmental Services, Inc. USA.
Dec. 2009: Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC), MoEF, visited the Navi Mumbai Airport site
Feb. 2010: MoEF gave additional TOR for EIA study
Mar. 2010: CIDCO submitted draft EIA report to Maharashtra Pollution Control
Board (MPCB), for conducting Public Hearing
May 2010: MPCB conducted Public Hearing and submitted the Public Hearing report to
MoEF
9
June 2010: CIDCO submitted final EIA Report incorporating observations of Public Hearing
to MoEF
July 2010: MCZMA in its 63rd meeting approved with minor modifications the Coastal
Zone Management Plan (CZMP) and recommended it to MoEF for approval
July 2010: EAC considered the proposal for granting Environmental and CRZ clearance
to NMIA, in its 89th, 90th, 91st, 92nd and 93rd Meetings – spread over 5 months, starting
from 21st July 2010
Oct. 2010: Ministry of Defense (MoD), GoI granted Defense clearance to NMIA project
Nov. 2010: Environment and CRZ clearance for NMIA project granted by MoEF.
May 2012: Civil aviation minister Ajit Singh met the deputy chairman of the
Planning Commission Montek Singh Ahluwalia and Planning Commission advisor
GajendraHaldea, to discuss the development of the Navi Mumbai airport under a
Public Private Partnership (PPP) model.
June 2012:AjitSingh assured the CIDCO Chairman that a technical committee would
be constituted soon to sort out the issues related to the long-pending project.
July 2012 : Aviation minister Ajit Singh assured Maharashtra Chief Minister
PrtihvirajChavan of taking all necessary steps to expedite the construction of the Navi
Mumbai International Airport. People from villages affected by the Navi Mumbai
international airport have demanded the government and project developers to provide
them 40 per cent of the developed land as compensation.
August 2012: The Chairman of Maharashtra government-run urban planning agency
CIDCO, PramodHindurao sought Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's intervention for
speedy approvals and financial aid for Navi Mumbai International Airport (NMIA).
10
3. POLICY, LEGAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE
FRAMEWORKThe principal Environment Regulatory Agency in our country is theMinistry of Environment
& Forest (MoEF). The environment policies andenvironment clearances process for various
projects are laid down by MoEF.The State Pollution Control Board (SPCB) grants No
Objection Certificate (NOC)and consent for establishment and operation of the project.As per
the EIA Notification of MoEF issued on 14th September, 2006 anairport project is treated as
Category “A” which requires Environment Clearancefrom Ministry of Environment and
Forests (MoEF) for which an EIA/EMP study isa primary requirement. The assignment of
preparing the Comprehensive EIAstudy has been assigned to The Centre for Environmental
Science andEngineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay.
3.1Environmental Issues:3.1.1 Mangroves:
Issues related to presence of Mangroves
In order to carry out the proposed development within the Airport Zone, deforestation of
these mangroves appears to be imperative.
However, destruction of mangroves is expressly prohibited by the orders andjudgment of the
Hon’ble Bombay High Court3. It is clear, therefore, that destruction of any mangroves for the
development of the NMIA will require a prior approval of the Bombay High Court.
Steps to be taken by CIDCO in view of the judgment of the Bombay High Court.
This order was passed pursuant to the cited Public Interest Litigation filed by NGO’s like
Bombay Environmental Action Group (“BEAG”) and others for protection of mangroves.
Areas having mangroves and which were identified as government owned, were to be
declared as
“Protected Forests” and the areas having mangroves and which are identified as privately
owned were to be declared and notified as “Forests”.
The order directed that :
(i) there shall be a total freeze on the destruction and cutting of mangroves in the entire State
of Maharashtra;
11
(ii) All construction and rubble/ garbage dumping on the mangrove areas shallbe stopped
forthwith;
(iii) Regardless of ownership all construction taking place within 50 metres on all sides of all
mangroves shall be forthwith stopped;
(iv) No development permission whatsoever shall be issued by any authority in the State in
respect of any area under mangroves;
The Court also clarified that CIDCO would have to obtain the required environmental
clearances, for implementation of all the projects undertaken by them & CIDCO will have to
give an undertaking that it would abide by the termsand conditions. Further more the CIDCO
wasdirected to approach the competent authority under the MoEF and the Authorities
constituted there under.
Training & Diversion of Rivers Study
A study was carried out in accordance with the TOR specified by MoEF onthe diversion and
training of the rivers, cost implication for providingengineering solutions and design changes
in order to avoid change in theriver coarse. The following paragraphs narrates the details of
the studiescarried out.
Background
The Navi Mumbai International Airport has been planned with twoindependent parallel
runways placed at 1.85 km. apart with a design capacityof 60 MPPA. With the above
configuration of runways, an area of about1615 Ha. is required for airport zone in which the
various aeronautical andnon-aeronautical activities will be located for the efficient
functioning ofairport.
Two rivers viz. Gadhi and Ulwe are flowing through the airport zone. The Ulwe river runs
from South to North passing through almost the middle of the airport crossing both the
runways and finally meet to Panvel Creek. The total area covered under these rivers is about
245 Ha. To make the land available for airport zone admeasuring about 1615 Ha., the option
available is to retain the rivers as it is and to built the airport over this or divert or train these
rivers suitably.
The diversion of the two rivers is a very serious issue considering the unprecedented flooding
Mumbai faced in July, 2005. A similar fate could befall on Panvel and its adjoining areas if
12
the rivers are diverted, environmentalists fear. A study conducted by the Mumbai IIT
concluded that the development of the airport without diverting the Ulwe and the Gadhi
rivers is not technically feasible or viable, as this option would cost about Rs 16,000 crore
and defeat the very purpose of retaining the geomorphology of rivers and its aquatic life and
mangrove.
Nevertheless, after the prompting by the prime minister’s office, the experts appraisal
committee (EAC), under the environment ministry, directed CIDCO to submit maps that
would enable a proper study of the impact on the coastal zone and changes in land use
pattern. On its part, the civil aviation ministry has promised to look at the environment
ministry’s suggestion for design changes, including considering a runway on stilts so that
diversion of the Ulwe and Gadhi rivers can be minimized.
Need for Training & Diversion of Rivers
The first option of retaining both the rivers, as it is, is examined taking intoconsideration the
various factors, such as; the construction of airportdevelopment on stilt, runway orientation,
security, operation & maintenance,environment and cost implication are described below:
i) Airport on Stilt: The development of airport partly on stilt and partly on
firm ground to the extent required have not been experimented inanywhere in the world,
because of its unique behavior and problemsassociated with it, which would be difficult to
simulate to work out anengineering solution.Theentire area of 245 Ha. is required to be built
onthe pillars numbering about 6000 going upto the rock strata and coming
at a level where the rivers can be desilted and maintained by use ofmechanical means. This
245 Ha.of land on which no structure abovewill be allowed, otherwise this will increase the
airport developmentlevel further to suit the structural requirement of activities coming over
this. As such the airport loose the utilisation 20 percent it valuable land affecting design
capacity of airport.
ii) Runway orientation: Based on air traffic forcast, designed capacity ofairport is 60 million
passenger per annum for which two independentrunways with 1.85 km spacing between the
runway is required.Assuming that Ulwe river will cut across the airport by
constructingbridges at many locations and keeping the alignment of Gadhi riverunchanged,
would amount to reducing the length of Northern runway byhalf, thereby making the airport a
single runway airport. The capacity ofairport will drastically reduce to 30 MPPA warranting
the construction ofthird airport for Mumbai. Possibility of changing the runway
13
positiontowards South is also examined and the same was ruled out because ofnon-
availability of space and presence of road, railway and Karnala hill.
iii) Security: The large area below stilt admeasuring about 245 ha needsto be secured from
all sides on 24X7 basis which is costly andimpossible task owing poor accessibility and it
will adversely affectfinancial health of the airport. The security requirements prescribed by
Bureau of Civil Aviation Security, Ministry of Civil Aviation preventssuch type airport
development.
iv) Operation & Maintenance: Both the rivers are required to disilted atregular interval
owing to obstruction created in terms of large no pillarsto maintained its discharging
capacity. Maintaining rivers below stills willrequire special technique and skills associated
with cost burden on theairport. Similarly the maintenance of stilt structures and support in
terms of pillars will pose another difficulty owing to the salineenvironment.
v) Environment: Development of part of the Airport on stilt requiring largenumber of pillar
foundations would defeat the very purpose of retainingthe geomorphology of rivers. There is
a equal chance of alteration inthe hydraulic regime of the rivers. More over, it will prevent
growth ofmangroves, vegetation and may affect adversely the aquatic lifebecause of absence
of sunlight and proper ventilation.
vi) Cost implication: The construction of part of the airport on the stilt willbe a task by itself.
A rough estimate based on the number of pillars,beams/girders, deck slab at the rate of
Rs.70,000/Sqmt for 245 Ha. Ofairport area works out to Rs.16,000 Cr. Besides this there will
berecurring expenditure at the rate of 2% per annum would be Rs.336 Cr.This cost once
included in the project cost would make the airportproject totally unviable.
Based on the above parameters, the optionavailable is to make available the airport land by
training the Gadhiriveralong the eastern boundary of airport and diverting the Ulwe river on
theSouthern boundary of the airport.
3.1.2 Flattening of hill:The Navi Mumbai airport, will be built from the rubble generated
from razing the 90-metre hillock.
The airport has to be built seven metres above mean sea level and the ground will have to be
levelled. The Environment Ministry cleared the levelling razing of the hillock which would
be needed for flights to take off and land. Whatever earth is generated from flattening the
14
hillock, it will be used to level the airport ground. Its needed to raise the airport level to seven
metres above mean sea level. The entire earth from the hillock would be used.
About 60 million cubic meters of earth will be generated out of the hillock which will all be
used at the airport. That is just enough to level the airport. This will ensure that it will not
need to get truckloads of earth for the airport as it will all be in the airport perimeter.
3.1.3Rehabilitation:
About 14 villages fall within the operational area of airport which are to be shifted to
suitable locations. The population of these villages is in the range of 20,000 to 30,000.
Rehabilitation of such a large population by shifting from their original villages appears to
be a difficult task considering the stiff opposition from the local population.The villagers
allege that the sites chosen for rehabilitation are not compatible with theirtraditional fishing
practices. Also, villagers allege that the land belongs to private owners. Theyalso fear that
land filling will worsen the tidal flooding in the area.SumanKoli of Maharashtra
MachimarMahasanghsaid, they needed their demands met firstbefore we hand over our land
to them or else we will launch a protest campaign.
3.1.4 Farmers’ CompensationIssue:
Just when the momentum picked up for the Navi Mumbai International Airport after a two
yeardelay over environmental clearances, there’s a brand new threat to the mega project.
Local farmers, who collectively own more than 1,000 acres of land that’s earmarked for the
airport, are now demanding a whopping 20 crores per acre, which is five times more that of
themarket rate plus rehabilitation and jobs.Though, The City and Industrial development
Corporation of Maharashtra's (CIDCO)rehabilitation proposal looks promising, the villagers
have certain allegations to put onauthorities. According to the proposal, the villagers would
be shifted to three sites in nearby villages.
3.1.5 Karnala Bird Sanctury:
The fragile eco environment in Matheran hills and Karnala bird sanctuary is unlikely to
beaffected by the proposed Navi Mumbai airport coming up at the Panvel site. Sources
indicated that the report of the City Industry and Development Corporation
15
(CIDCO)suggesting mitigation measures to the Ministry of Environment is expected to
point out that thedanger of noise pollution from aircraft affecting the fragile eco system in
Matheran was remote.The aircraft are at a height of about 2,000 ft when they are over
the Matheran region so the noisepollution will not be felt.
3.1.6 Fight between centre and state to own airport land:
The state government had plans to float the project tender for international bidding.
However, it has not been possible as the civil aviation ministry is yet to give its approval to
the tendering process as well as the detailed project report (DPR). This is in addition to the
challenge of acquiring around 24% of the remaining project land, which belongs to
peasants, after deciding on their compensation. While an empowered group of ministers
(EGOM) is yet to be formed to approve the tendering and development process, highly-
placed sources say differences have cropped up between the state and the Centre over the
project. At the heart of this row is a basic question. Who will be the owner of the land
acquired for the airport -City and Industrial Development Corporation Ltd (CIDCO) or the
civil aviation ministry? Airports Authority of India (AAI) and CIDCO were to have 13%
equity each in the Rs 14,000-crore greenfield project; the remaining 74% belongs to the
developer. After recovering the cost and recording profits over a 40-year period, the
developer is supposed to hand over the project and the land to CIDCO and AAI. This is
where the Centre and the state are at odds, it has been learnt. While the Centre reportedly
wants the entire land to be transferred in its name, CIDCO has said the matter will be
decided at the time of finalizing the developer. “The Centre wants the entire land to be
handed over to the civil aviation ministry and also to control further development. CIDCO
has already placed a proposal, which clearly states that it will develop the project along with
the developer and AAI. These differences are delaying formation of the EGOM and further
approvals,” said an MP from Mumbai on condition of anonymity. Meanwhile, CIDCO has
proposed that formation of the EGOM be avoided; instead, the steering committee should
supervise the tendering and development process. It has argued that this is possible if the
project is taken up under the new greenfield policy, which does away with the need for an
EGOM. The Navi Mumbai airport project is being implemented under the old rules as the
proposal was made years ago.
16
CRZ AMENDMENT
Special Cases: The CRZ notification provides for the uniform regulation of the entire country
irrespective of the diversity, socio economic conditions, developmental pressures etc.
However, it is proposed, in light of certain special circumstances, toprovide special
consideration for the following:
Greater Mumbai and Navi Mumbai – Mumbai and Navi Mumbai are one of the most
thickly populated coastal areas. The coastal stretch is under tremendous pressure due to
various developmental activities. A sizable population of Mumbai and Navi Mumbai live in
slums abutting the coastal stretches. These slums are not only polluting the environment but
are also at great risk from being so close to the shoreline. About 136 slums areas exist within
500 mts from the coast.
Mumbai and Navi Mumbai also have good mangrove areas along the coastal stretches which
act as a green buffer. Further, almost the entire city sewage including effluents from
industrial units are let out into the creeks and the sea. In view of the above issues, Mumbai
and Navi Mumbai require a special dispensation. As recommended in the Swaminathan
Committee Report, the new CRZ shall provide for redevelopment of specified buildings in
some specified areas. The Private-developer based building projects in CRZ areas shall be
considered subject to providing public finance for housing.
Construction of stilt roads to protect Mangroves in Mumbai: In some of the urban areas
classified as CRZ-II, there is large mangrove growth especially in Mumbai, Navi Mumbai,
Goa etc. Due to expansion of the urban infrastructure these mangroves are systematically
being destroyed especially for laying of peripheral.
Facilities for Fisherfolk: Keeping in view the difficulties faced by fishing communities,
basic facilities such as fish drying yards, auction halls, net mending yards, traditional boat
building yards, ice crushing units, fish curing facilities etc., shall be provided in the No-
Development Zone of CRZ-III areas.
3.1.7Chinchpada Village which will be affected by the Navi Mumbai International
Airport:
These projects have carried out Environment Impact Assessments (EIAs), but on an
individualbasis. In normal circumstances this would have been acceptable, but the proximity
17
of theseprojects to each other has to a great extent nullified the individual EIAs. As far as the
naturalenvironment is concerned, the effect that will be felt will be a cumulative one. Hence
the BNHS'call for a Cumulative Environment Impact Assessment report.TheKonkan coast
has maintained its pristine nature to a great degree. Mangroves, mudflats andbreeding sites of
fish, turtle, birds and molluscs flourish here. There are stretches of coral reefs,and migratory
birds are still drawn to the region. There are dolphins and porpoises; even spermwhales have
been sighted. In fact, Apte and his team were intent on mapping this coastal ecologywhen
they became aware of the planned industrial development in the region and the damage
thatcould ensue. Their year-
long study culminated in a preliminary report on the ―Diversity of Coastal Marine
Ecosystem of Maharashtra,which highlighted the region's natural riches and theimmense
destruction the industries can cause.The report was submitted to the Ministry of Environment
and Forests (MOEF) with the strongrecommendation that a Cumulative Environment Impact
Assessment study was crucial to thesurvival of the region's biodiversity. The MOEF agreed
to this. The assessment will be the first of its kind in India.The BNHS report shows that at
least 11 eco-sensitive sites will be severely damaged from thethermal discharge from the
power plants. Ministry regulations allow thermal discharge to be 7°Celsius hotter than the
ambient temperature of the sea water. After receiving the preliminary study, the MOEF
altered the norm to 5° C, but Apte says even that will be destructive because of the volume of
water.
The EAC will discuss the alleged CRZ violation by Posco as well. However, the
beleagueredcompany has categorically denied having violated any provisions of the
Environment ProtectionAct 1986.The 12 million tonne capacity steel plant is proposed to
come up on a land of about 4,000 acres inOrissa, out of which 2,900 acres is forested land
which requires special forest clearance.
3.1.8 Flora and Fauna:
Environmental Issues/Impacts:Loss of local fauna
Enhancement/Mitigation Measures:
• As there was no wildlife, observed during the fieldsurvey as well no mention of rare or
endangeredwildlife species in the area in the reports of theState Forest Department, no
18
detailed mitigationmeasure is envisaged. However, the EMCpersonnel would be trained
to be sensitive to thisrare issue
Management Action: EMC
Implementation Responsibilities: CIDCO/ SPC
Environmental Issues/Impacts :Loss of trees &vegetation in theproject area
Enhancement/Mitigation Measures:
• Compensation for the loss of vegetation would bethrough compensatory vegetation and
plantationprogramme. It will be undertaken within the airportarea and the species selected
would be local, fastgrowing, ornamental, provide shade and above allnon-fruit bearing so
as to reduce any bird mishapsduring the operation phase.
• The proposed project activity does not involveclearing of any forest areas which act as
the habitatfor wildlife, adverse effect on wildlife habitat(reduction / breaking). The
project activities do notreduce or brake up wild life habitat. However, theEMC personnel
would be trained to be sensitive tothis rare issue
Management Action:
• Plantation Costs will beborne by CIDCO/SPC
• EMC will prepare adetailed Transplantationand Plantation plan andmonitoring
theimplementation
Implementation Responsibilities:CIDCO/ SPC.
3.1.9 Noise Pollution:
Enhancement/Mitigation Measures: Noise will be generated due to blasting
operations ofHills. It is a activity lasting for short duration and thenearest settlements
are more than 1 km away, theimpact of the generated noise level on thesurrounding
population will be negligible. However, following stipulations would be provided to
thecontractor in the tender document.
Blasting to be carried out as per the bestengineering practices and the use of
moderntechnologies producing minimum dust and noise.
Proper maintenance of equipment will beundertaken with suitable enclosures and
intakesilencers.
Blasting should be well planned with largenumbers being fired infrequently than a
few blastsdaily. No blasting will be carried out at night.
19
Before controlled blasting, the surrounding villageswill be alerted and the
villagers and domesticanimals will be offered safe place away from theproject
site.
Stationary equipment such as ready mix plant, hotmix plant, cement storage plant
will result in noisegeneration. The minimum distance of operationfrom stationary
source for residential areasrequired for meeting CPCB standards is 113m. There
are no residential areas within 113 m fromthe outer boundary of the project site
and hence, no considerable impact is envisaged on the surrounding community
during construction phase. However, the impacts will be significant on
construction workers, working close to the machinery.
Construction activities involving operation of high noise generating machinery
will be generally avoided between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m.
The construction personnel exposed to high noise levels will be provided with
protective gears such as ear-muffs.
Construction machinery and equipment will be maintained in good working
condition so as to reduce noise. Proper maintenance of equipment will be
undertaken with suitable enclosures and intake silencers.
DG sets used during the construction phase would have the mandatory noise
enclosures.
The use of damping materials such as thin rubber/lead sheet for wrapping the
work places like compressors, generator sheds.
Management Action:
CIDCO to make provisionin the contract to limit thenoise pollution.
Implementation Responsibilities:CIDCO/SPC
EnvironmentalIssues/Impacts:Noise pollution along the various transport corridors
leading to and away from the airport
Enhancement/ Mitigation Measures:
• Control on the vehicular noise level – speed and vehicle conditions would be done by:
• Identification of structures and population vulnerable to noise level increase and
remedial measures such sound proofing.
• Tree corridor and sound barrier at the NMIA boundary in containing noise level.
• Observation of no horn zone in NMIA
20
• Battery operated service vehicles within the airport.
Management Action:EMC to monitor the noise pollution.
Implementation Responsibilities: CIDCO/SPC
EnvironmentalIssues/Impacts:Noise pollution due to the air traffic
Enhancement/ Mitigation Measures:
• Air and Noise mitigation options will be implemented by defining the approach landing
and takeoff procedures in a manner so as to minimize impact.
• Control on the aircraft noise level would be done by:
a. Insistence of International code on noise level during takeoff and taxing by the
Aircraft operators.
b. Noise level contouring and identification of areas in the takeoff and landing
sections.
c. Discussion with people concerned over the run way operation and noise level
reduction andexecution of mandatory activities of DGCA and ICAO.
d. Based on the community consensus and noise studies an implementation plan based
on noise abatement plan and noise compatibility plan maybe established.
• The most effective method of mitigating noise sources - other than cessation of the
source activity or use of source controls would include installation of sound barriers
or also called noise barrier or sound wall or sound berm or acoustical barrier.
Management Action:
• SPC in consultation with the ATC, AAI design the arrival and departure procedure
of flat tominimize the noise.
• CIDCO would control the land use by zoning regulation.
Implementation Responsibilities:CIDCO/SPC/AAI
4. RECOMENDATIONS4.1Mangroves Issue:
The plantation and protection of mangroves over an area of 615 ha (245 hectares of good
quality mangroves park shall be developed at Vaghivli on the north of the airport area + 60
21
hectare area located on the west side of the airport site around Moha creek and Panvel creek
+ 310 hectares area on the northeast of the airport site between Gadhi river, MankhrudPanvel
rail corridor and National Highway 4B shall be declared as No- development zone and
CIDCO shall under take the development as mangroves park/green belt area). Mangrove
parks well before the airport project is initiated and its progress reported to the high level
committee mentioned.
CIDCO also openly admitted that over 160 ha of mangroves would be chopped and a
hillock flattened, but the company was ecologically conscientious. As a trade-off, it
announced compensatory plantation of 350 ha mangrove in Dahanu, about 200 km from the
proposed airport site. During an informal meeting, a senior professor from IIT Bombay,
consultant for CIDCO, informed about the plan to create a mangrove garden with various
indigenous and imported tree species, which would later be turned into a major tourist
attraction. Ecologists, however, warned that mangroves cannot be planted blindly. They are
locale specific and give local benefits. The question of why Dahanu, an ecologically
sensitive area notified by the Union environment ministry, should part with 350 ha for a
mangrove garden remained unanswered.
GUJARAT ADANI INDUSTRIES CASE
Mangroves Issue in Gujarat Kutch Area
A similar case on mangroves had been faced in Gujarat also, the background of which is as
follows. Located on the Gulf of Kutch, Mundra is a coastal taluka in the largest district of the
state of Gujarat. The wide inter-tidal zone in the region creates a unique marine ecosystem
dominated by mangroves and natural creek formations along the coast which the Waghers, a
Muslim community, depends on for fishing. The inland areas of this coastal taluka are used
for agriculture, horticulture (date orchards) and animal husbandry. The poorest of
communities, mostly Muslims and Dalits, depend on coal-making from the scrub forests
of Prosopisjuliflora,mostly growing on revenue wastelands and forest department lands. The
Adani group of industries started their operations in the area in 1998 with the construction
of a jetty. A small-scale start was followed by consistent land purchases for the construction
of warehouses, container terminals and other infrastructure. The full-fledged new private
port was completed by 2000. Roads, rail and finally even an airport was set up in the area. All
this was to eventually form a part of the Mundra SEZ plan, which was approved by the
22
Ministry of Commerce, in April 2006. The total area around Mundra consists of no less than
three contiguous SEZs held by the same Adani Group; Mundra Special Economic Zone
(1082 hectares), GujaratAdani Port (2648 hectares) and Adani Power Private Limited (294
hectares). The company has recently obtained approval to merge the three zones to form one
single SEZ in order to avoid the long drawn out paper work and administrative
hassles. Further, the Adani Group has been granted the right to use and develop 1400 hectares
of land around Mundra Port for 30 years under a concession agreement with the Gujarat
government. This brings the total amount of land available to approximately 6300 hectares
around Mundra to be developed into SEZs according to the company's own estimates. The
legal status of land which now belongs to the Adani Group, can essentially be divided into
four parts; government revenue and forest land under mangrove or scrub forests; government
land being used and managed by panchayats under the category of
gauchhar or grazing land;government revenue wasteland that lay waste or was being used for
grazing; and patches of private land. A State Forest Department report, released in early
2007, claims that 340 square km(34000 hectares) of mangroves along the state coastline have
either disappeared completely or are on the verge of disappearing. These drastic losses of
mangrove forest stem mainly from industrial activities, specifically in the Gulf of Kutch. In
certain areas like Mundra and Hazira, they disappeared overnight. Quoted in this report, the
Mundra SEZ had 3000 hectares of mangroves out of a total of 13000 hectares and much of
these had already been cleared. Apart from running excavators another technique being used
by the company is to let the mangroves die a natural death by staving off sea water with
bunds to deprive the mangroves of salt water essential for their growth. In addition, the
mangroves are also suffering from port and industrial activity with threat from oil spills and
pollution. Local NGOs, national and regional media have repeatedly carried news of the
consistent destruction of forests and the fact that it is a clear violation of all forest
conservation laws and yet it has not drawn adequate response from the state or central
governments. With most of the mangrove land not notified as forest lands or on lands under
the jurisdiction of the revenue department instead of the forest department, there has been
unwillingness from either department to accept responsibility and take action against the
company. Despite strict legislations like the Coastal Regulation Zone disallowing
construction activity the port was granted an environment as well as a forest clearance by the
MOEF almost 7years ago. While the extended SEZ is yet to get an environmental clearance,
bunding and land-clearing activities in the area continue. Apart from supporting migratory
bird populations, mangroves also form the spawning grounds for many a fish species, thus
23
supporting the local fishing communities, which form a significant population in the area.
Mundra has almost 1000 families dependent on fishing who now live under the threat of
losing their livelihoods as the port and jetties expand into their traditional fishing harbours.
Since their shelters along the creek shores are transient, with no legal titles, staking a claim
on lost fishing grounds is hard for them. As mentioned earlier, most of this land has been
classified as un-surveyed seashore or revenue wasteland. The dredging activities at the port
and movement of barges and large shipping vessels also affect fish catch. Last year, one
fishing village, Shekhadiya stood up in protest as the land being acquired for the SEZ's air
strip blocked their daily path to the creek. In 1997-98 when fish workers of Jahrpara village
(using theNavinal creek) carried on a movement after being evicted forcefully from their
fishing shelters by the company, they got no response from the government. Further, about 14
villages have lost more than 1400 acres of grazing land to the SEZ. TheMaldhari community,
who graze cattle and camel on these lands as their main occupation have been badly hit as a
result.The people of the area have also not gained in terms of employment. Local residents
claim that at any point there are 10 to 15000 migrant and contract labourers in Mundra living
in hutments and shanties along the roadside, without basic facilities like water and
sanitation.The region surrounding MPSEZL has other mammoth projects like Kandla and
Jamnagar Petrochemical SEZs where similar environmental, cultural and socio-economic
fallouts are being borne out. Yet there is no cumulative environment impact assessment to
evaluate the damage these developments are causing to the marine ecosystem of the Gulf of
Kutch.
Gujarat mangrove restoration :
Activity-1: Sites for mangrove regeneration/ conservation with communities/CBOs, based on
expert advice were selected and finalized
A Selection of the site was carried out for assessing the current status of the site in terms of
ecological & environmental condition. GEC appointed expert team based on the ToR as
mentioned. The team surveyed the area and prioritized the sites based on the observations
made during the visit. Apart from the technical aspects, the survey also yield the socio-
economic status of the villages. This included results of GIS based maps (Mangrove), Rapid
Rural Appraisal (RRA), Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) exercises. Expert consultants
were hired and they were entrusted with the responsibility of conducting the BLS, with the
logistic support from GEC, and CBOs.
24
The scope of the base line survey was identified through a workshop. The workshop
wasattended by mangrove experts, officials from SPPC, MoEF, Bank and GEC.
Through a participatory process of discussion involving all the stake holders, the entire scope
for the base line survey was identified.
Activity-2: Developed baseline information for the proposed project area, with maps for
existing and anticipated effluent discharge points.
The Base Line Survey included assessment of current status of the Mangrove Ecosystem in
the project sites. Apart from technical aspects, the study also yield the socio-economic status
of the villages. It also included the results of the thematic (Mangrove) Participatory Rural
Appraisal (PRA) exercise. The consultants were hired who were entrusted with the
responsibility of conducting the BLS, with logistic support from GEC, and CBOs.
Activity-3: Develop Mangrove Plantation
Based on the recommendations of the BLS, the potential locations on each of the selected
Project Sites were decided. The exact area for the Restoration, Plantation and / or
Conservation were demarcated.
The activities to be carried out were differed based on the status of existing growth. In case of
restoration, the main activities involved desilting of the existing canals or the feeder canals.
This was supplemented by digging of rib canals or new canals. If there were need for
plantation, the main activities were collection or procurement of seeds, developing the
nursery and plantation of seedlings.
Nurseries at the local level were developed subject to availability of seeds. If sufficient seeds
were not available at the site, then seeds or seedlings were procured from other sites. In case
of conservation, the main activity was developing norms for better management of the
existing mangroves.
All the above activities were carried out by the members of community based organization
with the help of identified NGOs. The management committee of the CBOs was entrusted
with this responsibility.
Technical Models of GEC
25
During the course of project implementation, different technical models were tried in order
to evolve the most cost effective model. It also ensured that better results are obtained.
Based on the experience gained from REMAG project, following models was adopted.
Nursery Raised Saplings or Potted seedlings – This model was adopted due to its
capacity to give better survival rate. Nursery beds were prepared in the inter-tidal belts
of the selected areas. The nursery operations started from the Month of August and
continued till the month of November-December 2007.
Earthen Mound Technique –This Model was adopted and preferred due to its cost
Effectiveness. It was also easy to implement where large areas are to be brought under
mangrove cover. The model had proved to be effective in terms of survival rate in
adverse ecological conditions.
Direct Dibbling –This method was employed at the places where tidal current was low.
Canal Plantation –This Model was adopted at the places where the water inundation took
place once in 10 days as well as in hyper saline area.
Activity-4: Training CBOs in technical aspects of mangrove plantation and maintenance
(Technical Trainings).
All Partner Community Based Organizations were trained in the technical aspects of
mangroves such as ecology of Mangroves, scientific aspects of the Mangrove restoration,
different techniques of the plantation through the renowned technical consultants. The in-
house capacity of GEC was used for imparting necessary trainings. Every implementation
year this kind of training was imparted to the CBOs as well as ground level project staff.
Activity-5: Alternative Fodder Development
One of the ways of reducing the dependency of local community on the mangroves was by
providing them with some alternative fodder and firewood. These reduced the pressure on the
mangroves and enhance their growth. Keeping this in mind, fodder and firewood plantation
was developed in village wasteland and common land. The PRA reports gave an elaborate
ranking about the fodder preferences of the villagers. Based on which, the species to be
planted were decided. The seeds / seedlings were procured from different sources like the
forest departments and private nurseries.
26
The activities were planned and carried out by the villagers/CBOs for the technical aspects
GEC/PMU and field functionaries provided support.
Activity-6: Creation of Awareness among the various stake holders
Awareness programmes about the mangroves and their ecological importance were
undertaken for the village communities. The NGO representatives also took part in the whole
exercise. The primary objective of the programme was to give an idea to the villagers about
the mangroves and their usefulness. The mangrove experts identified by GEC carried out this
exercise through different ways like street play, audio-visual shows, group meetings, yatra,
rally etc.
Mangrove Analysis, Plantation & Management Study:
The terms of reference for carrying out EIA study given by the Ministry ofEnvironment &
Forest has specified to examine and submit the details ofmangrove area, destruction of
mangroves and management measures indetail with the help of satellite imagery of the last 15
years. The followingparagraph describes the field observation, analysis and location of
mangrovelikely to be destroyed due to project, compensatory plantation and its Management.
Management of Mangrove:
a) Introduction:
Formulation of a strategic management plan with an approach to mangrovedevelopment and
sustainability of the mangrove ecosystem is essential. Theconservation of mangrove
biodiversity and management plans may focus onseveral individual aspects such as historical
ecology of the site, presentenvironmental conditions and other development cum
conservation activities.
But the sustainability and well being of an ecosystem largely depends onmanagement of three
major factors such as Conservation, Resource andResearch at the study area. Thus it is
obvious here to elaborate and discussthe management activities under these three facets.
Similarly managementactivities required for betterment of this ecosystem can also be
consideredunder two typical approaches viz. management on scientific and social insight.
Both these approaches are directly related to each other and will not work successful in
isolation.
With all the observations made around NMIA Project Site with specialemphasis on mangrove
ecosystem, and after analyzing the records anddocuments, several management plans under
different managing actionswere driven out to foster future development and sustainability of
27
thismangrove ecosystem. Given below are some of the most important management plans to
be undertaken for future development of the mangrove ecosystem under three different
approaches:
b) Conservation and Management:
The management approach on conservation of biological diversity largelydepends on
plantation of mangrove and protection given to them.
i) Habitat management
(a) Habitat management can be achieved under two aspects such ashabitat creation and
habitat restoration. Basically habitat creationmeans the creation of a new habitat by
developing new sites and linkingremaining patches. Similarly, restoration refers to
modification ofexisting semi-natural habitat. As far as this mangrove concerned both these
aspects would be quite applicable.
(b) Communities that depend on these coastal resources face the longtermchallenge for their
sustenance and after natural disasters in termsof economic crisis. Belated responses in
initiating remedial action afterthe damage become apparent seen almost in all developing
countries.
Unfortunately, in spite of very rich scientific information action is usuallyinitiated only after
irreversible destructive damage has occurred.In view of these critical situations, adoption of
several preventivemeasures is essential to protect the coastal communities and for the
conservation of these coastal ecosystems. Such defensive measuresshould cover all the
activities of past, present and future, bearing inmind that the cumulative impact of these
activities should not affect theexisting biodiversity in any way. To achieve these goals best
option is toset up nursery at the site itself.
ii) Establishment of a nursery
(a) Direct planting of viviparous seedlings in appropriate locations whichare regularly
inundated by incoming high tides, is an ideal way ofmangrove establishment in new areas. In
some parts of the Country,raising the mangrove seeds for transplantation in a nursery
establishedat the site or adjacent to it is considered to be ideal for successfulmangrove
establishment once planted. However, the techniques ofrestoration of mangrove areas (from
their original degraded status) arerelated to civil engineering principles.
(b) Locations which need to be restored will have to be surveyed for their topography,
exposure to tidal inundation, tidal amplitude, soil typeincluding its salinity and anthropogenic
pressures. Initial efforts could bemade to restore the degraded areas with indigenous species
ofmangroves, which are found to be growing luxuriantly.
28
(c) Planting native or already successfully established species would bemuch appreciable
than introduction of a new species. Altering the siteby the introduction of strange species
newer to the site will bedetrimental to the already established species.Thus, the species
selection for plantation should be based on theexisting environmental conditions at the site
rather than trying to imposenew species.
iii) Public participation:
(a) Mangrove management plans often collapse especially because they fail to fulfill the very
basic requirement like involvement and aspirations of local communities. Priority should be
given to participation of local rural people in mangrove-based plantation activities.
Emphasizing on education to encourage them to the level of self-management, so that they
involve themselves in protecting their own resources.
(b) Involving local people reduces the information gap between local wisdom and knowledge
systems available at different levels. Information about the coastal policies, coastal protection
rules, laws and coastal acts can be taught to the inhabitants and to those involved in planting.
Thus making local community literally well aware of coastal policies, leads to better
management achievement.
(c) Involving local people like the fishermen community, women self-helpgroups, youth
clubs etc. motivates them to protect. Participants involvedin plantation should be sufficiently
cohesive, dedicated and have acommon intention to plant and protect. Encouraging to plant
mangrovesin adjacent inundated areas initiates them to safeguard the mangrove With self-
intention.To achieve best biodiversity conservation objectives, improvedmethodologies
towards raising seedlings, maintaining andtransplantation techniques should be practiced.
Consequently, effectiveresearch projects and extension programs, which are critical
andfocusing public participation in conservation and management of these typical coastal
ecosystem should be given highest priority.
4.2 Diversion of the Gadhi River and the tidally-influenced Ulwe water
body:The proposed re-coursing of tidally influenced water body outlets from Ulwe river has a large
cross sectional area at the middle with the river/creek on either end remaining unchanged
with its natural coast. The whole system should function as was functioning earlier without
airport project. Surface run off should not be let into the channel just because the area of
cross section is large. The whole airport area will be reclaimed at the level raised to 7m
29
whereas the existing level all around the airport will continue to be low in its natural state.
There will be flow all around due to surface run off. These additional quantities must be
collected by appropriate drainage system and let into Gadhiriver and not into the re-coursing
channel. The recourse channel may be able to take it but not the river or creek on the either
side of the channel. This aspect shall be examined by the Cidco in details to avoid the
flooding of the low lying areas besides inducting hydrological and environmental studies.
The entire system should be studied as one composite system with appropriate boundary
conditions to reflect the worst conditions-minimum hundred years to be specified and
compliance ensured such as flooding, surface run-off not only from the airport but also from
surrounding areas as well, normal flow, tidal flow due to tidal surge having a long return
period, possible obstructions to flow, tributaries joining the main river etc so as to take
appropriate protections and remedial measures .Due to construction of recourse channels and
due to tail end of the Gadhi and Ulwe rivers into Panvel creek, there is a need to prepare a
comprehensive master plan for surface drainage and flood protection, keeping in view the
proposed development.
On the northern part of the airport there is a secondary channel of the Gadhiriver which will
be filled up for the airport run way construction. This will be replaced by a shorter channel
along the northern boundary of the airport. The channel should be designed appropriately
through overall modeling study so that the channel provides tidal water to the mangrove
park and moderate tidal flows under worst environmental conditions. The revised widths
and depths of free course channels should be determined with modified drainage and worst
rainfall/tide conditions including appropriate factors of safety.
.
5. INFRASTRUCTURE
Metro connectivity: The two metro routes, which will directly connect NMIA, are
Andheri-Ghatkopar-Mankhurd-Vashi-NMIA-Panvel, which is expected to
cost 13,000 crore, and Colaba-Siddhivinayak-Sewri-NMIA, likely to cost 15,000
crore. They will be aligned in a way that they intersect two or more other rail
corridors. These modes of transport would be among several other road routes,
30
monorails and suburban rail routes that have been proposed for ferrying over 10
million passengers to the new airport, once itbecomes part-operational by 2014.
Catamarans:Apart from these, two passenger water transport routes have been
identified. The first one will be from Ferry Wharf in SoBo to NMIA/Belapur and the
other from Radio Club at Gateway of India to NMIA/Belapur.They will be built at a
cost of 250 crore approximately. Catamarans and hovercrafts would be used for the
purpose. Until now, the government has failed to implement the water transport
projects on eastern and western corridors. The approximate travel time anticipated to
reach NMIA through the metro rails is 80 minutes, while the travel time taken via the
water route is 30 minutes, excluding the waiting period at the terminals.
New fast corridors: Apart from these new routes, the report mentions the need for
the proposed 1,300 crore fast rail corridor on CST-Panvel and Panvel-Uran routes,
and the doubling of tracks on Panvel-Karjat route, in addition to increasing
train services on Vasai-Diva-Panvel section.28000 crore is approximate cost of
building metro corridors to connect NMIA with western suburbs and island city.
6. ADVANTAGES OF NAVI MUMBAI AIRPORT
Create Jobs:
The newly appointed chairman of City and Industrial Development Corporation
of Maharashtra Limited (CIDCO), PramodHindurao, is expecting that 5 lakh jobs will
be created in Navi Mumbai because of the upcoming international airport. Talking to
media persons at his first press conference in Navi Mumbai, Hindurao said that the
31
new airport in Navi Mumbai is designed to handle 6.10 crore passengers annually
when it is completed. Comparatively, the existing Mumbai airport only handles
around 2.6 crore passengers per year.
Diverting Population into New Town:
CIDCO was given a mandate to undertake all development as works and recoup the
cost of development from the sale proceeds of land and constructed property. Based
on the mandate, CIDCO set several broad objectives for itself. It aims to prevent
population influx into Mumbai, diverting it to the new town, by providing an urban
alternative which will lure citizens wishing to relocate to a city of peace and comfort.
Immigrants are to be absorbed and efficient and rational distribution of industries is
promoted by preparing a ground for them who otherwise could have opted for
Mumbai. CIDCO plans to provide basic civic amenities to all and elevate standards of
living for people of all social and economic strata. Moreover, it wants to offer a
healthy environment and energizing atmosphere in order to utilize human resources at
their fullest potentials.
Revenues for Investors:
The growth in resident population in Navi Mumbai, rapid development of its Central
Business District, coupled with economic activities such as Special Economic Zone,
Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust, Thane-Belapur and Taloja industrial areas and the huge
catchment area ranging from Pune to South Mumbai would assure a steady growth
rate in traffic at the new airport, thus assuring steady revenues to the investors. In
addition the project opens-up the state’s vast hinterland rich in agriculture,
floriculture, hi-tech high value industries to world market. Thus, making the airport to
act as a focal point for emergence of a trans-shipment centre in the Asian region.
32
BIBLIOGRAPHY
http://www.cidco.maharashtra.gov.in/
http://cidconmia.com/website/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navi_Mumbai_International_Airport
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/fullcover.cms?keyword=Navi%20Mumbai%20Airport
33