THRISSUR: There is no dearth of examples to substantiate the observations made the other day by Sukumar Azhikode - 'expert opinions are often untrue, farce' - while inaugurating dharna against the proposed Athirappilly hydroelectric project here. An example is the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) on the project which was carried out by Water and Power Consultency Services Private Limited (WAPCOS), Hariyana. The Kerala State Electricity Board had assigned the study to WAPCOS on October 8, 2002 and the consultants submitted the study report to KSEB next year. As per the accepted norms, the EIA of a project related to rivers should be conducted by observing the flow of water in the river at least for two seasons and the study by the consultants did not observe this accepted norm, said sources here. This apart, the report pointed out in one place that 'the teak plantation adjacent to the dam site is part of the contiguous foraging area of elephants. During field visits, signs of elephants frequently visiting the area were observed. In the proposed project area, the dam site lies in the path of migratory route of elephants and during the construction phase site is expected to be the hub of construction activities. In such a scenario, elephants would migrate from the area.' However in its conclusion the report says 'as per the available data the project and its surrounding areas do not have much of wildlife'. The report points out that 'poaching could increase to some extent due to increased labour congregation during the project construction phase'. Report suggested staking the muck on the banks of Ittiani Thode and revegetate it to prevent its washing down to the Thode during monsoon season. The report says that mucks generally lack nutrients and is difficult to revegetate unless a reasonably thick layer of nutrient-rich topsoil from somewhere else is spread over the muck. And the report says "since topsoils are not available in large quantities in Himalayas, it may not be possible to apply a layer of topsoil over the muck'. One totally fails to understand the relevance of shortage of topsoil in Himalayas and the muck generated in Athirappilly. It may be a mistake crept into the report in the process of cutting and pasting' from some other reports available in the computer. However it points to the callousness with which the report was prepared by the consultants. Environmentalists here pointed out that any EIA on any project in Chalakkudy river would be incomplete without assessing the impact of the tail water released from the project to the Kannamkuzhy Thode and the 21 flora-rich islands in the downstream of the river. The WAPCOS EIA does not contain any mention of these aspects considered crucial by environmentalists in taking a decision on this controversial project proposal.