1.environmentclearance.nic.in/writereaddata/online/... · 1 minutes the minutes of the 126th...

1

Minutes

The Minutes of the 126th

Meeting of the Expert Appraisal Committee for Projects related

to Infrastructure Development, Coastal Regulation Zone, Building/Construction and

Miscellaneous projects held from 19th

– 21st September, 2013 in the Conference Hall, IOC, Scope

Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi.

1. Opening Remarks of the Chairman.

The Chairman welcomed the members to the 126th

meeting of the Expert Appraisal

Committee and the first meeting of the reconstituted Committee. Chairman suggested that

sufficient time should be provided to the members to go through the project documents and

reports. He also pointed out that many clearances recommended by the Committee have been

challenged in NGT and there are various observations/ orders of NGT. It would be appropriate

that the agenda is not overloaded so that the Committee has sufficient time to appraise the projects

in detail.

2. Confirmation of the Minutes of the 125th

Meeting of the EAC held on 10th

– 12th

June, 2013 at New Delhi.

Member Secretary informed that no comments have been received from the members of

the earlier Committee after the posting of minutes on the website. The Committee noted the

information provided by the Member Secretary and the minutes of the 125th

Meeting were

confirmed.

3. Consideration of old Proposals

3.1 Extension of Environmental Clearance for Container Terminal Project at Ennore

Port Limited. M/s Ennore Port Limited [F.No.10-28/2005-IA.III(P)]

The project proponent informed that MoEF accorded environmental clearance vide

Letter No. 10-28/2005-IA-III dated 10.9.2007 for the development of Container

Terminal for a quay length of 1000 mtrs. along with associated Capital Dredging to

provide an alongside depth of (-) 16 mtrs CD, with a capacity to handle 18 MTPA (1.5

million TEUs). As the five year period is over, the port has requested for renewal of the

environmental clearance for a further period of three years in view of the fact that the

earlier Concessionaire for development of Container Terminal failed to start the work

and subsequently the concession agreement was cancelled. EPL has again taken up

development of container Terminal in phases keeping in view the latest developments

and market demand. At present 11 bids for qualification have been received for

development of container terminal of 730 mtrs quay length with a capacity of 16.8

MTPA (1.4 million TUEs). This project is planned to be awarded by December 2013.

PP further informed that there is no change in the project scope.

Committee noted that in terms of para 9 of the EIA, Notification, 2006, the

extension of EC can be considered provided the request / application is made within

the validity period. As the Proponent made the request within the validity period, the

Committee has therefore recommended to extend the validity of clearance by another

three years.

2 3.2

Finalization of ToR for development of Shipyard cum Captive jetties including an

LNG Terminal at Nana Layja, Kutch district, Gujarat by M.s GIMCPL. [F.No.

11-87/2011-IA-III].

The Committee noted that the part of the proposed site allotted for the activity

appeared to be in the middle of the river mouth. The proponent clarified that the land

already exists there at about 3-5 m above the MSL.

However, the Committee recommended to defer the project and suggested the

proponent to submit the details of the particular land along with the documentary

proof or revise the layout leaving the river mouth.

3.3

Environmental and CRZ Clearance for the expansion of Dhamra Port at Dhamra,

Bhadrak Dist. of Orissa by M/s. Dhamra Port Company Ltd. [F.No.11-104/2009-

IA.III]

The EAC considered the project in its meeting held in November, 2009 and

finalized ToR including the conduct of Public Hearing, which was conducted on 13.07.

2012. The State Coastal Zone Management Authority has recommended the project

vide letter dated 20.12.2012.

The EAC considered the project in December, 2012 and sought additional

information viz. compliance of the EC conditions, revised map showing lat/long

coordinates along the boundary of the project site. GPS coordinates for the mangrove

area, specific details regarding ballast disposal as proposed for the project vis-à-vis

existing guidelines, Commitment for all the recommendations provided by OCZMA

and NIO for protection of Kanika island and earmark specific amount for the

conservation plan, analysis regarding ‘dredge material disposal. The proponent

submitted and presented the information.

The EAC had again, in June, 2013, sought additional information relating to

compliance of the EC conditions, revised map showing lat/long coordinates along the

boundary of the project site, GPS coordinates for the mangrove area, details regarding

ballast disposal vis-à-vis existing guidelines, commitment for all the recommendations

provided by OCZMA and NIO for protection of Kanika island and its conservation

plan, analysis and mitigation plan for dredge material disposal, construction of berths

on open piled structure, issues raised during the public hearing along with the

response/action plan. The details submitted and presented by the proponent were

discussed by the EAC in its meeting held on 12th

June 2013. It recommended to defer

the proposal seeking additional information, viz, details on complaint of sewage

disposal in to agriculture land, acquisition of grazing / grave land for the project,

mangrove conservation plan, NBWL clearance etc. The proponent submitted the details

and informed that he has submitted application for NBWL clearance in August, 2012.

The proposal for NBWL clearance is being considered by the State Board for Wildlife

which has been constituted recently.

Regarding the representation of Sh. Bibhuti Bhusan Misra, Advocate, on

Environmental Clearance matters pertaining to Dhamra Port it has been clarified by the

proponent that the main allegation in the representation is regarding construction of 62

km railway line from Bhadrak to Dhamra and a Transmission line from Bhadrak to

3

Dhamra, water pipeline and Water Treatment Plant for which no EC was obtained. It

has been mentioned by the proponent that the above activities are outside the port

limits and these activities does not require Environmental Clearance as per the EIA

Notification, 2006. Regarding the

During discussion the following points emerged:

i. The proponent shall submit undertaking that there shall be no acquisition of

grazing / grave land for the project.

ii. The regional office of MoEF may conduct a site visit every year to verify

compliance.

iii. The natural creek and drainage pattern of the area should not be disturbed and

the cross drainage passing through cargo stack yards shall be released into

settling ponds as committed.

iv. No housing component is permitted in CRZ area i.e. within 500 m from HTL.

v. As discussed during the meeting the dumping area should be at the latitude 200

55. 1’ and longitude 870 10.5’ in the off shore region.

vi. All the commitments made during the Public Hearing shall be complied with.

vii. Regular air quality monitoring should be conducted at the site and all the

parameters should be within limits.

The Committee recommended the proposal for Environmental and CRZ

Clearance with the above conditions in the Clearance letter for strict compliance by

the project proponent

3.4 Extension of validity of ToRs for the five projects of DMICDC by M/s DMICDC

[F. No. 21-19/2011-IA.III]

ToRs were approved for the five similar projects of Delhi Mumbai Industrial

Corridor Development Corporation (DMICDC) in the 99th EAC meeting held on 5th &

6th April 2011 and communicated vide letter dated 4th

May 2011. Thereafter, site

Specific TORs were also approved in the 100th EAC Meeting held on 11th- 12th May,

2011 and communicated vide letter No. 21-20/2011-IA.III dated 27th

May 2011.

Validity of the TORs was for two years upto 27th

May 2013. PP informed that EIA

studies have been completed and submitted to SPCB for conduct of Public Hearing

which is yet to be conducted. Therefore, proponent requested for extension of validity

of terms of reference by another year.

The Committee recommended to extend the validity of ToRs by one year.

3.5 Environmental and CRZ Clearance for development of sea port Simar at Chhara

village, Junagarh District, Gujarat by M/s. Simar Port Ltd. [F.No.11-73/2009-

IA.III]

As presented by the project proponent, GMB issued Letter of Intent (LOI) to

SPPL (then SPCL-Afcons-Forbes Consortium) in April 2008 for development of all-

4

weather, direct-berthing port and create necessary infrastructure at Simar. ToR was

granted for the Simar site. Subsequent investigations at the Simar Port site (Khada

village) revealed adverse off-shore geo-technical data which led to the conclusion that

port cannot be developed at Khada. SPPL then identified another site, 45 km on the

west of the Simar site near Chhara village (in the Junagadh district). ToR was granted

for the Chhara site in January, 2010. Chhara site has a shoal bank at 2.5 km distance

from shore. GMB accepted SPPL’s proposal to develop the port at the Chhara site. The

proposed port site at Chhara is located on the South coast of Gujarat State, west of Diu

Island.

The site identified for the proposed port at Chhara falls approximately between

Latitude - 20° 43’ 19.56” N and Longitude- 70° 44’ 28.73” E. Kodinar is the nearest

town with connection to the railway network and is located 7 km from the project site.

Nearest National Highway is NH 8E and is approx 6.5 km on the North of the proposed

site. Development of the port is proposed in two phases. In Phase – 1 it is proposed to

develop facilities to handle imported coal of 8 MMTPA. Maximum vessel size

expected to enter the port will be 180, 000 DWT size in loaded condition. The berthing

area has water depth of 20 m below CD and can accommodate even a fully laden larger

size coal vessel.

Proposed project involves construction of Breakwater (Length: 1700 m, Width :

75 m at bottom, Height: 10 m above CD level), Berth (One No., Length: 350 m, Width:

25 m), Approach Trestle(Length: 2265 m, Width: 12 m); Capital Dredging 1.5 Million

Cum, Maintenance Dredging 150,000 Cum per annum; development of Coal Stackyard

(32 Ha), and allied infrastructure facilities.

GCZMA has recommended the project vide letter No. ENV-10-2011-1164

dated 26.04.2013. There is no eco- sensitive area in the site and within 10 km radius.

Public Hearing was conducted on 19.11.2010 at Shri Shah MM High School,

Sarkhadi-Chhara Circle, Kodinar, Junagadh District. The major points raised are

employment, impact on water bodies, conservation of Shark Whales and sea turtles.

The details submitted and presented by the proponent were examined.

Committee noted that there was an appeal before Hon’ble NGT against the

project and it was disposed vide order dated 22nd

April, 2012. In the Order dated

20.4.2012, it is noted that the issues are the site is in Eco-sensitive area, power plant

site is very fertile whereas the EIA report does not mention so. EIA is not based on 3

seasons date, Public Hearing was not conducted as per law, project will affect Bandara,

affect the migratory birds which visit the wet land in winter, Port site is abode to sea

turtle.

The Proponent clarified that the site is not an eco-sensitive area, the nearest wet

land is about 3 m away, EAC (Thermal) sub-committee visited the site and observed

that the site is in a largely single crop agriculture land, there would not be any runoff to

bandara since slope is towards sea and not towards bandara, details of agriculture land

provided at EIA page 124 table 3.20.2 and 125, EIA is based on 3 seasons data.

5

EAC in May, 2013 sought the additional information on justification for

acquiring pockets of land of irregular shape, Coal handling along with dust control

measures, water requirement and treatment wash water / wastewater for belt washing,

Approach Trestle, response on the issues raised in the appeal made before Hon’ble

NGT etc. It also suggested to shift stack yard at least 300-500 m away from its

boundary.

The Committee noted that NGT passed order in the appeal on 20th

April, 2013.

In view of the order of NGT, it was decided in June, 2013, that in addition to the copy

of order, the proponent may also circulate the copy of petition to the members. EAC

noted that Petitioner has not approached the Ministry as per NGT order. Nearest ESZ

GIR forests is 22 km away. Issues raised during PH and raised before NGT and

responses were presented by the proponent were examined by the EAC.

During discussion, the following points emerged and were recommended to the

Project proponent for compliance:-

i. PP shall provide lining for collection of run off from coal stock yard and the

leachate shall be treated before disposal.

ii. Re-design of RWH system with respect to maximum rainfall.

iii. There shall be no washing of conveyor belt as committed.

iv. Shall provide wind screen of minimum 15 m height made of fabric/HDPE all

along the periphery of coal stockyard area. The height shall be designed taking

into account the wind velocity and model studies. Use of creepers to adsorb

dust shall also be explored in consultation with forest department.

v. Coal shall be kept under moist conditions using water sprinklers.

Transportation shall be in closed conveyors with water spray

vi. Shall provide animal underpasses 2 nos as per IRC

vii. Drainage system of the canal joining the two water bodies shall not be

disturbed

viii. Submit the CSR Action plan with budget

ix. No wet land and radial canal falls in port land

x. All the conditions stipulated by PCCF vide letter dt 21.09.2012 shall be

complied with

xi. All the conditions stipulated by GCZMA shall be complied with.

The Committee recommended the proposal for Environmental and CRZ

Clearance with the above conditions in the Clearance letter for strict compliance by

the project proponent.

6

3.6 Review of Environmental and CRZ clearance for proposed expansion and

moderation of Pipavav Port, Taluka Rajula, district- Amreli by M/s Gujarat

Pipavav Port Ltd. [F. No. 11-91/2009-IA-III]

The proposal for expansion and modernization plan of Pipavav Port, was

examined by the EAC in its meeting held on 23rd

- 24th

November, 2009 which finalized

the ToRs including conduct of Public Hearing. The Public hearing was conducted on

12.05.2011 within the Port. Gujarat Coastal Zone Management Authority has

recommended the project vide letter No. ENV-10-2011-997-E dated 18.01.2012. EAC

examined the proposal in its meeting held in March, 2012 and recommended for grant

of clearance. Accordingly, the EC was granted on 05.06.2012.

The EC was challenged before the NGT stating that proposed expansion will

adversely affect mangrove forests, migrating birds etc. NGT allowed the appeal and

ordered to keep the clearance in abeyance for six months and the matter was remitted

to the EAC for the purpose of reconsideration of appraisal.

The project proponent presented the response to the issues raised before the

NGT. The EAC examined the responses especially with respect to coal dust and its

control, amenities for Shiyalbet, road access etc. After examining the details submitted

and presented by the proponent, EAC decided to call for the following information

from PP and further presentation in the subsequent meeting.

i. Submit the issues raised, NGT observations, empirical evidence for or against

the issue.

ii. Details of the problem of inhabitants of shiyalbet and relief measures proposed

iii. Report from Regional Office on the compliance of earlier conditions

iv. Report of the PCB on the compliance of consent orders.

v. Details of satellite imagery to prove mangroves have not been destroyed.

3.7 CRZ clearance for proposed CNG filling station at plot No. 153-A, BBR Scheme

Block III, Fort Division on Free Press Journal Road Mumbai by M/s Mahanagar

Gas Ltd. [F. No. 19-104/2012-IA.III]

The Committee decided to defer the project, since the project proponent did not

circulate the documents in time.

3.8

CRZ Clearance for Development of 4.0 Ha of Forest land in Visakhapatnam

Division for “Karthikavanam” in S.No.106 of Yendada Village, Greater

Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation by M/s MAG Leisures [F.No.11-12/2013-

IA.III]

As presented by the project proponent the proposal involves development of

7

ecotourism activity including construction of 84 cottages, Sampradaya Vedika- to

showcase Art and Culture of the region (open air auditorium), traditional Indian house,

Youth Activity Centre, Restaurant and ethnic food court. The total plot area is 4 ha.

and the plinth area is 10.963.58 sqm. The water requirement will be 70 KLD and will

be met from Public Supply. The waste water generation of about 56 KLD will be

treated in a modular STP of 60 KLD capacity. The treated wastewater will be used for

greenbelt/ flushing. Forest clearance has been obtained vide letter dated 30.09.2010

from Regional Office, MoEF. Parking facility is proposed in 5191.33 sqm. Green belt

of 19,627 sqm is proposed. D.G set of 250 KVA has been proposed with acoustic

enclosure.

EAC in its meeting held in April, 2013 sought the details of landscape plan,

drainage plan, parking and circulation, trees along with types, girth size etc.

Proponent informed that out of 280 trees, 50 trees will be relocated including 29

big trees, 21 medium and 3 small trees.

The EAC examined the details submitted and presented by the proponent. After

deliberation, the EAC decided to recommend the project for grant of CRZ clearance

subject to the following conditions:

(i) “Consent to Establish” shall be obtained from the State Pollution Control

Board under Air and Water Act and a copy shall be submitted to the

Ministry’s Regional Office before start of any construction work at the site.

(ii) Approval of the State Tourism Department shall be obtained.

(iii) The project proponent shall not undertake any construction within 200

metres on the landward side of High Tide Line and within the area between

Low Tide Line and High Tide Line;

(iv) There shall by no ground water drawal in no development zone of CRZ

area. Between 200-500m from HTL, the water can be tapped with the

approval of the State Ground Water Authority.

(v) Necessary arrangements for the treatment of the effluents and solid wastes

must be made and it must be ensured that the untreated /treated effluents

and solid wastes are not discharged into the water or on to the beach;

(vi) The quality of treated effluents, solid wastes, emissions and noise levels and

the like, from the project area must conform to the standards laid down by

the competent authorities including the Central or State Pollution Control

Board and under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.

(vii) The total covered area on all floors shall not exceed 33 percent of the plot

size i.e., the Floor Space Index shall not exceed 0.33 and the open area

shall be suitably landscaped with appropriate vegetal cover;

(viii) The overall height of construction upto the highest ridge of the roof, shall

not exceed 9 metres and the construction shall not be more than two floors

8

(ground floor plus one upper floor);

(ix) Live fencing and barbed wire fencing with vegetative cover may be

provided around private properties subject to the condition that such

fencing shall in no way hamper public access to the beach; to allow public

access to the beach, at least a gap of 20metres width shall be provided if the

width of the plot is more than 500 metres.

(x) There shall be no extraction of sand, levelling or digging of sandy stretches

except for structural foundation of building, swimming pool; no flattening

of sand dunes shall be carried out.

(xi) The construction shall be consistent with the surrounding landscape and

local architectural style;

4. Consideration of New Proposals:

4.1 CRZ Clearance for proposed construction of erosion/coastal protection work in

Valsad, Pardi and Umargam Taluka, Dist Valsad by M/s Narmada, Water

Resources, Water Supply & Kalpasar Department [F.No. 11–36/2013-IA.III] &

[F.No.11-40/2013-IA-III]

GCZMA has recommended the project vide F.No.ENV-10-2012-98-E dated

14.05.2013 and F.No.ENV-10-2012-99-E dated 24.05.2013.


deliberation it decided to recommend the project for grant of CRZ clearance subject to

the following condition:

Also explore the use of tetra pods since in long run, the efficiency of the

proposed facility may reduce due to sand accumulation.

4.2 CRZ Clearance for construction Groynes for protection of 36 pipeline across river

Minodla at village Danti, Dist Navsar M/s ONGC [F.No.11–37/ 2013-IA.III]

The Committee decided to defer the project, since the project proponent did

not attend the meeting.

4.3 CRZ Clearance for onshore gas terminal at Mallavaram setting up of process cum

living quarter platform at offshore in KG-OSN-2001/03, Andhra Pradesh and

laying of 20” underground Gas Pipeline along with OFC and 10” effluent disposal

pipeline passing through CRZ area of Yanam-Puducherry by M/s Gujarat State

Petroleum Corporation Ltd. [F.No. 11–21/2013 -IA.III]

As presented by M/s Gujarat State Petroleum Corporation Ltd (GSPC),

Gandhinagar (A Govt. Of Gujarat Undertaking) has signed a production sharing contract

with Govt. Of India on 2nd

February 2003 for carrying out exploration and production

activities in the Offshore Block (KG-OSN-2001/3) KG Basin, East Coast of India. After

discovery of Gas in well KG #8, GSPC has decided to develop the field as “Deendayal

9

Development Field”.

Environmental Clearance from Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF) was

obtained for above field development which consists of following:-

1. Setting up of Well Head Platform (WHP) at Offshore ( KG#8 location)

2. Drilling of 15 development wells from Well Head Platform

3. Laying of Multiphase produced fluid pipeline from Offshore (WHP) to Land

Fall Point (LFP) and from LFP to Onshore Gas Terminal (OGT) at P.

Mallavaram.

4. Laying of pipeline for disposal of treated effluent from OGT at identified marine

outfall location.

5. Processing Facilities for 240 MMSCFD (Million Standard Cubic Feet per Day)

Gas and associated condensate at Onshore Gas Terminal at P. Mallavaram

Andhra Pradesh

Subsequently with receipt of CFE from the State pollution Control Board, physical

construction work for the above field development has already commenced. In the

mean time, with availability of additional well test data, capacities of some of the

already envisaged facilities were required to be enhanced and also some new facilities

were required to be added in the Development Scheme so that it continues to remain

effective and optimum. As per the directives of MoEF, GSPC has submitted application

for obtaining CRZ clearance for below mentioned facilities:-

1. Process cum Living Quarter Platform connected to Well Head Platform (With gas

dehydration, Produced water treatment, Living Quarter facility) located at Offshore

2. Enhancement of processing capacity of Onshore Gas Terminal (Natural Gas – 240

MMSCFD to 300 MMSCFD and condensate to 1344 MTPD)

3. Enhancement of capacity of Captive Power plant (CPP) (4 to 24 MW)

4. Evacuation of process sale gas from OGT through (~500 m long) sale gas pipeline

to east West pipeline (EWPL) of M/s RGTIL

5. Raw water pipeline (~74 Km) to draw raw water from upstream of Dowlaiswaram

barrage.

The expected cost of the project is Rs 203000 Lakhs.

The proposal was earlier considered in the EAC meeting held in June 2013.

The Puducherry Coastal Zone Management Authority has recommended the project for

the portion within Yanam (Puducherry region). The Committee noted that the EAC

(Ind) has not cleared the project and the APCZMA has not recommended the project.

Hence, the Committee recommended to defer the project.

This proposal was considered by AP State Coastal Zone Management Authority

(APCZMA) on 7th

November 2012 and it recommended the project to MoEF. The final

recommendation letter/NOC from APCZMA was submitted to MoEF on 14th

June,

2013. The Proponent desired that this EAC should give clearance before the matter is

taken up by EAC (ind).

During the discussion the following points emerged:

10

i. The mitigation measures proposed in the Environment Management Plan /

Disaster Management Plan for the leak detection, DG set emission, off-shore

safety etc should be strictly adhered to.

ii. The smooth and safe operation of the system shall be ensured by incorporating

a computerized SCADA (Supervisory Control And Data Automation) system.

Any leakage in the pipeline shall be immediately detected by the Computer

system and product pumping shall be immediately cut off

iii. Prior clearance from NBWL shall be obtained in view of Coringa Wildlife

Sanctuary located at a distance of 2.5 km.

iv. Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD) for length of 280 m to cross Neelapalli

Channel shall be carried out as committed during the meeting.

v. Oil spill contingency management plan should be followed.

vi. EAC (Ind) shall take care of other environmental parameters associated with

the proposal including the pollution control, when the proposal is submitted for

the appraisal.

The Committee recommended the proposal for CRZ Clearance with the above

conditions in the Clearance letter for strict compliance by the project proponent.

4.4 CRZ Clearance for expansion of M/s Calangute Hotel Goa [F.No. 16-9/2007-

IA.III]



4.5 CRZ Clearance for up-gradation of existing Dock for Ship building and repairing

facilities at existing Bedi Port, Jamnagar by M/s Parekh Marine Agencies Ltd.

[F.No.11-38/2011-IA.III]

The proposal for up-gradation of existing Dock for ship building/ repairing at

existing Bedi Port was examined by the EAC in its meeting held in March, 2012 and

noted that the proposed facilities are within the port and includes port components viz

dry dock, slipways, dredging etc., therefore EAC in March, 2012 finalised ToR.

Proponent clarified that there is no new construction except repairing the existing

facility and no capital dredging is involved and only maintenance dredging will be

carried. Since maintenance dredging with the port limit is exempted from EIA, 2006,

requested to consider CRZ clearance. GMB vide email dated 14.02.2013 clarified that

no capital dredging is involved.


deliberation it decided to consider the project for CRZ clearance alone and suggested

the proponent to come with Rapid EIA, EMP and recommendation of the SCZMA.

4.6 Environmental and CRZ Clearance for setting up 10 MMTPA LNG Import,

Storage and Regasification facilities at Gangavaram Port Limited,

Visakhapatnam by M/s Petronet LNG Ltd [F.No. 11-12/2012-IA.III]

11

The Committee recommended to defer since the APCZMA recommendation

was not received.

4.7 Environmental and CRZ Clearance for modernisation of Berth No. 7 for coal

handling at Mormugao Port, Goa on DBFOT basis [F. No. 10-39/2009-IA.III (P)].

The project proponent informed that the cargo volume at MPT has dropped

from 5O million tonnes in 2010-11 to17.69 million tonnes in 2012-13. This is on

account of stoppage of iron ore mining in Goa. Even with the resumption of iron ore

mining at Goa, the maximum cargo that can be expected to be handled at MPT will be

around 25 million tonnes. Hence even with the modernization of Berth No.7, the

capacity of the port will be substantially lower compared to permitted capacity. Berth

No.7 will be for coal handling, which is existing cargo. There will be a mechanized

facility with dry fog and sprinkling systems for effective dust suppression. Hence, dust

pollution will be reduced to greater extend.

The Committee noted that the earlier EAC in its meeting held in March, 2008 has

not suggested Public Hearing and in July, 2009 has sought only the Recommendation

of Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority. Accordingly, Proponent submitted the

recommendation of Goa CZMA (Letter No. GCZMA/S/13-14/09/360 dated

07.06.2013). The Committee further noted that the proposal is for modernization /

mechanization of existing berth which will be used to handle coal a permitted cargo.

The Committee also noted that the Proponent’s statement the overall cargo handling

capacity has come down over the years and the present proposal of cargo handling is

well within the ports permitted capacity. Therefore, the Committee decided that MoEF

may take a view whether Public Hearing is required in the given circumstances and

recommended that the proposal for grant of EC/CRZ clearance could be with the

following conditions, subject to the decision of MoEF on Public Hearing.

i. Shall provide lining for collection of run off from coal stock yard and the

leachate shall be treated before disposal.

ii. Shall provide dry fog and sprinkling systems for effective dust suppression

iii. Entire transportation of coal shall be in closed conveyor.

iv. There shall be no washing of conveyor belt..

v. Shall provide wind screen of minimum 15 m height fabric HDPE all along the

periphery. The height shall be designed taking into account the wind velocity

modelling etc. Also explore creepers in consultation with forest department,

vi. Coal shall be kept under moist conditions using water sprinklers.

Transportation shall be in closed conveyors with water spray.

vii. All the conditions stipulated by GCZMA shall be complied with.

4.8 CRZ clearance for shore line protection measures at Southern Foreshore of

Chennai Port by M/s Chennai Port Trust. F.No.10-104/2007-IA.III

12

As presented by the proponent, the proposal is to construct 6 Nos. Shore

connected Rubble Mound Groynes of different lengths and spacing between the

existing sand screen area and the river Cooum mouth. The main objective is to protect

the shore from erosion and other natural calamities. IIT Madras has made numerical

model studies for the project.

The project proposal was examined by the EAC in its meeting held on 29th

September 2007 and on 14th

February 2011 . EAC sought recommendations of the

Tamil Nadu State Coastal Zone Management Authority to consider the above proposal.

The TCZMA recommended the proposal subject to certain conditions.

Committee noted that the groynes proposed are inside the main shore line and the

studies presented by the proponent did not show any effect on the shoreline on other

side of the groynes.


deliberation it decided to recommend the project for grant of CRZ clearance subject to

the following conditions:

Stones for the construction of groynes shall be obtained only from approved

quarries.

4.9 Finalization of ToR for Development of Kishangarh Airport by M/s Airport

Authority of India[F.No.10- 45/2013-IA-III]

As presented by the project proponent in recent years, Kishangarh has come to be

known as the marble city of India and is famous for trade of granite and marble. It is

purported to be the only place in the world with a temple of nine planets. Kishangarh

was the capital of a princely state during the British Raj, which was located in

the Rajputana Agency. The project will cater the tourism demand of Ajmer and

surrounding regions. Airports Authority of India proposes to develop a domestic airport

in Villages: Madanganj, Rathora ki Dhani, Jatli & Sarana near Kishangarh, District-

Ajmer, and State-Rajasthan. An MoU (Memorandum of Understanding) was signed

between State Government and Airports Authority of India for the development of

Kishangarh Airport. The project will be developed in an area of 700 acres (283 ha) by

dismantling the existing airstrip covering an area of 11 acres which is non-functional

since last few years. The land for the project has been provided by State Govt. free of

cost and without encumbrances after removing obstructions.

The latitude of the project site varies from 26034'20.5"N to 26

036'5.5"N and

longitude varies from 74047'20.0" E to 74

049'39.6" E.

In Phase-I, the airport will be developed to cater for operation of Dash 8 Q-400

type of aircraft in all weather conditions and will involve the following activities. All

the facilities for safe operation of the aircraft like construction of new runway, low cost

terminal building to cater 150 passengers at a time, apron, air traffic controller, runway

end safety area (RESA), apron, link taxi track shoulders, isolation bay shoulders, fully

equipped fire fighting equipments, storm water drains and perimeter wall shall form the

part of project. Other miscellaneous facilities will include DVOR building, CCR room,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princely_state

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Raj

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajputana_Agency

13

Security watch tower new substation, AC plant room, provision of hooter system at

access points and provision of explosive detection system. Subsequently, in Phase-II

the airport will be developed for operation of A-321 type of aircraft, subject to viability

and traffic demand. The estimated cost of the project is Rs 181 Crore.

The project will utilize the ground water and water supply from Kishangarh

Municipality. The daily consumption of water during operation phase will be about 143

KLD of which 102 KLD will be fresh water and 41 KLD will be recycled water.

Suitable provisions have been kept for storage and distribution system of water for

different purposes. The power requirement for the proposed project is about 1MW. The

power requirement for the project will be sourced from 440KV sub-station of Ajmer

Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited to step down sub-station within the premises of the

proposed project.

During the discussions, the Committee finalized the following additional ToRs for

carrying out EIA studies:

(i) Submit the details of the heritage structures within 10 km of the project

site and likely impacts along with mitigation measures.

(ii) Submit the details of the shifting of embankment of the canal and details

of the permission of the competent authority.

(iii) Examine and submit details of levels, quantity required for filling, source

of filling material and transportation details etc. Submit details of a

comprehensive Risk Assessment and Disaster Management Plan

including emergency evacuation during natural and man-made disaster

integrating with existing airport

(iv) Examine road/rail connectivity to the project site and impact on the

existing traffic network due to the proposed project/activities. A detailed

traffic and transportation study should be made for existing and projected

passenger and cargo traffic.

(v) Examine the details of afforestation measures indicating land and

financial outlay. Landscape plan, green belts and open spaces may be

described. A thick green belt should be planned all around the nearest

settlement to mitigate noise and vibrations. The identification of species/

plants should be made based on the botanical studies.

(vi) Examine the details of water requirement, use of treated waste water and

prepare a water balance chart. Source of water vis-à-vis waste water to

be generated along with treatment facilities to be proposed.

(vii) Rain water harvesting proposals should be made with due safeguards for

ground water quality. Maximize recycling of water and utilization of rain

water.

(viii) Examine details of Solid waste generation treatment and its disposal.

14

(ix) Examine and submit the details of Noise modeling studies and mitigative

measures.

(x) Identify, predict and assess the environmental and sociological impacts

on account of the project/activities.

(xi) Examine baseline environmental quality along with projected

incremental load due to the proposed project/activities.

(xii) The air quality monitoring should be carried out as per the notification

issued on 16th

November, 2009.

(xiii) Examine separately the details for construction and operation phases

both for Environmental Management Plan and Environmental

Monitoring Plan with cost and parameters.

(xiv) Submit details of corporate social responsibilities (CSR).

(xv) Any further clarification on carrying out the above studies including

anticipated impacts due to the project and mitigative measure, project

proponent can refer to the model ToR available on Ministry website

“http://moef.nic.in/Manual/Airport”.

Public hearing to be conducted for the project as per provisions of

Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 2006 and the issues raised by the

public should be addressed in the Environmental Management Plan

A detailed draft EIA/EMP report should be prepared as per the above

additional TOR and the Manual should be submitted to the Ministry as per the

Notification.

4.10 Environmental Clearance for Development of Airport at Bellora, Amaravati,

Maharashtra by M/s Maharashtra Airport Development Co. Ltd. [F.No. 10-

74/2010-IA.III]

Committee noted that the No. of trees required to be cut for the project was only

2500 nos while finalizing ToRs, however, tress required to be cut now are 15110.

The Committee deferred the project and sought details of the trees along with

justification for increase in the number of trees to be cut. PP was advised to make a

detailed presentation on the project proposal including the above issue in the

subsequent meeting.

4.11 CRZ Clearance for development of an offshore LNG Floating storage and re-

gasification unit at Kakinada Deep Water Port in Andhra Pradesh. M/s Krishna

Godavari LNG Terminal Pvt. Ltd. [F.No.11–42/2013-IA.III]

Krishna Godavari LNG Terminal Private Limited (KGLTPL) is a special

purpose vehicle (SPV), of VGS Group Inc, USA proposes to develop an Offshore LNG

http://moef.nic.in/Manual/highways

15

Floating Storage and Re-gasification Unit (FSRU) in Kakinada Deep Water Port in

Andhra Pradesh on a Build-Own-Operate (BOO) basis. FSRU is combination of

Floating Regasification Unit (FRU) and Floating Storage Unit (FSU). FSU will receive

LNG from LNG Carriers (LNGC) and provide LNG storage for the terminal and send

LNG and boil of gas (BOG) to the FRU. The FRU will have LNG pumping and

vaporization capabilities as well as metering facilities and will transmit natural gas to a

subsea pipeline.

The project will be developed in two (2) phases with a handling capacity of 3.6

MTPA in Phase I and 7.2 MTPA in Phase II (cumulative) respectively. The FSRU will

be located at latitude 17004’30”N and longitude 82

026’30” E at (-) 20 m contour within

Kakinada Port Limits. The FSRU will consist of unloading platform for LNGC, FSU

and FRU Platform, service platform, mooring dolphins, breasting dolphins and

catwalks etc at (-) 20 m contour. Because of the possible cyclone surge, combined

with high tide plus storm waves, unloading platform is planned at elevation of (+) 15 m

above the lowest water level.

A subsea pipeline of the size of 36” has been planned for transportation of

regassified gas from FRU to landfall point and landfall point (LFP) of the pipeline is

located at latitude 1700’0”N and longitude 82

016’47” E, a metering station with

administration buildings are planned in an area of 5 acres near Kakinada port. The

Regasified gas pipeline will be laid in trench of 3 m x 3m connected to GAIL/Reliance

National Grid from the landfall point.

Trenching will be carried out for laying of subsea pipe line from FSRU to LFP.

Water requirement of 16000 m3/hr for regasification of LNG will be met from sea

water. Approximately 5 KLD of fresh water is required for potable water and will be

sourced from existing water supply of Kakinada port. The power requirement of 3 MW

shall be met from Boil of Gas (BoG) generators installed at FSRU. The estimated cost

for development of FSRU and supply pipe line approximately Rs. 8,700 Million.



i. Copy of Agreement between the KGLTPL and Kakinada Sea Port Ltd shall be

submitted.

ii. Design details of the stationary platform along with operation details and

limitations , if any,

iii. IMD data along with the data of NIOT should be considered for designing the

terminal

iv. Impact on Marine life should be studied along with other studies for EIA report

v. Submit the details of the various applicable regulations including safety

regulations along with the proposed compliances. Also details of safety aspects

associated with handling of LNG vis a vis other cargo in other facilities within

the port.

vi. Submit the details of the Hazop analysis

16

vii. Submit details of Risk Assessment, Disaster Management Plan including

emergency evacuation during natural and man-made disaster like floods,

cyclone, tsunami and earth quakes etc.

viii. Submit a copy of layout superimposed on the HTL/LTL map demarcated by an

authorized agency on 1:4000 scale along with the recommendation of the

SCZMA.

ix. Submit details of storage and regasification, distribution network etc and

vulnerability of human habitation vis a vis LNG associated risks.

x. Type of LNG carriers proposed taking into account the future growth in vessel

sizes beyond the present day market trend and the handling aspects of such

vessels from environmental considerations.

xi. Submit the details of the reclamation along with the source of materials and its

quantity & quality.

xii. Submit the details of shore line changes along with the shore protection if nay

required.

xiii. Submit details of Environmental Management Plan and Environmental

Monitoring Plan with parameters and costs.

xiv. Submit the details of the fishing activity and likely impact due to the activity.

xv. Details of land breakup along with land use plan and Details of green belt

development.

xvi. Explore possibilities of meeting domestic water from desalination instead

transport from shore.

xvii. Details of solid / liquid wastes generation and their management.

xviii. Water requirement, source, impact on competitive users.

xix. Submit the details of the eco-sensitive areas, if any

xx. Submit the details of dredging sludge quantity quality in terms of its toxic

metals (atleast Cr+6, Arsenic, Mercury, and lead) and its disposal with

quantity (reclamation/ dredging disposal site) If disposal is in sea, location, the

justification for selecting such location, the dispersal of dumping material, its

effect on marine environment, effect on fishes.

xxi. Submit the details of study on connectivity and its carrying capacity (both road

and railway).

xxii. The General guidelines for TORs as per the annexure-II to this Minutes shall

also be considered for preparation of EIA/EMP.



public should be addressed in the Environmental Management Plan


additional TOR and general TORs and should be submitted to the Ministry as per the

Notification.

17

4.12 CRZ Clearance for construction of 5 star resort (Vivanta by Taj at Havelock) M/s

Indian Hotel Company Limited. F.No. 11–43/ 2013 - IA.III



4.13 CRZ Clearance for construction of a single standard villa at Havelock, Andaman

by M/s Indian Hotel Company Ltd. F.No. 11–44/ 2013 - IA-III



4.14 Environment Clearance for the establishment of Industrial Growth Centre at

SIDCO Industrial Complex, Ghati Kathua, Jammu & Kashmir by M/s State

Industrial Development Corporation Pvt. Ltd [F. No. 21-22/2010-IA.III]

Jammu & Kashmir State Industrial Development Corporation (JK SIDCO), has

proposed to set up Industrial area at village Ghati (Kathua district) about 3.5 km north

of Jammu–Pathankot National Highway (NH 1A). The area lies between latitude

75026’30” E to 75

025’50”E and longitude 32

027’30” N to 32

029’04”N and falling under

toposheet no. 43 P/7 (Restricted). Type of land is unproductive (Banjar) land and a

small chunk of rain-fed agriculture land. The nearest village is Ghatti at 1.0km in NE,

nearest railway station is Budhi Rly Station 2.0km S, nearest highway is NH-1A at 3.3

km SW. Predominant wind direction is North-east. The total project area is 182.29Ha

and cost of project is Rs.81.15 crores.

Owing to proximity of eco-sensitive receptors - Jasrota Wildlife sanctuary (2km

NW), and Ujh wetland (0.7km W and HFL 0.5km W) - the project is falling under

category A. As suggested by State Board for Wildlife, only green and orange category

industries are proposed, rezonation of the industrial area has been done and red

category industries have been excluded from the proposal. The project is recommended

by National Board for Wildlife. Public hearing for the project as held on 18-12-2010. A

15m wide belt all along the boundary has been earmarked for greenbelt development.

Water requirement of the project is 1245 KLD out of which only 795 KLD

freshwater would be pumped from 6 tube-wells and remaining 450 KLD would be

treated water. Industries would be using water for manufacturing activities (process

activities) and for operating utilities viz., DM plant, boilers etc.

The domestic wastewater will be treated in sewage treatment plant (STP) of

capacity 200KLD. The STP consists of pre treatment, secondary treatment (MBBR)

and tertiary treatment of activated carbon/sand filter and disinfection. The treated water

will be used for greenbelt.

Proper Solid waste management plan has been developed and all management

practices related to industrial waste, hazardous waste, domestic waste and bio-medical

waste would be placed.

18

In order to comply with the environmental protection measures, a budgetary

provision of Rs. 17.63 crores with 10% recurring costs for Environmental Protection

and Safety measures is made. Amount allocated for CSR activities is Rs. 4.02 crores.

The proposal was considered in the EAC meeting for award of ToRs, held on

29.06.2010 and the ToRs were awarded vide letter dated 06.08.2010. Public Hearing

for the proposal was conducted on 18.12.2010. National Board for Wildlife

recommended the proposal on 19.07.2012. The proposal was considered in the 117th

EAC meeting held on 19.10.2012. The committee noted that the ToRs for the project

were issued on 06/08/2010 and the validity of ToRs has expired. However, in view of

the justification given by the project proponent during the meeting that since the

Wildlife Board was not constituted and no recommendations were received from the

Wildlife Board, the project could not apply for EC. Accordingly on the request of the

proponent it has been decided by the Committee to extend the ToR for a period of 1

year as per OM dated March 22, 2012. The Committee decided to defer the proposal

and requested proponent to present the case after incorporating additional ToR in the

revised EIA report.

The matter was again considered in the 123rd

meeting held on 16.04.2013 and

the EAC sought additional information on Green belt, landscape plan, parking details

etc. The proponent has submitted its response to the Ministry.

During discussion the following points were recommended for compliance:

i. Industry selection should be done carefully, as committed. Only green

and orange category industries should be established in the industrial

area.

ii. Minimum Green belt of 15 meters in canopy formation with three rows

should be provided all along the boundary of the site. The land (Green

belt) should not be allotted for any unit holder and land will not be

diverted to any other usage.

iii. Copy of MOM and recommendations of NBWL should be submitted to

the Ministry’s Regional Office.

iv. Existing major nalas/drains should not be diverted and green buffer of 5

meters should be provided on both the sides of the nalas/drains

v. As committed during the public hearing, proponent should follow the

zero discharge norms.

vi. Guidelines of Central Groundwater Board shall be followed for

withdrawal of groundwater

vii. Rainwater harvesting should be adopted in the entire industrial area.

viii. Boundary wall/ Fencing shall be provided all along the proposed

Industrial Area to avoid trespassing and encroachment in the future.

ix. IRC guidelines for landscaping, 2011 should be followed for plantation

x. Housing facility along with sanitation facilities should be provided for

the labourers during construction phase and also at the operation stage.

19

xi. Ground water samples should be collected to monitor that no effluent or

trade chemicals are seeping into the ground water

xii. The regional office of MoEF shall inspect the site after commissioning.

xiii. No cement industry shall be established

xiv. No discharge shall be released into choes/nallah

xv. The connecting road to the industrial area should be designed for multi-

axle vehicles

xvi. Entry to the National Highway should not be direct from the industrial

area. Safe entry and exit should be designed.

xvii. No dying industries should be established.

The Committee recommended the proposal for Environmental Clearance with

the above condition in the Clearance letter for strict compliance by the project

proponent.

4.15 Environmental Clearance for the revised proposal of Integrated Municipal Solid

Waste Management project at Kinduwal Village, Solan District, Himachal

Pradesh. M/s Addl. Chief Executive Officer, BBNDA, Baddi (HP) [F.No. 10–32/

2012 – IA.III]

As presented by the project proponent, the proposal is for development of

integrated Municipal Solid Waste Management project at Kinduwal Village, Solan

District, Baddi, Himachal Pradesh. The project is proposed for 2 major urban

settlements, Baddi Municipal Council, Nalagarh Council and 41 Gram Panchayats. The

Population as per 2001 census is Baddi -22601. Nalagarh-9443 and Gram Panchayat-

1,12,520 the population growth is very high. The project is a category ‘B’ however, it

is treated as category ‘A’ since it is located within 10 km from interstate boundary

(Punjab and Haryana). The proposed capacity is 40 TPD. Total area of land is 2.42 ha

at Kinduwal Village. Nearest water bodies are Sirsa River 0.10 km on western side and

Balad Nadi -3km at SE. Nearest forest area is Kohaidun Reserve forest -5 km at

Western side. Nearest airport is Chandigarh airport at 40 km. The proposed site has

been earmarked for CETP/MSW. The proposed facilities involve segregation

certification of MSW, composting and Sanitary landfill. Water requirement is

estimated at 10 KLD and will be met from ground water. This wastewater expected

would be 16.13 KLD including 0.8 from domestic, 15 from composting leachate and

0.5 from sanitary landfill leachate. The leachate generated is proposed to be reused for

maintaining moisture and temperature in composting. The cost of the project is Rs. 970

lakhs.

The EAC in its 112th meeting held on 10th – 11th May, 2012 finalized ToR

including conduct of Public hearing. Public Hearing conducted on13.08.2012 at the site

The project was again considered by the EAC in its meeting held in December,

2012 and since the existing site is very much in proximity of the river, site was not

suitable for setting up of MSW facility. EAC rejected the project and suggested to

consider an alternate site and submit the site selection criteria for the new site.

20

Proponent has submitted revised layout by shifting about 30 m further away

from Sirsa river and boundary is 110 m from river. As a precaution against flooding, an

embankment of 100 m long with 6m height along the river is proposed.

The project was discussed again by the EAC in its meeting held in September,

2013 and decided to depute a Sub Committee to visit the site in view of the close

proximity to Sirsa River. The Sub Committee may comprise of Shri M.L.Sharma,

Shri Y.B.Kaushik and a representative of MoEF.

4.16 Finalization of ToRs for establishment of Greenfield Landfill in Vapi, GIDC,

Distt. Valsad, Gujarat. M/s Vapi Waste and Effluent Management Co. Ltd.

[F.No.10-16/2013-IA-III]

As presented by the project proponent, the proposal is for establishment of

landfill and incineration facility including co-generation of 14 ton/hr steam output, 2

MW power generation, multiple effects evaporated of 7500 L/hr for hazardous waste at

plot No. 2519/p to 3432, GIDC, Vapi, Gujarat.

The capacity of incinerator is 15,000 kg/hr and landfill will be 20,10,00 MT.

Total plot area is 14.5 ha out of which 7.87 ha will be for landfill. Following activities

are envisaged in the proposed landfill.

Pre- treatment of the waste prior to disposal to degrade or to fix contaminants.

Encapsulation of a waste body by a suitable liner system consisting of bottom

liner and cover liner.

Leachate collation & drainage system

Proper operation of the landfill and placement of waste

Suitable post closure measure to avoid long term contaminate release.

Incinerator:

Combined incineration of hazardous waste is proposed in a patented Michalis moving

bed incinerator consisting of a drying zone for moisture containing incinerable wastes,

and incineration zone for the dried sludge and combustible materials. Combustion air

will be blown in the waste by a nozzle system controlled by incineration parameters.

Temperature in the combustion chamber will be maintained at approx. 850 ºC. The

temperature will be controlled by burner operation. Flue gases from the combustion

chamber containing partially oxidized material will be conveyed to the post

combustion chamber designed for a flue gas temperature of about 1100 ºC and 2

second residence time. The combustion chamber will be lined entirely with high

quality refractory material with high alumina oxide content for wear resistance.

The incinerator will be designed for continuous operation of 24 hr/day, with automatic

ash removal, automatic feeding of mixed hazardous waste and dry sorption system for

flue gas cleaning

Co-generation system:

Cogeneration or Combined Heat and Power (CHP) is defined as the sequential

21

generation of two different from of useful energy from a single primary energy source,

typically mechanical energy and thermal energy. Mechanical energy may be used to

drive an alternator for Evaporator. The overall efficiency of energy use in cogeneration

mode can be up to 85 per cent and above in some cases. The proposed Co- generation

system comprises a waste heat recovery boiler proposed to be installed to extract

sensible heat from the flue gases from the incineration system thus rendering the has

quenching service to the incinerator. Steam from the boiler will be used to produce

power in a TG system and will also be used as heat feed into the propose MEF.

Multiple Effect Evaporation:

MEF is a thermal treatment technology, wherein the boiling point difference of

different dissolved solids, chemicals, organic, inorganic solvents are considered at

different level of designing. The ingredients having boiling points less than water are

thermally treated in a packed tower know as Stripper to its vapour from and recovered

(High Volatile COD treatment). The balance liquid (or mother liquor) is sent for further

treatment in MEF in which the water is treated in different calandria to vapour stage,

by utilization minimum steam using vacuum. The evaporated water is recovered for

reuse, while the concentrated slurry of left over concentrate is then sent to ATFD

(Agitated Thin Film Dryer), where the remaining water in the slurry is evaporated to

give out maximum amount of dry solid or salts.



i. Submit the justification of the Project. Project components and capacities shall

be submitted.

ii. Critical environmental aspects with reference to proposed facilities i.e BMW (if

any), E-Waste Facility, Oil recycling and HW facility shall be identified.

Combined effects shall be discussed with specific mitigation plan.

iii. Submit the details of site selection criteria - CPCB guidelines along with the

various sites examined based.

iv. Site lay out plan clearly showing various units, green belt, laboratory, roads,

vehicle parking, office building etc to be submitted.

v. Submit the details of the compliance with respect to the provisions of

Hazardous Wastes (Management, Handling and Transboundary movement))

Rules, 2008 and Bio- Medical Waste (Management and Handling) rules, 2000

including collection and transportation (if applicable). design etc.

vi. All the applicable rules shall be listed and mitigation plan to comply the

applicable rules shall be submitted in detail.

vii. Action plan and infrastructure required to comply the PROTOCOL as prepared

by CPCB for performance evaluation and monitoring of TSDF.

viii. Submit the details of the waste generated, present mode of disposal as per the

State PCB authorization etc.

ix. Submit the MoU made between member units along with responsibilities.

22

x. Examine the details of monitoring of Dioxin and Furan.

xi. Submit a copy of MoU for disposal of ash through the TSDF.

xii. Submit the details of Air Pollution Control Measures.

xiii. Environmental Management Plan should be accompanied with Environmental

Monitoring Plan and environmental cost and benefit assessment. Regular

monitoring shall be carried out for odour control.

xiv. Water quality around the landfill site shall be monitored regularly to examine

the impact on the ground water.

xv. Applicable rules under E- Waste (Management & Handling) Rules, 2011 and

action plan to comply the provisions.

xvi. Submit details of a comprehensive Disaster Management Plan including

emergency evacuation during natural and man-made disaster



public should be addressed in the Environmental Management Plan.


additional TOR and should be submitted to the Ministry as per the Notification.

4.17 Finalization of ToRs for Hazardous Waste Incinerator & Common Effluent

Treatment Plan by M/s Mysore Eco-Technologies (F. No. 10-22/2013-IA.III)

The Committee recommended to defer the project since the details of the

location submitted are not clear. The details of land use, distance of the water

bodies, habitation etc are also not provided.

4.18 Finalization of ToRs for Integrated Textile Park at Nariganapuram,

Amuthakondapalli & Mugalapalli villages, Hosur taluk, Krishnagiri District,

Tamil Nadu. M/s SLS Textiles Park Pvt. Ltd. (F.No.21 –7/ 2013-IA-III)



4.19 Finalization of ToR for Canara industrial area at IRA, Chelur, Balepuni and

Kurnadu village, Bantwal taluk, Dakshina Kannada by M/s KIADB [F.No.21 –05/

2013 - IA-III]


circulate the documents.

4.20 Finalization of ToRs for Jodhpur-Pali-Marwar Industrial area development plan.

M/s DMICDC [F.No.21–06/ 2013-IA-III]

The Project involves development of Jodhpur Pali Marwar Industrial Area in a

total area of about 155 sq.km. The proposed Urbanisable area is about 80 sq. km, while

rest will be planned as Peripheral Control Belt with agriculture and controlled

23

development. This is planned to be located at the Jodhpur- Pali District border and at

about 40 Kms from Jodhpur and 25 km from Pali. Manufacturing Industries with a

large base of SMSE’s is identified as the major economic driver for the proposed

development of the region. Total Water requirement for Potable purpose is about 60

MLD and water for industrial use is about 50 MLD. Source of fresh water identified is

Indira Gandhi Nahar Pariyojna (IGNP) through Rajiv Gandhi Lift Canal (RGLC). Solid

Waste generation will be about 82 MTD. Public transport will be developed at two

levels, 1) Within JPM IA and 2) between JPM IA with neighboring Urban centers of

Jodhpur and Pali. This will comprise of BRTS along with dedicated Cycle and

pedestrian tracks within the JPM IA. For regional connectivity, BRTS through bus fleet

augmentation and development of Pali- Sojat bypass (about 21 km length) has been

planned.

There is a provision for the development of Integrated Multi Modal Logistics

Hub with an area of about 2 sq.km within the JPM IA. The components of MMLH are

1) Transportation facility and rail sidings, 2) Warehousing Facilities, 3) Supporting

utilities and infrastructure and 4)Value added services such as Packaging,etc. This

MMLH is expected to handle a Cargo of about 25 MT per annum in 2042.

There is no Reserved or Protected forest in the identified JPM IA. There is no

existence of any Wildlife Park/ Bird Sanctuary/ Notified Ecosensitive Zone within a

distance of 10 km from the periphery of JPM IA.

During the discussion, the Committee finalized the following additional

ToRs to conduct EIA studies:-

i. Layout may be superimposed on the Google map and should be

submitted.

ii. Water allocation policy for Jodhpur-Manawar-Pali should be submitted,

Quantity of water and the recycling quantity should be specified

iii. Water conservation measures shall be brought out clearly and given high

priority.

iv. Reasons for selecting the site with details of alternate sites

examined/rejected/selected on merits with comparative statement and

reason/basis for selection. The examination should justify site suitability

in terms of environmental damage, resources sustainability associated

with selected site as compared to rejected sites. The analysis should

include parameters considered along with weightage criteria for short-

listing selected site.

v. Developer should also include copy of policy level appraisal including

environmental and resources sustainability considerations (if any) done

for Delhi Mumbai Investment Region by Ministry of Commerce to arrive

at the suitability and selection of the corridor as the best strategic

decision.

vi. The project boundary area and study area for which the base line data is

generated – submit through a suitable map. Justification of the

parameters, frequency and locations shall be discussed in the EIA.

24

vii. Submit Legal frame work for the implementation of Environmental

Clearance conditions - to be clearly spelt out in the EIA report.

viii. Submit Roles and responsibility of the DMIC/developer etc for

compliance of environmental regulations under the provisions of EP Act.

ix. Site justification of the identified industry sectors from environmental

angel and the details of the studies conducted if any.

x. Ground water classification as done by the Central Ground Water

Authority.

xi. In view of present uncertainties regarding farmers land acquisition, what

will be the procedure for the acquisition of land for investment regions.






4.21 Environmental Clearance for Halol –Savli Special Investment Region (SIR) at

Halol & Halol Taluka in Panchayat District & Sallvi Taluka in Vadodara Distt.

Gujarat. M/s Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation. [F.No.21-9/2012-

IA.III]

As presented by the project proponent, the proposal is for development of Halol

–Savli Special Investment Region (SIR) at Halol & Halol Taluka in Panchayat District

& Sallvi Taluka in Vadodara Distt. Gujarat. Halol and Savli are notified industrial area

and the proposed SIR is about 35 knm from Halol and 8 km from Savli. SH-158, SH-

150 and SH -87 are three major linkages to the SIR. There is no eco- sensitive area

within 10 km from the site.

SIR notified by the government of Gujarat on 26.03.2010 under Gujarat Special

Investment Region Act, 2009. Road, drainage network, water & power will be

provided by GIDC. The total area notified is 12239.8 ha, out of which 8731.4ha will

be net developable area. The proposed categories are biotechnology, Education, Auto,

Engineering, Food processing, Chemical, Petrochemical and Power.

Expected water demand for the proposed SIR is 175 MLD. The Narmada main

canal is passing through the western edge of the proposed Halol side SIR 2 MLD water

is being supplied to Halol industrial area. There is a proposed scheme for providing 12

MLD water exclusively to the industries from this canal. Water supply from Savli side

SIR is from Mahi River with tapping point at Parthanpura.

EAC in March, 2012 finalised ToR including conduct of Public Hearing.

It was observed by the committee that the proponent should clearly brought

out the concept of SIR in terms of existing landuse vs the proposed landuse. The

proponent should provide details regarding infrastructure to be developed and

25

responsibilities in terms of implementation, operation and maintenance of the same

in future. Details of other infrastructure facilities like sewerage system and

industrial effluent handling, power supply, roads, plans for existing villages within

the proposed SIR. Approval of various plans including development / buffer zones,

details of land holding, rehabilitation etc.

The Committee also noted that no senior officer from the side of proponent

was present for the discussion in the meeting.

The Committee recommended to defer the proposal. The proposal shall be

considered after the above observations are addressed and submitted for

reconsideration.

4.22 Finalization of ToR for Multiproduct Special Economic Zone/Domestic Tariff

area at Chillakur Mandal, Nellore District, Andhra Pradesh. M/s Krishnapatnam

Infra Tech Private Limited. [F.No.21–09/2013-IA.III]

As presented by the project proponent, the project involves development of a

Multiproduct Special Economic Zone/Domestic Tariff Area at Chillakur Mandal,

Nellore District, Andhra Pradesh. Approximate Area is 6695.95 acres (2709.3 Ha). The

proposed SEZ is planned in an area of 2500 acres (1011 Ha) and rest 4149.95 acres

(1679 Ha) of land is for Domestic Tariff Area (DTA). The project activities involved in

the project are only for industrial area development and plotting for industrial activities.

It is being expected that Pharmaceuticals – Bulk Drugs & Pharmaceuticals, Chemicals

– Organic & Inorganic Chemicals, Dyes, Intermediaries, paints, Light Engineering –

Base metals & Electronics etc, Heavy Engineering – Electrical machinery, Hitech,

manufacturing etc, Automotive Automobiles& Auto components, Textiles & Apparels

– Readymade garments, Yarn Processing, Mills etc, Food & Agro – Marine Products,

Processed foods, plantation, Leather – Leather Products & accessories Plastics, Rubber,

Paper, Miscellaneous Stones, Glass etc will come up in the proposed Industrial Area.

Krishnapatnam Port is 6 km from the project site. Reserve Forest falls along the project

site.

Internal roads will be developed by project proponent during the area

development. It is proposed to construct of internal road network in the project, Solid

Waste will be collected and disposed off in a fenced pit dugout at the site and covered

properly after completion of construction activity. For sewage disposal, septic tanks

with soak pits will be constructed to avoid any contamination of ground water, soil or

surface water. There will be water requirement of approximately 125.055 MLD

including 75.357 MLD portable and 49.699 MLD non portable water requirements for

workers during the construction phase based on construction activity requirement.

After discussion, the Committee finalized the following additional ToRs to

conduct EIA Studies:-

i. No tannery based industries should be allowed in the proposed SEZ/DTA

ii. The map showing future expansion area should be deleted from the

presentation made during the meeting. 600 acres in the only area which has

been considered.

26

iii. Buffer of 50 m shall be kept on the area towards the forest area side

iv. Green cover of 15 meters should be left all along the proposed area and no

area should be allotted to any individual industry

v. 33 % green cover shall be reserved by each developer on his allotted plot

vi. A thick vegetative boundary shall be provided around the residential area.

The area should be on the downwind side.

vii. Details regarding CETP individual/common shall be provided.

viii. Separate clearance for marine disposal should be sought.

ix. Fire safety study should be considered

x. Submit the site selection details along with the alternative sites considered.

xi. Submit the developments around the site along with the land use details

xii. Submit the area break up, layout incorporating green belt areas

xiii. Quantitative and qualitative of wastes generation should be examined and

submit details along with the norms for assessment.

xiv. Submit the certified maps specifying Survey Nos / plot nos etc of the SEZ

area with Notification as notified by the Ministry of Commerce.

xv. Submit details of the land – how much area has been notified and how much

is domestic tariff area. Any other area acquired or proposed to be acquired

with certified maps.

xvi. The environmental monitoring plan and management plan with cost and

parameters both for construction and operation

xvii. Examine and submit details of potentially polluting industries likely to come

within the complex which may impact on the area. Examine and submit

details.

xviii. Make assessment of any regulatory measure in view of the environmental

and social impacts of the project (such as unauthorized development around

the park).

xix. Detailed drainage plan linked with the existing drainage system with

capacities.

xx. Examine and submit details of alternatives considered and justification of

selection of the present site.

xxi. Examine the baseline environmental data, including wind rose diagram, air

quality and biodiversity.

xxii. Identify the TSDF/BMW/E-waste generation and management agencies and

destinations of their disposal.

xxiii. Baseline linked to Environmental monitoring; during construction and

operation should be examined.

xxiv. Open spaces and space for services appear inadequate; re-examine and

submit details.

xxv. Zoning of industries should be done for environmental planning. Adopt the

27

concept of industrial ecology.

xxvi. The planning of the complex should have Hierarchy of roads, their widths

and rights of way based on traffic volume density

xxvii. Examine and submit details of hydrological and geo-hydrological studies

xxviii. Submit strategy and procedural safeguards for energy conservation and use

of energy from renewable sources.






4.23 Finalization of ToR for Municipal Solid Waste Landfil site for Sonmarg town,

Jammu and Kashmir by M/s Sonmar Development Authority. [F.No. 10–47/ 2013

- IA.III]

As presented by the project proponent, Sonamarg a world famous Tourist Resort,

has been centre of tourist attraction. Sonamarg has also attained a significant

importance over last five six years as Holy Amarnath Yatries in large number have

started to go for pilgrimage via Sonamarg through Baltal road.

The proposed project is an Integrated Municipal Solid Waste Management

Facility to cater the needs of municipal solid waste generated from Waste from

Amarnath yatra , Residential waste from local people , Institutional waste, Commercial

waste, Sweeping waste, Tourism Waste (Non Pilgrim), Construction waste, Slaughter

house waste, Garden waste, Hotel & Restaurants. Proposed municipal solid waste

landfill site in Sonamarg town, is spread over a land of 10,043 m2 with Capacity of

4.54 ton/day municipal solid waste for 20 years. The proposed project is planned in

accordance to the MSW rules 2000 and it consists of Compost plant, Recyclable

segregation facility, Secured Landfill, Leachate treatment and reuse facility. The

proposed municipal solid waste landfill site is located at Village Sarbal, in District

Ganderbal, Jammu & Kashmir will be developed by Sonamarg Development

Authority.

To achieve this SDA is designing a strategic framework to ensure that the local

bodies discharge their responsibilities efficiently with appropriate private sector

participation in the design, management and operations of collection, transportation,

processing and sanitary disposal of municipal solid waste in the area.

The proposed municipal solid waste landfill site is located at Village Sarbal,

District- Ganderbal, Jammu & Kashmir. The nearest railway station is Srinagar,

situated approximate 53.50 km in NW direction. Srinagar International Airport situated

in Srinagar is approximate 61.8 km in NW direction.

Land area 10,043.0 m2, Landfill site capacity is 4.54 ton/day, Life span is of

20 years, Nearest river Sindh river is ~0.38 Km in S direction, protected area Thajiwas

28

wildlife sanctuary is within 10 km radius. National Highway Sonamarg-Baltal highway

is ~Adjacent in N direction.

Presently it is a barren land and there is no requirement of clearance of existing

land, vegetation and buildings. It will be converted into Municipal Landfill site. Total

Area requirement is 9433 m2.

Total available area is 10,043 m2

The Committee observed that 77 tonnes of waste is generated and the current

facility is proposed for only 4.54 tonnes/day only. It was informed that there are

several individual decentralized waste disposal facilities in the area. The proponent

has suggested composting as the technology for the implementation of the project,

however, the temperature of the area is low most of the time. Proper justification in

support of the proposed technology needs to be submitted by project proponent. The

project proponent should also consider physical evacuation of the waste from the

highly eco-sensitive area. The stated decentralized waste disposal facilities also need

scrutiny.

Committee decided to reconsider the proposal for TORs after submission of

realistic picture of the complete disposal mechanism and photographs of the site by

the PP.

4.24 Finalization of TOR for development of Special Investment Region at Santalpur

& Radhanpura Taluka District–Patan, Gujarat by M/s Gujarat Industrial

Development Corporation. [F. No 21-43/2012-IA.III]

It was observed by the committee that the proponent should clearly bring out the

concept of SIR in terms of existing land use vs the proposed land use. The proponent

should provide details regarding infrastructure to be developed and its responsibilities

in terms of implementation, operation and maintenance. Details of other infrastructure

facilities like sewerage system and industrial effluent handling, power supply, roads,

plans for existing villages within the proposed SIR are required. Approval of various

plans including no development zones, details of land holding etc.

The committee also noted that no senior officer from the side of proponent was

present for the discussion in the meeting.



reconsideration.

4.25 CRZ Clearance for the Development of 2-lane Alappuzha bypass of length 6.80

km. and 2-lane Kollam bypass of length 13 km. on NH-47 as standalone project in

the State of Kerala [F.No.10-37/2010-IA.III]

As presented by the project proponent, the project involves development of 2-lane

Alappuzha bypass of length 6.80 km and 2-lane Kollam bypass of length 13 km on

NH-47 as standalone project in the State of Kerala. Both the bypasses are standalone

projects to be constructed on EPC (Engineering, Procurement & Construction) mode.

The Topography along the project road is open and plain. The salient features of the

proposed bypasses are as under:

29

Alappuzha Bypass: The total length of the proposed bypass is 6.8 km (km 408.10 to

km 414.9). The ROW is 45 m (except in beach portion of 1.1 km length where

available ROW is 19.6m to 26.3m). 2 nos. of ROBs, one at Thamboli section km

410.170 and other at Punnapara section at km 412.83. The carriageway is 2 lane with

paved shoulder (length 3.6km) & elevated road covering ROBs and beach portion

(length-3.2 km). Main carriageway of 7.0 m width + 2X paved shoulder of 1.50 width

+ 2X Earthen shoulder of 1.00m width =12m. 14 nos. of culverts, 3 vehicular, 2 major

and 4 minor junctions are proposed.

There is no Wildlife Sanctuary or National Park or any other protected area

involve. There is also no reserve/protected forest along the project road. The proposed

alignment passes through Coastal Region of Alappuzha municipality and falls under

CRZ II. This alignment is away from HTL and has no impact on water body.

Kollam Bypass: The total length of the proposed bypass is 13 km (km 486.5 to

km 499.5). The ROW is 45 m. The carriageway is 2 lane with paved shoulder. Main

carriageway of 7.0 m width + 2X paved shoulder of 1.50 width + 2X Earthen shoulder

of 1.00m width =12m. 5 nos. of new culverts are proposed, 3 major bridges, 1

vehicular underpass of size 12X5.5m at cross road km 489.700, 3 nos. of major bridges

at km 487.6 - length 617km, at km 490.185 – length 95m and at km 492.265 – length

826.5m are proposed. 5 major junctions are proposed for improvement.

The proposed road alignment crosses through Ashtamudi Kayal and through

CRZ III in Thrikkadavur Panchayat.

The length of these two proposed standalone bypasses of 2-lane on NH-47 in

Kerala is less than 30 km each and no additional land acquisition is involved besides

the bypasses are passing through only Kerala State.

The Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority has recommended the project

vide letter no. 72/A3/11/KCZMA/S&TD dated 18.10.2011.

The Committee decided that the Alpahuza bye pass shall be inspected by Sh.

Radhakrishnan Member along with a representative of MoEF to verify the alignment

and status of municipal roads in the CRZ area.

The Committee noted that about 300 sqm mangroves areas will be affected at

Kollam bypass hence recommended the CRZ clearance for Kollam by pass subject to

the conditions that compensatory mangroves plantation of 1500 sqm shall be carried

out.

4.26 Environmental Clearance for improvement and upgradation of Nayabazar to to

Namchi State Highway SK 02 in the State of Sikkim under North Eastern State

Roads Investment Program-Tranche 1 roads. M/s ADB, Project and Bridges,

Sikkim. [F.No.10-28/2012-IA.III]



30 4.27 Environmental Clearance for construction of New International Arrival Block at

Calicut Airport by M/s KITCO Ltd. [F. No. 10-72/2011-IA-III]

As presented by the project proponent the project involves construction of New

International Arrival Block at Calicut Airport. The proposed site for the construction

of New International Arrival Block is limited to the existing Airport Campus

belonging to AAI land and no new land acquisition is proposed. Further the proposed

building will be adjacent to the existing terminal building. There is no expansion/

modification proposed in the runway or area related to the Aircraft movement. The

total plot area is 152.90 ha. proposed building will have the area of 16,809 sq.mtr with

13.9 mtr height. The proposed passenger capacity is 1500 and proposed flight

operation per day is 30 arrivals and 30 departures. The estimated water requirement

will be 37.80 KLD/per day and waste water generation will be 34.02 KLD. The waste

water will be treated and about 30.70 KLD recycled.

There was a complaint from “Friends of Nature” stating that area faces water

scarcity, land-slides, floods, and earthquake, performance in waste disposal is poor

and destruction of hills by soil caused heavy damage to the biodiversity. No steps for

Rainwater harvesting. The proponent clarified the above issues very effectively and

logically.

EAC finalised ToRs in its meeting held in September, 2011 and finalised ToRs

including conduct of Public Hearing. Public Hearing was conducted on 11.06.2013.

Major issues raised during the PH were waste disposal, water usage etc. PP justified

the conduct of PH at University about 7 km away. The issues raised had been

adequately addressed.

After deliberation the Committee decided to call for the following information:

(i) Shall revise the response / action plan on the issues raised during the

PH,

(ii) Submit response on the issues raised on the complaint

(iii) Submit Consent, EC compliances

(iv) Improve the solid waste management

4.28 Environmental Clearance for widening and improvement of existing 2-lane to 4-

lane/2-lane with paved shoulder of Rajganj-Maheshpur-Bhrungia-Chas-WB

border section of NH-32 with Maheshpur bypass in the state of Jharkhand M/s

NHAI. [F.No.10-62/2012-IA-III]

Committee noted that the length is 56 km less than 100 km and additional

ROW is 23 m less than 45 m. Hence the project does not require EC.

4.29 Environmental Clearance for widening of existing Single to 2-lane with paved

shoulder of Gulabpura (NH-79)-Shahpura-Jahazpur-Hindole (NH-12)-Nainwa-

Uniara (NH-116) (Newly Declared National Highway NH-148D) in the State of

Rajasthan M/s NHAI. [F.No. 10-57/2012-IA.III]

31

The proposed project road starts at Ch. 69.267 of NH-148D and ends at Ch.

282.936 of NH-148D. Total existing length of the project 204.500 km. Total proposed

length of the project is 203.977 km. The project road is upgradation of existing

Single/Intermidiate lane to 2 lane with paved shoulder. Terrain of the project road is

90% plain and 10% hilly/rolling terrain. It passes through about 148 villages, 6 talukas

& 3 districts namely Bhilwara, Bundi & Tonk. 4 bypasses and 9 realignments are

proposed. The existing RoW varies from 6 m to 30 m and proposed RoW is 15 m to 45

m. However in three toll plaza the ROW is 150m. Total land requirement is 685.467

Ha; available land is 167.153 Ha & land to be acquired is 518.314 Ha, (Protected

forest: 23.297 Ha, Reserve forest: 18.194 Ha & non forest land is 476.823 Ha). There is

no wild life sanctuary or national park within 10 km radius. There are 3 number of

existing major bridges & 7 number are proposed (1 retained, 4 new construction & 2

reconstructions). There are 28 number of existing minor bridges & 35 number are

proposed (5 widening, 14 reconstructions & 16 new constructions). There are 284

number of existing culverts and 317 nos. are proposed (44 widening, 155

reconstructions & 118 new constructions). 1 ROB (new construction) & 1 flyover (new

construction) have been proposed. 3 Toll Plazas are proposed at km 76.340 of MDR 52

, km 31.700 of SH 39 and km 77.380 of SH 39 respectively. 2.13 km of slip road is

proposed. 11,810 number of trees will be felled for the proposed widening activity. The

avenue plantation will be carried out as per IRC SP: 21, 2009 apart from the statuary

requirement. 84 properties/structures will be affected due to the widening of the

existing road. 590 KLD of water will be required during construction stage. Kota

Thermal Power Plant (Kota) is within the project influence area. The fly ash is

proposed to be utilized for construction of embankments if same is available. The total

environment budget is 10.08 Crores; R&R cost of the project is 4.95 Crores; Total

civil cost is 570.74 Crores.

The project was considered in EAC meeting held in August, 2012 which

finalized ToR including conduct of Public Hearing. PH conducted at Hurda, Bhilwara

district on 27.02.2013, at Hindoli, Bundi District on 25.03.2013 and at Uniara , District

Tonk on 16.04.2013. The major issues raised during the hearing were land acquisition,

compensation and acquisition of grazing land. The issues raised had been adequately

addressed.

During the discussion, the following points emerged:

(i) The project indicates involvement of 23.297 ha protected and 18.194 ha

Reserve forests. Necessary stage –I forestry clearance shall be obtained.

(ii) It is indicated that 11,810 nos. trees to be cut. Necessary permission

from competent authority shall be obtained for tree cutting. Necessary

compensatory plantation shall be carried out and cost provision should

be made for regular maintenance.

(iii) Revise the animal passes taking into consideration Camels.

(iv) Explore providing pavement along with fencing, pedestrian crossing in

habitation area and submit a report.

32



reconsideration.

4.30 Finalization of TORs for 4 laning of Bar-Bilara Jodhpur section of NH- 112(km

0.000 to km 106.000) in the state of Rajasthan. M/s NHAI [F.No.10-46/2013-IA-

III]

As per the amendment dated 22.07.2013 to the EIA Notification, 2006, the Scoping is

exempted, the proponent can prepare the EIA based on the Model ToRs available on

the Ministry’s website.

4.31 Finalization of ToRs for 6 laning of Bangalore-Chennai Expressway from

Bangalore (km0.000) to Chennai (km 258.800) including spur alignments in the

States of Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu. M/s NHAI [F.No. 10–44/

2013- IA.III]

As presented by the project proponent, the project involves construction of 6 laning

of Bangalore-Chennai Expressway from Bangalore (km0.000) to Chennai (km

258.800) including spur alignments in the States of Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and

Tamil Nadu. The proposed project is a Expressway and start from the Bangalore –

Chennai Section of NH-4 about 415m from Kondaspur, which is to the East of

Bangalore and ends at (Km 258.800) -Sriperumbadur. The total length of the Bangalore

Chennai Expressway is 258.800 Km and it falls in the states of Karnataka, Andhra

Pradesh and Tamil Nadu. The proposed ROW is 90m throughout the project stretch.

Spur Alignment - 3 has been provided for connectivity from the industrial town of

Kolar Gold Fields (KGF)/ Robertsonpet to Bangalore Chennai Expressway. The Spur-3

alignment takes off from km 51.900 of BCE and is aligned in the Southern direction

and the alignment is stopped on MDR connecting SH 95 towards Betamangal and

KGF, about 2 km North of KGF as this MDR continues further and passes through

KGF, and acts as a connecting road from Spur-3 to KGF. The alignment ends MDR, at

km 4.94. The total length of this Spur Alignment is 2.05 km and is aligned South of

Kolar in Karnataka. The proposed RoW of spur-3 is 90 m. About 2295.63 hectares of

land is required for the required construction space of Bangalore-Chennai Expressway

including spur-3 at Kolar Gold Fields. It includes agricultural, barren lands, forest lands

and lands under private ownership. The total design length of the project is 260.84 km

including Spur-3 (2.14 km) and the BCE passes through three states which are

Karnataka (From Km 0.000 to Km 175.900 & Km 81.800 to Km 83.800), Andhra

Pradesh (From Km 75.100 to Km 81.800 & Km 83.800 to Km 164.400) and Tamil

Nadu (Km 164.400 to Km 258.800). One water tank affected due to the project road.

52 nos. of pedestrian and 41 vehicular underpasses are provided for the project road. 9

nos. of major bridges, 153 nos. of minor bridges, 143 box culverts and 2 nos. (Elephant

Underpass) are to be proposed.

The land requirement is 224.47 ha of Govt. and 2350 ha of private. The project

involves forest land is of 67.12 Ha. The proposed project is passing through the Rayala

Elephant Reserve for a length of about 7.083Km. Kaundinya Wildlife Sanctuary is

situated at a distance of 2.2 Km from proposed Bangalore-Chennai Expressway.

33

There are about 125 villages along the project road. The project section passes

through 6 districts namely Bangalore Rural,Kolar,Chittoor,Vellore,Kachipuram and

Thiruvallur. The proposed Expressway project will require felling of a total number of

876 trees within 90m RoW in Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu section

including spur-alignment in Kolar, which will be inevitable. Efforts will be made to

minimize the tree felling to the possible extent. In an average about 21000 KL/day

water will be consumed for the project road. The 12600 KL/day surface water will

preferably be used for meeting the water requirement for construction to the possible

extent depending upon the availability of water in nearby rivers/ streams with requisite

permission from line department. 8400 KL/day Ground water will be used only in

those areas, where there is no source of surface water. The EMP cost is approx. Rs.

149.79 crores, R&R cost is Rs. 2129.45 crores, Civil cost is Rs. 4999 crores. The total

cost of the project is 7278.24 crores.



(i) As the project road falls within 10 km radius from Kaundinya wild

Sanctuary at 2.2 km. Necessary prior clearance from NBWL shall be

obtained.

(ii) The proposal indicates the acquisition of 67.12 ha ha Forest land

including land within Sanctuary. Necessary stage –I forestry clearance

shall be obtained..

(iii) It is indicated that 1,50,000 nos. trees fall within the proposed RoW,

however, bare minimum trees to be cut, the information should be

provided about their species and whether it also involved any protected

or endangered species. Necessary green belt shall be provided on both

side of the highway with proper central verge and cost provision should

be made for regular maintenance.

(iv) Committee noted that the project road passes through Rayala Elephant

Reserve/ Palamaner Reserved Forest for a length of 7.083 km and

requires 63.747 ha land acquisition. Submit the details of the elephant

corridors.

(v) Submit the details of the water bodies along the project road.

(vi) Explore the possibilities for utilization of fly ash.

(vii) Explore the possibilities of cooled mixed technology instead of hot mixed

technology

(viii) The additional ToR and General Guidelines as per the annexure-I and

Annexure-II respectively to this Minutes shall also be considered for

preparation of EIA/EMP.

(ix) Submit details on borrow areas as per OM dated 18/12/2012

34

(x) Any further clarification on carrying out the above studies including

anticipated impacts due to the project and mitigative measure, project

proponent can refer to the model ToR available on Ministry website

“http://moef.nic.in/Manual/ Highways”.






4.32 Environmental Clearance for widening and improvement of NH- 458 from lambia

– Jaitaran – Raipur including Jaitaran bypass (newly declared National Highway)

2 lane National Highway standard. M/s NHAI [F.No.10-68/2012-IA-III]

Committee noted that the length is 58 km less than 100 km hence the project

does not require EC.

4.33 Finalization of ToR for development of Petroleum Investment Region (PCPIR) at

Dahej-vagra in a brown filed are by M/s GIDC [F.No.21-49/2010-IA.III]

As presented by the project proponent, the project involves development of

Petroleum, Chemical and Petrochemical Investment Region (PCPIR) at Dahej-Vagra in

a brown field area covering 453 sq. kms. The PCPIR is specifically delineated

investment region with an area of around 250 sq.km planned for the establishment of

manufacturing facilities for domestic and export led production in petroleum, chemical

and petrochemicals along with the associated services and infrastructure. The

Department of Chemicals and Petrochemicals has already approved the setting up of

PCPIR at Dahej vide letter dated 31st March, 2009. The Delhi-Mumbai Industrial

Corridor will also pass through the PCPIR.

The available area of GPCPIR is 41307 ha to be developed in two phases, Phase-

I (26873 ha) and Phase-II (14434 ha). About 5988 ha is falling under CRZ area.

The water supply will be through Narmada River and effluent disposal of 90

MLD will be disposed through deep sea pipeline diffuser. Solid wastes are to be

generated from wastewater treated plants existing and commercial units in the project

area. Hazardous wastes will be generated and stored in respective industrial units under

shed. The wastes from these sheds will be lifted by the private operator of hazardous

solid waste TSDF site.

The main act was enacted in the year 1976 however the SIR act was enacted by

the state of Gujarat in 2009. Kindly clarify whether the approval of president of India is

required before enactment of the act of 2009



http://moef.nic.in/Manual/highways

35

i. Remote sensing imagery of the entire area should be procured for last 3 years

and presented along with its classification in terms of landuse/landcover.

ii. No industrial development should be allowed in the CRZ area. Separate CRZ

clearance shall be obtained for any activity in the CRZ area.

iii. CRZ map at the scale of 1:4000 for the entire CRZ area prepared by the

authorized agencies should be submitted in the soft and hard format

iv. Latest data shall be used for the preparation of EIA studies.

v. What is the mechanism that the infrastructure land is available to the

proponent.

4.34 Environmental Clearance for widening of existing 2-lane to 4/6-lane of Solapur to

Bijapur section of NH-13 in the State of Maharashtra and Karnataka M/s NHAI.

[F.No. 10-58/2012-IA.III]

Committee noted that the length is 58 km less than 100 km hence the project

does not require EC.

4.35 Environmental and CRZ Clearance for Vizhinjam International Container

Transshipment Terminal at Vizhinjam by M/s Vizhinjam Port Ltd [FF..NNoo.. 1111--

112222//22001111--IIAA--IIIIII]]

The Committee noted that the State Government has not responded and provided

comments on the various representations received w.r.t. the proposed project. PP was

also informed that some more representations have been handed over by some persons

on the meeting day, a copy of which will also be provided to the State Government.

Principal Secretary, State Government was, therefore, requested to respond to all these

representations. Consideration of proposal was, therefore, deferred till the next

meeting.

4.36 Finalization of ToR for Development of Bulk Liquid Berth for handling LNG at

Karaikal Port-Environmental Clearance-reg. M/s Karaikal Port Private Ltd.

[F.No. 11 –41/ 2013 - IA.III]



4.37 Finalization of ToR for re-development of existing activities at Cochin Port Trust

[F.No.11-45/2013-IA.III]

As presented by the project proponent, the project involves redevelopment of existing

activities of Cochin Port Trust, Kerala. Cochin Port is currently handling 20.09 MTPA

of General Cargo, Liquid Cargo, Dry Bulk Cargo, Clean Cargo and 1,300 passenger

capacity cruise vessels with existing 17 berths.

With the proposed expansion/modernization activities at existing 17 berths, the

capacity would be enhanced to handle 36.38 MTPA (General Cargo, Liquid Cargo, Dry

satyajitray

Highlight

36

Bulk Cargo, Clean Cargo), 92,000 ECU/annum and 3,500 passenger capacity cruise

vessels. An area of ~ 40.1 hectares (ha) has been earmarked for backup area of dry bulk

cargo, backup area for cruise terminal, storage area for Ro-Ro berth and tank farms for

liquid cargo. In addition, an area of 104.07 ha is envisaged as part of redevelopment of

Willingdon Island to include Logistics Park, Ship Repair Yard and Free Trade Ware

Housing Zone (FTWZ). Cochin Port activities are mainly on Willingdon Island and

proposed redevelopment activities are also on the island. A new road bridge is

proposed connecting Willingdon Island to Palluruthy area (main land) on the south

west part of the city. Existing port facility is already handling POL products. The

proposed expansion plan also includes Hazardous liquid cargo (Class A), POL

products. Handling of fuel oils required for port operations will be stored/ used as per

the stipulations laid; risks associated with handling, storage of hazardous materials.

The estimated water requirement is about 8 MLD which will be sourced from KWA/

proposed new water treatment plant. Power requirement – 85 MVA for the port will be

met from substations of Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) and partly from DG sets

as required. The wastewater generated from the toilets, bathrooms and other areas at

the port will be drained directly to the sewerage treatment unit to be set up at the port

premises and the treated water to be reused. Currently only septic tanks are available.



(i) Shall obtain necessary NOC from MOD/ Defence authority, as

applicable.

(ii) Submit the recommendation of the Kerala CZMA.

(iii) Submit details of Risk Assessment, Disaster Management Plan including

emergency evacuation during natural and man-made disaster like

floods, cyclone, tsunami and earth quakes etc.

(iv) Submit a copy of layout superimposed on the HTL/LTL map demarcated

by an authorized agency on 1:4000 scale along with the

recommendation of the SCZMA.

(v) Submit details of Environmental Management Plan and Environmental

Monitoring Plan with parameters and costs.

(vi) Submit the details of the fishing activity and likely impact due to the

activity.

(vii) Details of solid / liquid wastes generation and their management.

(viii) Water requirement, source, impact on competitive users.

(ix) Submit the details of the eco-sensitive areas, if any.

(x) Submit the details of Oil Spill Contingent Management Plan.

37

(xi) Submit the details of study on connectivity and its carrying capacity

(both road and railway).

(xii) The General guidelines as per the annexure-II to this Minutes shall also

be considered for preparation of EIA/EMP.

(xiii) Examine the impacts on marine environment & biological environment

due to the development of proposed port.

(xiv) Examine Social impact of the project on the nearby fishing habitations.






Annexure-I

(i) Any litigation(s) pending against the proposed project and/or any directions

38

or orders passed by any court of law/any statutory authority against the

project is to be detailed out.

(ii) Submit detailed alignment plan, with details such as nature of terrain

(plain, rolling, hilly), land use pattern, habitation, cropping pattern,

forest area, environmentally sensitive places, mangroves, notified

industrial areas, sand dunes, sea, river, lake, details of villages, teshils,

districts and states, latitude and longitude for important locations

falling on the alignment by employing remote sensing techniques

followed by ground truthing and also through secondary data sources.

(iii) Describe various alternatives considered, procedures and criteria

adopted for selection of the final alternative with reasons.

(iv) Submit Land use map of the study area to a scale of 1: 25,000 based on

recent satellite imagery delineating the crop lands (both single and

double crop), agricultural plantations, fallow lands, waste lands, water

bodies, built-up areas, forest area and other surface features such as

railway tracks, ports, airports, roads, and major industries etc. and

submit a detailed ground surveyed map on 1:2000 scale showing the

existing features falling within the right of way namely trees, structures

including archeological & religious, monuments etc. if any.

(v) If the proposed route is passing through any hilly area, examine and

submit the stability of slopes, if the proposed road is to pass through

cutting or embankment / control of soil erosion from embankment.

(vi) If the proposed route involves tunneling, the details of the tunnel and

locations of tunneling with geological structural fraction should be

provided. In case the road passes through a flood plain of the river, the

details of micro drainage, flood passages and information on flood

periodicity at least of last 50 years in the area should be examined.

(vii) The projects is located within 10km. of the sanctuary a map duly

authenticated by Chief Wildlife Warden showing these features vis-à-vis

the project location and the recommendations or comments of the Chief

Wildlife Warden thereon should be furnished at the stage of EC.

(viii) Study regarding the Animal bypasses / underpasses etc. across the

habitation areas shall be carried out. Adequate cattle passes for the

movement of agriculture material shall be provided at the stretches

passing through habitation areas.

(ix) If the proposed route is passing through a city or town, with houses and

human habitation on the either side of the road, the necessity for

provision of bypasses/diversions/under passes shall be examined and

submitted. The proposal should also indicate the location of wayside

amenities, which should include petrol station/service centre, rest areas

including public conveyance, etc.

39

(x) Submit details about measures taken for the pedestrian safety and

construction of underpasses and foot-over bridges along with flyovers

and interchanges.

(xi) Assess whether there is a possibility that the proposed project will

adversely affect road traffic in the surrounding areas (e.g. by causing

increases in traffic congestion and traffic accidents).

(xii) Examine and submit the details of use of fly ash in the road

construction, if the project road is located within the 100 km from the

Thermal Power Plant.

(xiii) Examine and submit the details of sand quarry, borrow area and

rehabilitation.

(xiv) Climate and meteorology (max and min temperature, relative humidity,

rainfall, frequency of tropical cyclone and snow fall); the nearest IMD

meteorological station from which climatological data have been

obtained to be indicated.

(xv) The air quality monitoring should be carried out as per the new

notification issued on 16th

November, 2009.

(xvi) Identify project activities during construction and operation phases,

which will affect the noise levels and the potential for increased noise

resulting from this project. Discuss the effect of noise levels on near by

habitation during the construction and operational phases of the

proposed highway. Identify noise reduction measures and traffic

management strategies to be deployed for reducing the negative impact

if any. Prediction of noise levels should be done by using mathematical

modeling at different representative locations.

(xvii) Examine the impact during construction activities due to generation of

fugitive dust from crusher units, air emissions from hot mix plants and

vehicles used for transportation of materials and prediction of impact

on ambient air quality using appropriate mathematical model,

description of model, input requirement and reference of derivation,

distribution of major pollutants and presentation in tabular form for

easy interpretation shall be carried out.

(xviii) Also examine and submit the details about the protection to existing

habitations from dust, noise, odour etc. during construction stage.

(xix) If the proposed route involves cutting of earth, the details of area to be

cut, depth of cut, locations, soil type, volume and quantity of earth and

other materials to be removed with location of disposal/ dump site along

with necessary permission.

(xx) If the proposed route is passing through low lying areas, details of fill

materials and initial and final levels after filling above MSL, should be

40

examined and submit.

(xxi) Examine and submit the water bodies including the seasonal ones within

the corridor of impacts along with their status, volumetric capacity,

quality likely impacts on them due to the project.

(xxii) Examine and submit details of water quantity required and source of

water including water requirement during the construction stage with

supporting data and also classification of ground water based on the

CGWA classification.

(xxiii) Examine and submit the details of measures taken during constructions

of bridges across river/canal/major or minor drains keeping in view the

flooding of the rivers and the life span of the existing bridges. Provision

of speed breakers, safety signals, service lanes and foot paths should be

examined at appropriate locations through out the proposed road to

avoid the accidents.

(xxiv) If there will be any change in the drainage pattern after the proposed

activity, details of changes shall be examined and submitted.

(xxv) Rain water harvesting pit should be at least 3 - 5 m. above the highest

ground water table. Provision shall be made for oil and grease removal

from surface runoff.

(xxvi) If there is a possibility that the construction/widening of road will cause

impact such as destruction of forest, poaching, reductions in wetland

areas, if so, examine the impact and submit details.

(xxvii) Submit the details of road safety, signage, service roads, vehicular

under passes, accident prone zone and the mitigation measures.

(xxviii) IRC guidelines shall be followed for widening & upgradation of road.

(xxix) Submit details of social impact assessment due to the proposed

construction of road.

(xxx) Examine road design standards, safety equipment specifications and

Management System training to ensure that design details take account

of safety concerns and submit the traffic management plan.

(xxxi) Accident data and geographic distribution should be reviewed and

analyzed to predict and identify trends – incase of expansion of the

existing highway and provide Post accident emergency assistance and

medical care to accident victims.

(xxxii) If the proposed project involves any land reclamation, details to be

provided for which activity land to reclaim and the area of land to be

reclaimed.

41

(xxxiii) Details of the properties, houses, businesses etc. activities likely to be

effected by land acquisition and their financial loses annually.

(xxxiv) Detailed R&R plan with data on the existing socio-economic status of

the population in the study area and broad plan for resettlement of the

displaced population, site for the resettlement colony, alternative

livelihood concerns/employment and rehabilitation of the displaced

people, civil and housing amenities being offered, etc and the schedule

of the implementation of the project specific

(xxxv) Submit details of Corporate Social Responsibility. Necessary provisions

should be made in the budget.

(xxxvi) Estimated cost of the project including environmental monitoring cost

and funding agencies, whether governmental or on the basis of BOT etc

and provide details of budget provisions (capital & recurring) for the

project specific R&R Plan.

(xxxvii) Submit environmental management and monitoring plan for all phases

of the project viz. construction and operation.

Annexure-II

General Guidelines

(i) The EIA document shall be printed on both sides, as for as possible.

42

(ii) The status of accreditation of the EIA consultant with NABET/QCI shall

be specifically mentioned. The consultant shall certify that his

accreditation is for the sector for which this EIA is prepared.

(iii) On the front page of EIA/EMP reports, the name of the

consultant/consultancy firm along with their complete details including

their accreditation, if any shall be indicated. The consultant while

submitting the EIA/EMP report shall give an undertaking to the effect

that the prescribed TORs (TOR proposed by the project proponent and

additional TOR given by the MoEF) have been complied with and the

data submitted is factually correct (Refer MoEF office memorandum

dated 4th

August, 2009).

(iv) While submitting the EIA/EMP reports, the name of the experts

associated with/involved in the preparation of these reports and the

laboratories through which the samples have been got analysed should

be stated in the report. It shall clearly be indicated whether these

laboratories are approved under the Environment (Protection) Act,

1986 and the rules made there under (Please refer MoEF office

memorandum dated 4th

August, 2009). The project leader of the EIA

study shall also be mentioned.

(v) All the TOR points as presented before the Expert Appraisal Committee

(EAC) shall be covered.

****

43

126th

Meeting of the Expert Appraisal Committee for Projects related to Infrastructure

Development, Coastal Regulation Zone, Building/Construction and Miscellaneous

projects held from 19th

– 21st September, 2013 in the Conference Hall, IOC, Scope

Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi.

List of Participants

Expert Committee

1. Shri Anil Razdan Chairman

2. Dr. M.L. Sharma Member

3. Sh. R. Radhakrishnan Member

4. Dr. M.V. Ramana Murthy Member

5. Dr. R. Prabhakaran Member

6. Dr. Anuradha Shukla Member

7. Shri S.K. Sinha Member

8. Shri Y.B. Kaushik Member

9. Shri Lalit Kapur Member Secretary

MoEF officials

10. Shri E. Thirunavukkarasu Scientist ‘C’, MoEF

11. Shri Amardeep Raju Scientist ‘C’, MoEF

Minutes of 31st meeting of SC NBWL dated 12th & 13th Aug 2014

1

Ministry of Environment and ForestsWildlife Division

Minutes of the 31st Meeting of the Standing Committee of National Board for Wildlife held on 12-13 August 2014 at Indira Paryavaran Bhawan, Jor Bag Road, New Delhi.

The 31st Meeting of the Standing Committee of National Board for Wildlife (NBWL) was held on 12-13 August 2014 in the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF), New Delhi. The meeting was convened under the chairmanship of Hon’ble Minister of State (Independent Charge) for Environment, Forests and Climate Change. The list of participants is at Annexure-1.

At the outset, Hon’ble Chairman while welcoming all participants to the 31st Meeting of Standing Committee of NBWL mentioned that this meeting was being held after a long gap, due to the process of re-constitution of the National Board for Wildlife and its Standing Committee. He urged the participants that there was a need to take conservation alongside developmental activities and therefore, all the proposals that have been included in the agenda need to be looked into very carefully and judiciously. He also clarified that in case the Committee prescribes any conditions while recommending projects, care should be taken that the conditions are feasible for implementation and at the same time compliance of the conditions should also be closely monitored. The Chairman also pointed out that each case be discussed as per its merits. He then requested the Member Secretary to initiate the discussions on the agenda items.

The agenda items were then opened for discussion.

Agenda No. 1:

Confirmation of the minutes of the 30th Meeting of Standing Committee of National Board for Wildlife held on 4th September 2014.

The Member Secretary informed the Committee that the final minutes of the 30th

Meeting of the Standing Committee of NBWL held on 4th September 2013 were circulated to all members of the Standing Committee on 7th November 2013. No comments have since been received on the final minutes.

The Standing Committee accordingly confirmed the minutes of the 30th Meeting held on 4th September 2013, subject to discussion on the points in the matters coming subsequently in the agenda.

Agenda No. 2: Action Taken Report

Action Taken on the decisions of the Standing Committee of NBWL in its 28th Meeting held on 20th March 2013.


2

4.1(12) Proposal for Oil India Ltd. for use of 304.15 ha non-forest land falling within 10 km from the boundary of Dibru-Saikhowa National Park and Bherjan-Borajan-Padumoni Wildlife Sanctuary for expansion of gas field development in Tengakhat-Naharkotia-Jorajan area, Tinsukia-Dhola area and Doom dooma-Pengeri area in Assam (PMG Case).

The Member Secretary informed the Committee that during the previous meeting of the Standing Committee, it was decided that Ms. Prerna Bindra and Dr M.D. Madhusudan wouldundertake site inspection with respect to this proposal along with the another proposal for use of 114.267 ha of non-forestland falling within 10 kms from the boundary of Dibru-Saikhowa National Park and Borjan-Bherjan Padumani Wildlife Sanctuary for laying of crude oil pipeline etc by Oil India Ltd., Assam, which was already recommended. He added that the site inspection was conducted and the report was uploaded on the official website of MOEF&CC and was also circulated to the members. He informed that the site inspection team had recommended the proposals.

Dr. R. Sukumar was of the opinion that in many cases, the project proponents place a “fait accompli” cases for consideration of the Standing Committee, which should be discouraged.

As the site inspection team had recommended the proposals, the Standing Committee decided to recommend the proposal.

4.2 (32) Proposal seeking permission for widening of existing 2-lane NH-3 section passing through Madhav National Park which is part of four lanning project from Gwalior to Shivpuri in district Shivpuri, Madhya Pradesh.

The Member Secretary informed that the decision on the proposal deferred in the last meeting due to want of submission of report of the sub-committee on roads. He mentioned that the sub-committee had since submitted the report and was accepted by the Standing Committee and was circulated to all the State Governments for their comments. The contents of the report were discussed. It was agreed that the principles provided in the report are generic in nature and may be adopted as general principle.

Dr. R.Sukumar mentioned that vehicles go at high speeds and chances of road kills wereincreasing due to such high speed vehicles, especially in the night. He suggested that if a highway passing through a PA is unavoidable, an elevated highway was a better option. He also added that every road proposal had different situations and therefore need to be looked into based on its site specificity, as each road required different engineering solutions. Widening of roads through National Parks and Sanctuaries, therefore, needs to be considered with utmost caution.

It was agreed that the cases of resurfacing and strengthening of existing Highways, not involving widening within PAs will be possible without reference to SC NBWL.

While new roads will not be proposed inside NPs/WLSs, cases of strengthening and widening, if unavoidable due to reasons of purpose and alignment, could be placed before the Standing Committee which will consider such cases keeping in view the feasibility of mitigation measures irrespective of cost.

On the project under consideration, Chief Wildlife Warden, Madhya Pradesh mentioned that this proposal was considered by the State Board for Wildlife, and had recommended for an elevated highway within the National Park, for about four kms. The Member Secretary, NTCA informed that this road was important from the wildlife point of view and so Wildlife Institute of India should see the proposal and suggest mitigation measures.


3

After discussions, the Standing Committee recommended the proposal for widening of existing two lane NH-3 passing through Madhav National Park, as per the conditions laid down by the Madhya Pradesh State Board for Wildlife and in consultation with the Wildlife Institute of India and the National Tiger Conservation Authority. It was also decided that Wildlife Institute of India shall look into the proposal and suggest mitigation measures.

4.1(13) Proposal for establishment of 2x500 MW Coal based Thermal Power Plant at Tuticorin, Tamil Nadu by M/s Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited (NLC) along with Tamil Nadu Power limited, Tuticorin.

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee about the proposal. It was informed that the State Board for Wildlife of Tamil Nadu has been constituted and the meeting of the Board was expected to be held soon. Dr. R. Sukumar was of the view that this was a major thermal power project and its likely impact on the coral reef ecosystem needs to be understood before taking any decision and for this the Environment Impact Assessment Report would have to be looked into. In view of this, the Standing Committee decided to defer the matter and in the meantime, a copy of the Environment Impact Assessment Report for the proposal be circulated amongst the members of the Standing Committee for taking a view in the next meeting.

4.2.(2) Proposal to set up an 80,000 TPA capacity plant for manufacturing Viscose Staple Fibre at Additional Patalganga Plot No.M1 and M2 at village: Sarsai, Dist.: Raigarh, Maharashtra.

The Member Secretary informed the committee regarding the proposal. The project proponent was also called to explain the project to the Committee. The Principal Secretary (Forests), Maharashtra, informed that the MIDC Industrial area was developed prior to the notification of the Karnala Sanctuary and the State Government had proposed an Eco-Sensitive Zone of 1 km around the Sanctuary as the Sanctuary was surrounded by industrial units.

The Committee, after discussion, decided to recommend the proposal as it was located within the old MIDC industrial area, created for establishment of industrial units.

4.2(5) Diversion of 9.94 ha of forest land from Trishna Wildlife Sanctuary for construction of New Railway Line Broad Gauge (BG) between Agartala to Sabroom, Tripura.

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee about the report of the site inspection team. He mentioned that the site inspection team had recommended the proposal with certain conditions. The Chief Wildlife Warden, Tripura informed that the State Board for Wildlife was in agreement with the conditions of the site inspection team and that the State Government was prepared to notify the Conservation Reserve.

After discussions, the Standing Committee decided to recommend the proposal with the conditions as stipulated in the site inspection report and agreed to by the State Government. The Committee also directed that the Forest Clearance for the proposal be obtained, as has been pointed out in the site inspection report.

4.8 Proposal for laying of Natural Gas Pipeline by GSPL India Transco Limited (GITL) in the vicinity of (within 10 kms) of Sivaram Wildlife Sanctuaries, Andhra Pradesh.

4.9 Proposal for laying of Natural Gas Pipeline by GSPL India Transco Limited (GITL) in the vicinity of (within 10 kms) of Pakhal Wildlife Sanctuaries, Andhra Pradesh.


4

4.10 Proposal for laying of Natural Gas Pipeline by GSPL India Transco Limited (GITL) in the vicinity of (within 10 kms) of Coringa Wildlife Sanctuaries, Andhra Pradesh.

The matters related to the above three proposals were taken up together for discussion. These proposals were recommended by the Standing Committee earlier with the condition that 5% of the investment cost of the pipeline in the vicinity of Protected Area/ESZ be remitted for the management of the Coringa Sanctuary. The applicants had requested for a waiver in this condition. It was also informed that the condition was stipulated by the State Board for Wildlife.

The representative of Chief Wildlife Warden, Andhra Pradesh informed that this condition of 5% of project cost was stipulated by the State Board for Wildlife while recommending the proposals. He added that in one of the cases pertaining to NagarjunsagarSrisailam Tiger Reserve, Hon’ble Supreme Court had directed the project proponents to remit 5% of the project cost and this has been in practice for other project proposals as well.

It was discussed by the Standing Committee that it was unfair to stipulate such condition of 5% of project cost on every project and instead, a condition that the project proponent take up the mitigation works, in consultation with the Chief Wildlife Warden, could be considered.

After discussions on the matter, the Standing Committee decided that the user agency may remit the amount required for taking up the mitigation measures for the betterment of the wildlife within the Sanctuary and in the Eco-Sensitive Zone, through which the pipeline passes or alternatively remit 2% of the proportionate project cost to the length of the pipeline in the area involved in the Eco-Sensitive Zone through which the pipeline passes, whichever is higher.

Item 2[4(2)]: Proposal seeking permission for control of fencing and patrol road along the Indo-Bangladesh Border in Dampa Tiger Reserve, Mizoram.

The Member Secretary briefed about the project to the Committee. He mentioned that the State Board for Wildlife, Mizoram had considered the revised proposal after the report of the subcommittee of the Standing Committee and NTCA, and had recommended the revised proposal with three conditions.

After discussions, the Standing Committee decided to recommend the proposal subject to the following conditions as stipulated by the State Board for Wildlife:

i. The number of BOPs proposed inside Dampa Tiger Reserve will be reduced from 7 numbers to 5 numbers;

ii. As it is believed that fencing could haphazardly have impacts on local ecology of Dampa Tiger Reserve, Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) will be conducted at the expense of the BSF;

iii. Revenue Department will transfer 1519.575 Ha of non-forest land as a compensation to equivalent area of land required to be diverted inside Dampa Tiger Reserve from a neighbouring areas or elsewhere as stipulated by the Expert Team of the Standing Committee of National Board for Wildlife.


5

Item 4.1 (2): Diversion of 79.474 ha of forest land in Kutch Desert Wildlife Sanctuary and Wild Ass Sanctuary for construction of Gaduli to Hajipur-Odma-Khavda-Kunariya-Dholavira-Maovana-Gadakbet-Santalpur road.

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposal. A presentation was also made by the representatives of the Ministry of Home Affairs. They informed the Committee that the suggestion of the subcommittee of taking up the alignment outside the boundary of the PA all along does not serve the purpose as the distance of the resultant road is too long to meet the objective of quick movement of troupes and supplies for border formations. Three alignments were thus considered by the Ministry of Home Affairs and the only option that was feasible was alignment no.1 that connects the BOP Tagdi Bet in the middle. They informed that the concerns of impediments in mixing of water due to the embankments of the proposed road, and impact of it on the Shravan Kavadia mangrove patch would be addressed by providing high box culverts at appropriate intervals under this alignment, which is far away from the mangrove patch.

The Chief Wildlife Warden, Gujarat mentioned that this was a strategically important road and at the same time, it is also important for the flamingoes and a balanced view needs to be taken on this issue. After discussions, the Standing Committee decided to recommend the proposal subject to the BSF constructing culverts at appropriate locations as well as other mitigation measures, in consultation with the Wildlife Institute of India and the Chief Wildlife Warden, Gujarat.

Item 5.2 to 5.14: 5.2. Construction and Upgradation of 2.5 km. road from Khatola to Kisli, M.P.5.3. Construction and Upgradation of 2.6 km Road from 14 km off T-2 to Mukki, M.P.5.4. Construction and Upgradation of 5.13 km Road from Rajomal to Manoharpur, M.P.5.5. Construction of Stop dam cum Causeway on Rehti- Tendukheda Road at Km 82/2,

M.P.5.6. Construction and Upgradation of 6 km Tendukheda- Taradehi- Sarra to Kudpura

Approach Road, M.P.5.7. Approach road from Somkheda to Hinouti – Ramgarh, M.P. 5.8. Construction and Upgradation of 4.20 km of Bamhori to Kotkheda Road, M.P.5.9. Construction of MDR to Mokla Road, M.P.5.10. Construction of 14.20 km road for NH-12, 7 km. to Malkuhi Jhilpani Dhana, M.P.5.11. Construction of 4.73 km Somkheda-Suhela Approach Road, M.P.5.12. Upgradation of 8.55 km road from Bineka to Borpani, M.P. 5.13. Widening of NH 59 from Indore to Gujarat Border, M.P.5.14. Upgradation of Bhiapur to Amchhekala Dam Road, M.P.

The Member Secretary gave a brief description of the above proposals. He informed that site inspection was carried out by Ms. Prerna Bindra and the report was circulated to members. It was informed that for all roads, the principle suggested by site inspection committee was for permitting only repair and maintenance and no upgradation, including black topping within the Protected Areas to be done by the Forest Department and also recommendation for permitting ‘Construction of Stop dam cum Causeway on Rehti- Tendukheda Road at Km 82/2’ and upgradation of roads that fall outside the Protected Area.

The Chief Wildlife Warden, Madhya Pradesh informed that most of the above roads were roads linking two villages and widening was not proposed.


6

After discussion, the Standing Committee agreed that no permission was required for upkeep or renovation of the existing roads without upgradation or widening, and recommended the following proposals subject to the conditions as stipulated by the State Board for Wildlife and the Chief Wildlife Warden, Madhya Pradesh:

5.5. Construction of Stop dam cum Causeway on Rehti- Tendukheda Road at Km 82/2’5.7. Approach road from Somkheda to Hinouti – Ramgarh, M.P.5.12. Upgradation of 8.55 km road from Bineka to Borpani, M.P. 5.13. Widening of NH 59 from Indore to Gujarat Border, M.P.5.14. Upgradation of Bhiapur to Amchhekala Dam Road, M.P.

For all other cases above, the general policy condition of only repair and maintenance and no upgradation, including black topping within the Protected Areas shall be applicable. Besides, the legal control on the roads will remain with the Forest Department as recommended by the Site Inspection committee.

The committee also decided that adequate animal passes, speed breakers etc should be built in these roads. It was also decided that no additional area from the Sanctuary be taken for upgradation/strengthening of the above roads.

2.1.1(4). Proposal is for setting up of 2x660 MW coal fired based Thermal Power Plant at Lakhisarai District, Bihar. (The project area is 3 km away from the sanctuary)

The Member Secretary briefed the committee regarding the proposal. It was informed that the Environmental Clearance for the proposed project was still awaited. The Standing Committee, therefore, decided to defer the proposal and await the Environment Clearance, as any reference to the SC of NBWL for the projects located within 10 km of PA is a part of environmental clearance.

4.1(15). Proposal for Kotri-Chechat Limestone (Building Stone) Mine (M.L.No.19/93) of M/s Abdul Sattar S/o Shri Abdul Kareem Village Kotri Chechat District Kota, Rajasthan. (within 10 kms of Mukandra NP/Dara Sanctuary, Rajasthan).

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee on the proposal as well as the site inspection report. The Chief Wildlife Warden, Rajasthan mentioned that although the site inspection reports indicate that the mining lease area is a corridor, but the area is totally mined-up and the existing mines cannot be discontinued.

The Member Secretary, National Tiger Conservation Authority informed the Committee that there were several mines around the Mukundara Tiger Reserve and there was no viable linkages around the tiger reserve and that the open cast mining was overarching all-around. Only two villages are in the vicinity of the zone of influence and the mines are beyond the proposed eco-sensitive zone for the Sanctuary.

After discussion, the Standing Committee decided to recommend the proposal subject to the conditions stipulated by the State Board for Wildlife and the Chief Wildlife Warden, Rajasthan and that the CSR fund be placed in the Ranthambhore Tiger Foundation for the management of Mukundara Tiger Reserve as well as taking up GIS based monitoring.


7

4.1(2) Proposal for removal of old manganese dumps outside Jambughoda Wildlife Sanctuary on its border beyond 1 km distance from the Jambughoda Wildlife Sanctuary by Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation.

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposal and the Site Inspection Report. He added that the Site Inspection Report was circulated to the members. The Chief Wildlife Warden, Gujarat mentioned that the State Government was in agreement with the conditions stipulated by the site inspection team, except the condition no. 6., i.e, for enhancement of the Jambughoda Sanctuary by addingthe Udaipur Division forest before granting final permission to the manganese ore removal. He said that the corridor connectivity between Ratanmahal Sanctuary and Jambughoda Sanctuary was proposed as a Eco-Sensitive Zone.

The Standing Committee, after discussions, decided to recommend the proposal in view of the recommendation of the site inspection report and the agreement of the State Government with the following conditions:

i. Permission be given only for removing the manganese ore dumps and not for mining and in accordance with a proper manganese ore removal plan.

ii. The Chief Wildlife Warden and the Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation shall jointly prepare a detailed “Manganese Ore Removal Plan” and establish the method and practice of extraction and transportation to ensure minimum disturbance to wildlife and to reduce the duration of extraction to the extent possible. The work plan should also mention how the C.F (WL) and DCF(WL) Vadodara will take adequate safety measures for wildlife conservation, during the removal work.

iii. The Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation and the Chief Wildlife Warden shall demarcate on the ground the dumps recommended to be removed so that there is no ambiguity about the dumps to be removed out of the total dumps.

iv. The Chief Wildlife Warden shall prepare a “Community based tourism” plan within 10 kms of Jambughoda Sanctuary, which should provide employment to the villagers through home stays, guides, drivers, etc. so that villagers could switch over their livelihood from daily wages from dump removal, to wildlife tourism activities. The Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation shall financially help to implement the plan.

v. The State Government shall forward proposal to the MoEF&CC for declaration of the corridor connectivity between Ratanmahal Sanctuary and Jambughoda Sanctuary asEco-Sensitive Zone.

4.1(3) Proposal for lime stone mining project of Saurashtra Chemicals Ltd. for captive consumption in Soda Ash Plant. Limestone mining lease area is at a distance of 7.27 km from the boundary of Barda Wildlife Sanctuary.

4.1(4) Proposal for Dharampur-Khajawadri limestone mine of M/s Saurashtra Chemicals Ltd., on 18.21 ha at a distance of 6.55 km from Barda Wildlife Sanctuary, Gujarat.

4.1(5) Proposal for Dharampur-Khajawadri limestone mine lease area of 9.31 ha at a distance of 6.55 km from Barda Wildlife Sanctuary, Gujarat in favour of Saurashtra Chemicals Ltd.


8

4.1(6) Proposal for Dharampur-Khajawadri limestone mine of M/s Saurashtra Chemicals Ltd. of 14.61 ha at a distance of 5.18 km from Barda Wildlife Sanctuary, Gujarat.4.1(7) Proposal for Dharampur-Khajawadri limestone mine of M/s Saurashtra Chemicals Ltd., on 40.46 ha at a distance of 6.55 km from Barda Wildlife Sanctuary, Gujarat.

The five proposals of limestone mining around Barda Sanctuary were taken up together for discussion. The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the site inspection report. The Chief Wildlife Warden, Gujarat informed that the State Government was in agreement with all the conditions of the site inspection report, except condition No.5., i.e declaration of Mokur wetland as a Sanctuary or Conservation Reserve. He said that the Mokur wetlands were already under the protection regime as a wetland.

Considering the recommendation of the site inspection report and the points made by the Chief Wildlife Warden, Gujarat, the Standing Committee decided to recommend the proposal subject to the following conditions, as suggested in the site inspection report:

The recommendations are to be read with and subject to any orders passed by any courtrelated to mining including permission – temporary or otherwise, in the vicinity of the protected areas.

i. As the five mines would be supplying limestone to a factory run by this project proponent in Porbandar and which is actually polluting a lake (Chaya Chauki Rann Talao) adjacent to and edaphically interlinked with the Porbandar Bird Sanctuary, by releasing polluted liquid effluents and by depositing atmospheric dust particles from the factory, the project proponent should first stop releasing liquid effluents and air pollution into the adjoining lake and PBS respectively. They should treat the liquid effluents at the effluent treatment plant within the factory premises and get it inspected by the State Pollution Control Board, and the Chief Wildlife Warden of Gujarat, who should certify that the pollution has ceased. The Municipal Corporation also should stop releasing sewage into the PBS. The following recommendations would be applicable only after implementing these two most important measures.

ii. In proposal no. 1 above, concerning the mining site of 87.33ha, the approach road branching from the Porbandar – Rajkot highway, bisects the concerned site into two parts. The larger eastern portion has been mined and mining could be permitted to continue there. The smaller segment of this area to the west of the road, has been planted over and trees are growing upon it. This portion to the west of the road should not be given for mining purposes and should be excluded from the total area of 87.33ha. The remainder of the area of this site to the east of the road, could be leased out for mining. The site, therefore, needs to be measured again and the portion under plantation to the west of the road needs to be excluded from the leased site. This will be ensured by the State Govt. before giving this site on lease for mining. The remaining four sites could be given out on lease in their present size and configuration.

iii. The appropriate method of restoration of the mine sites after the mining takes place is to first restore into the open pit area the rubble that would be stored separately and then to cover it up with top soil, so that the land would again be productive. This would imply that the mining operation would begin by first scraping the top soil and storing it separately, then remove the underlying mooram and rubble and storing it separately and then remove the limestone which would be carried away. When the mining operation


9

stops at the site, the restoration would be done as indicated above, which is why the top soil and the underlying rubble should be stored separately. The mining operators do not follow this practice because of the cost involved and that is why the empty mined pits look like sterile moonscapes. The State authorities should ensure the above recommendation and if it is not followed, further operation of the mines should be stopped.

iv. Further expansion of the factories situated in Ranavav town should be strictly curbed, as it would have its adverse impact on the Barda Sanctuary, due to their close proximity.

4.1(9) Proposal for Kotri-Chechat Limestone (Building Stone) Mine (M.L.No.121/92) of M/s Abdul Sattar S/o Shri Abdul Kareem Village Kotri Chechat District Kota, Rajasthan. (within 10 kms of Mukandra NP/Dara Sanctuary). The mine is located at a distance of 6 km from Darra WLS.

4.1(10) Proposal for mining renewal and capacity expansion of M.K. 59/87 of M.S Goodwill advance Stone company Kota, Rajasthan

The above mentioned two proposals for mining around Darra Sanctuary, Rajasthan were taken together for discussion. It was informed that the proposal was similar to the one discussed and recommended at 4.1.(15) earlier in the meeting and the same would be applicable for these two proposals as well. After discussion, the Standing Committee decided to recommend the proposals subject to the conditions stipulated by the State Board for Wildlife and the Chief Wildlife Warden, Rajasthan and the recommendation of NTCA that the CSR fund be placed with the Ranthambhore Tiger Foundation for the management of Mukundara Tiger Reserve as well as taking up GIS based monitoring.

4.1(28) Proposal for refurbishment of 2x30 MW Chandrapur Thermal Power Plant using coal based boilers by replacing existing oil fired boilers falling within 10 kms from the boundary of Amchang and Pobitora Wildlife Sanctuary, Assam.

The Member Secretary briefed the committee regarding the proposal. The Chief Wildlife Warden informed the Committee that the proposal was for change from oil based boiler to coal based boiler. He added that the power project was established in 1972 and has been in operation since then and now they wanted to convert the oil based boilers to coal based boilers in a PPP mode. He also added that the State Board for Wildlife had recommended the proposal and that the impact of the power plan on the nearby river and the Pobitora and Amchang Sanctuaries were minimal. The State Board for Wildlife had recommended the proposal subject to the condition that the project proponent will support Amchang and Pobitora Sanctuaries.

After discussions, the Standing Committee decided to recommend the proposal subject to the conditions stipulated by the State Board for Wildlife and the State Chief Wildlife Warden.

4.1(29) Proposal for 520 MW Hydroelectric Power Project, Teesta Stage-IV on river Teesta in North Sikkim by NHPC Ltd.

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the site inspection report. He added that the site inspection report has been circulated to all members. The Chief Wildlife


10

Warden, Sikkim informed that as per the Environment Management Plan to be implemented, fish ladders shall be constructed along the stretch of the river. Dr. R. Sukumar desired to know if the proposal was a fait accompli. The Project Proponents explained to the committee that no work on this stretch has been started and in spite of the project being outside the boundary of the proposed Eco-Sensitive Zone, the project proponents had sought recommendations of the Standing Committee of NBWL.

After discussions, the Standing Committee considered the fact that a detailed environmental appraisal has been done for the project and that it is 4.3 km away from the Fambonglho Wildlife Sanctuary and 5.83 km away from the Khangchendzonga NP and not within the proposed eco sensitive zone. Accordingly the Committee decided to recommend the proposal subject to the conditions stipulated by the State Board for Wildlife and the State Chief Wildlife Warden.

4.2 (3) Proposal for survey and investigation for construction of Humbarli Pumped Hydroelectric Project (2x200 MW) in Koyana Wildlife Sanctuary, Maharashtra.

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the site inspection report. He added that the site inspection report has been circulated to all members. The Principal Secretary (Forests), Maharashtra clarified that this proposal was presently for survey and investigation only. After discussions, the Standing Committee decided to recommend the proposal for survey and investigation with the condition that the survey should include consultation with the wild life authorities for all attempts to avoid any bad impact on the protected area and clarifying that the recommendation shall not confer any claim for consideration of recommendation for the project after survey.

4.2 (5) Proposal for rationalization of boundaries Balaram-Ambaji Wildlife Sanctuary, Gujarat.

The Member Secretary briefed the committee regarding the proposal. He added that the site inspection report was circulated to all the members. The Chief Wildlife Warden, Gujarat explained to the committee regarding the proposal. He mentioned that the proposal envisages addition of an area of 5628.28 ha. and deletion of an area of 5357.90 ha. He added that mining activities prevailing around the area are proposed for deletion. He explained that earlier in 2008, the Standing Committee of NBWL had agreed for rationalization of boundaries of Balaram Ambaji Sanctuary. State Government decided to revisit the boundaries of the Sanctuary again and the present proposal was submitted for consideration of the Standing Committee. The proposal was also recommended by the State Board for Wildlife.

The Chief Wildlife warden informed that the site inspection committee recommended retaining about half of the area proposed for exclusion from the sanctuary citing small extent of revenue land in the revenue villages covering the area. He added that the report did not bring out the clear picture of rationalization of the boundaries of the Sanctuary and supported inclusion but not supporting exclusion. As per the proposal of the State Government, an area of 5628.28 ha. is proposed to be added while an area of 5357.90 ha is proposed to be deleted. Retaining some out of proposed exclusion is not consistent with the purpose of reorganization as this would result in conflicts due to mining potential of the nearby areas which may have impact on the sanctuary and therefore has been proposed to be traded off with inclusion of more area contiguous to the sanctuary.


11

After discussions, considering the fact that the sanctuary is being provided with the extent proposed to be excluded, the Standing Committee decided to recommend the proposal of the State Government for rationalization the boundaries of the Balaram Ambaji Sanctuary by adding an area of 5628.28 ha to the Sanctuary and deleting an area of 5357.90 ha from the Sanctuary. The excluded forest area remains forest legally. The Standing Committee also recommended that the State Chief Wildlife Warden may take further action on this matter.

4.2 (6) Proposal is for permission to use private agricultural land for non-agricultural/educational purpose in village Kashti in GIB Sanctuary in Maharashtra State.

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposal. He informed that the site inspection was still to be conducted. The Standing Committee decided to defer the matter and also recommended that the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (WL), Maharashtra may carry out site inspection and submit a report to the Standing Committee of NBWL.

4.2 (7) Proposal for diversion of 0.3514 ha of forestland falling in Majathal Wildlife Sanctuary for drawing water from Pazeena Khad in favour of Executive Engineer, I&PH Division Arki, District Solan, H.P.

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposal. Dr. R. Sukumar desired to know whether FC clearance for the project would be involved or not and moreover, as it involved drawl of water from the Sanctuary, the proposal required a careful look. The Standing Committee, therefore, decided to defer the matter and in the meantime, to circulate a copy of the proposal to all the members.

4.2 (8) Permission for carrying out Survey & Investigation works/Forest clearance in the Itanagar Wildlife Sanctuary division, Arunachal Pradesh for improvement/upgradation of Papu-Yupia-Hoj-Potin Road from 0.00 km to 7.00 km under Prime Minister’s package-reg

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposal. As there was no representative from the State of Arunachal Pradesh, the Committee decided to defer the matter.

4.2 (11) Diversion of 134.0364 ha of forest land from Kachchh Desert WLS for construction of Kutch Branch Canal in favour of Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd., Gujarat

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposal. He also said that the site inspection report as circulated to all the members. The Chief Wildlife Warden, Gujarat mentioned that the State Board for Wildlife had recommended this proposal and that they were in agreement with the recommendations contained in the site inspection report. The User agency for the proposal also made a presentation before the Committee.

The Standing Committee, after discussions and considering the site inspection report, decided to recommend the proposal for diversion of 134.0364 ha. of forest land from the Kutch Desert Sanctuary for construction of Kutch Branch canal, subject to the conditions as stipulated by the State Board for Wildlife and the Chief Wildlife Warden. It was also recommended that the State Government shall take specific and separate measures for the conservation of Great Indian Bustards simultaneously through addition of area to the GIB Sanctuary.


12

4.2 (13) Proposal for survey and investigation for Gargai project in Tansa Sanctuary for Gargai River Project, Maharashtra.

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposal. The Principal Secretary (Forests), Maharashtra informed that this proposal was only for survey and investigation. The representative of the Mumbai Corporation also explained about the project to the Committee.

The Standing Committee, after discussion, decided to recommend the proposal for survey and investigation. It was also mentioned that a permission for survey and investigation should not in any case be construed as a permission for the project itself.

4.2 (14) Proposal seeking permission for black topping/tarred of already existing four roads from Lakh Bahosi Bird Sanctuary, district Kannauj, Uttar Pradesh.

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposal. The Chief Wildlife Warden, Uttar Pradesh explained about the proposal. It was explained that the proposal does not envisage widening or upgradation in any form but only strengthening the roads by black topping. After discussions, the Standing Committee recommended the proposal subject to the conditions stipulated by the State Board for Wildlife and the Chief Wildlife Warden.

4.2 (22) Diversion of 1.11 ha of forest land from Pulicat Bird Sanctuary for construction of high level bridge at Km 0/4, Chennai Pulicat Road to Pasiyavaram Road, Tamil Nadu.

4.2 (23) Diversion of 0.65 ha of forest land from Pulicat Bird Sanctuary for construction of fish landing centre at Periyamongagodu in Thiruvallur district, Tamil Nadu.

Both the above proposals were taken up for discussion together. The member Secretary informed the committee that the recommendation of the State Board for Wildlife, which is statutory requirement for both the proposals, had not been received. The Standing Committee, therefore, decided to defer both the proposals and await the recommendations of the State Board for Wildlife.

4.2 (24) Proposal for diversion of 180.79 ha of forestland for construction of Bansagar Irrigation project (Adwa-Meja Jirgo link channels) canal of 25.60 km length out of which, length beyond 15 km falls in Kaimur Wildlife Sanctuary, Uttar Pradesh.-(I.A.No.128, 129 and 144 in W.P. (C) No.337/1995.

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposal. The proposal was already recommended with the condition of relocation of villages from the sanctuary, which could not be done. Standing Committee had earlier advised the state to pursue the matter with local communities with the prevalent relocation package of NTCA. The State Government had forwarded their comments on the discussions with the Gram Sabha in connection with the relocation package. He informed that the State Authorities had discussed the matter of relocation


13

with the 13 Gram Sabha representatives, who had declined the offer of the relocation package and to relocate out of the Sanctuary. He added that all other conditions, as laid down by the IBWL had been complied with and since the Gram Sabha had again declined the offer of the relocation package, the Standing Committee may consider waiving of the condition.

After discussions, the Standing Committee decided to waive of the condition regarding relocation of villages outside Kaimur Sanctuary.

4.2 (25) Diversion of 0.97 ha of forest land in Pasuvemula Reserve Forest of WLM Nagarjuna Sagar Division for Anupu & Koppunuru Lift Irrigation Scheme(LIS) on the Foreshore of Nagarjunasagar Dam in Macherla, Andhra Pradesh.

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposal. He also added that the site inspection report was circulated to all the members. After discussions, the Standing Committee considered the small area involved and the location specific nature of the proposal, and decided to recommend the proposal subject to the conditions specified by the State Board for Wildlife and the State Chief Wildlife Warden.

4.2 (26) Diversion of 4.493 ha of forest land from Pench Mowgli Wildlife Sanctuary for rehabilitation/upgradation of existing 2 lane to 4 lane on Seoni-Khawasa (MP) MH Border Section of NH-7, Madhya Pradesh.

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposal. He added that the report of NTCA on this was circulated to the members. Member Secretary NTCA informed that considering the location specificity of the project, the design for the stretch within the PA was worked on in such manner that impact can be minimized and movement routes of wildlife have been protected. The Director, Wildlife Institute of India informed that the WII had carried outstudies on the ecological aspects of the project along the National Highway passing through the Pench Mowgli Tiger Reserve. He added that this was of the first of its kind model in ecological consideration in roads passing through Protected Area.

After discussion, the Standing Committee recommended the proposal subject to the following mitigation measures as suggested by NTCA and WII:

i. The modifications on the design and location suggested by WII for construction of culverts shall be adhered to by NHAI.

ii. Specific dimensions (height breadth) and locations for the underpasses shall be constructed only in consultation with the WII.

iii. The underpasses located at 630.341 km and 631.014 km are not recommended as separate underpasses by recommended to be constructed as a single underpass of 1 km length and 7 m height.

iv. At chainages 628.100 to 629.100 and 630.00 to 631.200, the proposed two flyovers should be replaced by underground tunnel while providing access to villagers.


14

4.2 (29) Diversion of 1.843 ha (1.393 bridge, 0.45 road) of forest land from National Chambal Crocodile Sanctuary for upgradation of Sabalgarh-Karoli road (SH-2) & construction of high level bridge across Chambal river on Sabalgarh-Karoli road upto Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh.

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposal. The Chief Wildlife Warden, Rajasthan informed the committee that the State Board for Wildlife has recommended the proposal.

After discussions, the Standing Committee noted that the bridge would connect the both flanks of the river without impacting the crocodile habitat and both the state boards had recommended it. Therefore it was decided to recommend the proposal subject to conditions as stipulated by the State Board for Wildlife of Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan and the Chief Wildlife Wardens of Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan.

4.2 (31) Proposal for construction of Kanchanpur Railway Station and laying of two additional lines at the station in Katni-Singroli Section at Km.1218.170 passing through Sanjay Dubri Wildlife Sanctuary, Madhya Pradesh.

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposal. He added that the site inspection report was circulated to the members of the Committee. After discussions, the Standing Committee decided to recommend the proposal subject to the following conditions, besides the conditions stipulated by the State Board for Wildlife and the Chief Wildlife Warden:

i. Considering the national interest, permission for construction of only “crossing section” by laying two additional lines (720 m length + 5.3 m width on either side) shall be allowed on forest land already diverted in favour of Railways and handed over to them in 1969.

ii. No additional forest land should be demanded/diverted for ancillary activities like approach roads, construction of buildings etc.

iii. The entire length of crossing section (720 m) should be suitably fenced at the cost of the project.

iv. At least two underpasses should be provided for the movement of wild animals at the cost of the project. Location and design will be decided in consultation with the Field Director of the Tiger Reserve.

v. To minimize death of wild animals due to rail hit, the speed limit of all trains passing from 6.00 PM to 6:00 AM must be restricted to 40 km inside the Sanjay-Dubri Tiger Reserve.

vi. Electronic surveillance (24x7) should be installed for monitoring of movement of wild animals over the entire length of railway line passing through the Sanjay –Dubri Tiger Reserve at the cost of the project. NTCA will extend necessary guidance for this purpose.

vii. The train frequency/density on the said railway line should not be increased in the interest of wildlife conservation.

viii. Signage boards should be installed on both sides of the track to pre-warn the train drivers at identified locations

ix. Railways should advice IRCTC/Pantry car staff not to throw edible waste on track inside Sanjay-Dubri Tiger Reserve.

x. A passenger awareness programme should be launched.


15

xi. Periodic workshops for railway personnel should be organized to sensitize them on tiger/wildlife conservation.

4.2 (33) Proposal for construction of road from Sopakha village to Chewabhanjyang via Jorbotay in West Sikkim by the Roads & Bridges Department, Government of Sikkim for connecting the Police & SSB Out Posts at Chewabhanjyang.

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposal. He added that the site inspection report was circulated to the members of the Committee. The Chief Wildlife Warden explained to the Committee regarding the proposal. He added that this proposal was for construction of the road for linking polics and SSB outposts and thus will have limited but strategic use and therefore may not cause negative impact in the PA. After discussions, the Standing Committee decided to recommend the proposal subject to the following conditions, besides the conditions stipulated by the State Board for Wildlife and the Chief Wildlife Warden:

i. Only gravel/metalled road shall be constructed within the Sanctuary within the prescribed width, with firm shoulders, good drainage system on both sides to prevent erosion.

ii. Status of the land shall remain unchanged as a Sanctuary and shall not be diverted/de-reserved.

iii. All the construction and road maintenance material shall come from outside the Sanctuary limits. The camps of the construction workers shall also be situated outside the Sanctuary.

iv. The specification of the streams in 18kms stretch to build bridges/culverts shall be worked out in consultation with the State Chief Wildlife Warden.

v. The width and height of bridges and culverts shall be decided and constructed in consultation with the State Chief Wildlife Warden.

vi. No debris resulting from the cutting of the road shall be tipped into the slopes or deposited inside the Sanctuary.

vii. The top soil, which is the most productive element in the rubble, is in short supply in the hills and be offered to the local people for use in their fields.

viii. The Chief Wildlife Warden shall impose such penalties as provided under the provisions of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 in case of any violations.

ix. A chowki manned by the Sanctuary staff shall be established at the entrance of the Sanctuary, to prevent any violation of law.

x. Ecological restoration through plantation of purely indigenous plants shall be undertaken in consultation with the State Chief Wildlife Warden.

xi. Due consideration shall be given for movement of wild animals while planning the mitigation measures.

4.2 (38) Diversion of 2.340 ha. of forest land from National Chambal Wildlife Sanctuary for construction of high level bridge across Chambal river at Usaighat on Ambah-Pinahat Road in Km 24/2, Madhya Pradesh.

The Member Secretary briefed the Standing Committee regarding the proposal. The Chief Wildlife Warden, Uttar Pradesh informed that the proposal was placed before the State Board for Wildlife and was recommended. After discussions, the Standing Committee, noting


16

that the bridge will not have negative impact on the gharial habitat in the river and has been recommended by the boards of both the states, decided to recommend the proposal subject to the conditions stipulated by the State Board for Wildlife of Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh as well as the conditions stipulated by the Chief Wildlife Wardens of Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh.

Action taken on the decisions of the Standing Committee of NBWL taken in its 29th

Meeting held on 6th June 2013:

4.2 (16) Proposal for establishment of 400 KV D/C Rajgarh-Karamsad transmission line passing through Kharmor Wildlife Sanctuary, Madhya Pradesh.

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposal. The Standing Committee had earlier sought specific observations of the state wildlife department on the nesting sites of lesser floricans in the area. The Chief Wildlife Warden informed that as advised by the Committee, Mr. P M Lad had inspected the site with respect to nesting sites of Lesser Floricans and had confirmed that there would not be much problem to the birds due to the transmission line.

After discussions, the Standing Committee decided to recommend the proposal subject to the conditions stipulated by the State Board for Wildlife and the State Chief Wildlife Warden.

4.3.(2) Diversion of 7.60 ha of forest land from Pangolakha Wildlife Sanctuary for upgradation/widening of road from Kupup to Tri-junction, East Sikkim.

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposal. The Chief Wildlife warden also explained to the Committee regarding the proposal. He said that this road was of strategic importance and sufficient mitigation measures have been suggested. After discussions, the Standing Committee decided to recommend the proposal subject to conditions stipulated by the State Board of Wildlife and State Chief Wildlife Warden.

4.3.(3) Diversion of 24.1268 ha of forest land from Borail Wildlife Sanctuary for upgradation of Harangajao-Udarband-Silchar Section from 244 km to 275.00 km of NH-54 (E), Assam under East West Corridor Project of NHAI.

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposal. The Chief Wildlife Warden, Assam, informed the Committee that this road was an old road and required upgradation. The representatives of the project proponent also explained to the Committee regarding the proposal. Dr. H.S. Singh was of the view that a complete and comprehensive proposal with all mitigatory measures like passages for animals, culverts, tunnels, etc need to be seen before taking a view. Dr. R. Sukumar suggested that mitigation measures should be suggested by the Wildlife Institute of India.

After discussion, the Standing Committee decided to defer the decision on the proposal. In the meantime, the Committee also requested the Chief Wildlife Warden, Assam to advise


17

NHAI to hold consultations with Wildlife Institute of India regarding possible design of the proposed road for adopting appropriate mitigation measures.

4.3.(5) Proposal for widening and strengthening of Malayapur-Barhat-Lalmatia-Khadigram, road from 9.750 km to 10.60 km (total-0.850 km) passing through Bhimbandh Wildlife Sanctuary, Bihar.

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposal. The representative of Government of Bihar also explained about the proposal. After discussions, the Standing Committee noting the small distance, location and impact of the widening of the road involved, decided to recommend the proposal subject to appropriate mitigation measures and the conditions stipulated by the State Board for Wildlife and the State Chief Wildlife Warden.

4.3.(6) Proposal for up-gradation and black topping of existing road from Ramgarh to Kotadol passing through GuruGhasidas National Park, Chhattisgarh.

4.3.(7) Proposal for upgradation and black topping of existing road from Odgi to Biharpur passing through Guru Ghasidas NP, Chhattisgarh.

4.3.(8) Proposal for upgradation and black topping of existing road from Kotadol to Murkil passing through Guru Ghasidas NP, Chhattisgarh.

4.3.(9) Proposal for upgradation and black topping of existing road from Biharpur to Rasouki-II passing through Guru Ghasidas National Park, Chhattisgarh.

4.3.(10) Proposal for upgradation and black topping of existing road from Mahuli to Baijanpat-II passing through Guru Ghasidas National Park, Chhattisgarh.

All the five proposals of Chattisgarh were taken up together for discussion. The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposals. The representative of the State Government of Chattisgarh also explained to the Committee regarding the proposal. After discussions, the Standing Committee decided to recommend for strengthening of the existing roads without widening, as these roads passed through a National Park.

4.3.(11) Diversion of 2.275 ha of forest land from Bhimbandh Wildlife Sanctuary for widening and strengthening of NH-72, Jamui-Laxmipur-Kharagpur Road from 19.80 km to 23.00 km, Bihar.

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposal. The representative of Government of Bihar also explained about the proposal. After discussions, the Standing Committee decided to recommend the proposal subject to adoption of appropriate design suitable for the area to be suggested by the Chief Wildlife Warden and the conditions stipulated by the State Board for Wildlife and the State Chief Wildlife Warden as recorded in the proposal.


18

5.7 Diversion of 1.23 ha of forest land from Pant Wildlife Sanctuary for construction of New Ropeway, Rajgir, Bihar

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposals. The representative of Government of Bihar elaborated that the proposed ropeway is aligned along the old one. The Principal Secretary (Tourism), Government of Bihar explained that the existing ropeway structure would not be dismantled and would be retained as a heritage structure. Feasibility study of using the existing structure was also done, but it was found that the old structure was not feasible to be used.

The Standing Committee, after discussions, decided to recommend the proposal subject to the conditions stipulated by the State Board for Wildlife and the State Chief Wildlife Warden.

Action taken on the decisions of the Standing Committee of NBWL taken in its 30th

Meeting held on 4th September 2013

4.1 Proposal for use of 2.3 ha of Dirok Tea Estate land falling within 10 kms from the boundary of Dehing-Patkai Wildlife Sanctuary Assam for drilling of appraisal well,by M/s Hindustan Oil Corporation Ltd.

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposal. The Chief Wildlife Warden, Assam also explained to the Committee regarding the proposal. It was clarified that the drilling operations involve substantial activities over and under the ground level and some appraisal wells are situated in close proximity of the PA. After discussion, the Standing Committee decided that Dr. R. Sukumar and a representative of the Assam State Forest Department shall carry out site inspection and submit a report to the Standing Committee within one month.

4.4 Proposal for rehabilitation and upgradation of NH-15 from Amritsar to Sri Ganganagar near Punjab/Rajasthan Border of km.103.000 to km 398.772, Punjab. (within 10 kms from the boundary of Harike Wildlife Sanctuary).

4.5 Proposal for rehabilitation and upgradation of NH-15 from Amritsar to Sri Ganganagar near Punjab/Rajasthan Border of km.103+000 to km 399+000, Punjab. (within 10 kms from the boundary of Abohar Wildlife Sanctuary).

These two proposals of Punjab were taken up together for discussion. The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposal. The Chief Wildlife Warden, Punjab informed that the proposal of eco-sensitive zone around the Sanctuaries in Punjab have been proposed as 100 meters. Both the proposals were beyond the proposed eco-sensitive zones.

The Standing Committee, after discussions, considered the facts that the PAs involved are not part of a landscape continuum of forests and linkages with other areas do not exist. As the proposed activities are well away from the PAs, the Committee decided to recommend both the proposals subject to the conditions stipulated by the State Chief Wildlife Warden.


19

4.6 Proposal for 330 MW Bokang Bailing HE Project at Pithoragarh Distt.,Uttarakhand-Survey & Investigation which includes drilling/drifting activities at the project site.

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposal. The Chief Wildlife Warden, Uttarakhand informed that the present proposal was for survey and investigation only and was proposed outside the Protected Area. In view of this, the State Government decided to agree for the withdrawal of the proposal.

4.11 Proposal for mining of the minerals named Quartz & feldspar in the vicinity of (within 10 kms) of Todgarh-Raoli Wildlife Sanctuary. The proposed site is 7 kms away from the notified boundary of Todgarh Raoli Wildlife Sanctuary, Rajasthan.

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposal. He informed that the Environment Clearance for the proposal was still awaited. The Standing Committee decided to defer the decision on the proposal and await the Environment Clearance for the proposal as the reference to SC of NBWL is linked to the environmental clearance.

4.2(2) Denotification of Abubshehar Wildlife Sanctuary, Haryana

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposal. The matter was considered earlier wherein the state of Haryana was requested to consider notifying the proposed area as a conservation reserve. The representative of Government of Haryana informed the Committee that the State Government was agreeable to notification of a Community Reserve in lieu of the Sanctuary.

After discussion, the Standing Committee decided to recommend the proposal for denotification of Abubshehar Sanctuary with the condition that it be notified as a Community Reserve.

4.2(3) Diversion of 0.6 ha of forest land from Bassi Wildlife Sanctuary for strengthening & widening (3 mts to 7 mts) of Nimbahera-Kanera-Bijaypur- Bass-Amba existing BT road MDR-20 between km 60/500 to 74/0 (Bijapur to Bassi Chaouraha) km 67/950 to 68/450, Rajasthan.

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposal. The Chief Wildlife Warden also explained the proposal to the committee. After discussions, the Standing Committee decided that no widening can be permitted and only strengthening of the road could be taken up.

5.2 Proposal for installing the stone crusher by ITBP for construction of three roads viz, Sonam, PDA-Sumla and PDA-Mendi roads in Gangotri National Park, Uttarkashi,Uttarakhand.

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposal. The matter was considered earlier and it was decided that the impact of the activity on the ambient environment would be studied. The Chief Wildlife Warden, Uttarakhand explained that Wildlife Institute of India had also carried out an assessment study and the report was submitted to the Ministry. It was informed that the report of the Wildlife Institute of India was circulated to all the members also. The Director WII informed that boulder and crusher was required and an area of 3000 sq.


20

meter was required for this purpose They would complete the task in two seasons and would take all measures as per the CPCB guidelines.

The Inspector General of Forests (WL) informed that the proposal was part of the road construction which was earlier recommended. The task was proposed within the area recommended for road work and was to use the rubble obtained from the road construction activity, resulting in better use of the local resources, thus avoiding accumulation of debris. User agency confirmed that on completion of the ongoing road construction work, the crusher will be dismantled.

The Standing Committee, after discussion, decided to recommend the proposal for installing stone crusher by ITBP in the light of the report of the WII and subject to the conditions as suggested in the WII report.

POLICY MATTERS:

Item 2.1 (1 and 2): Framing of Rules for the functioning of the Standing Committee of NBWL and Mechanism to ensure implementation of conditions stipulated by the Standing Committee while approving proposals.

Item 2.1 (5): Implementation Protocol on Critical Wildlife Habitats to be approved by the Standing Committee.

Rules and procedures for functioning of Standing Committee of National Board for Wildlife

Status of endangered species

Rationalization of boundaries of Desert National Park

Forest Frontline Staff- Indian Green Army

Protection of Great Indian Bustard

Key wildlife Corridors to be brought under the purview of the Standing committee, National Board for Wildlife

Amendment to Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972

Sub-Committee on Guidelines for Roads

Tiger and Rhino poaching

The Standing Committee decided to take up the above matters for discussion in a separate meeting specifically to discuss the policy matters.


21

FRESH PROPOSALS:

Projects monitored by PMG:

i. Proposal for extension of underground mining by Hindustan Copper Ltd. Malanjkhand, M.P. (within 10 kms from Kanha TR)

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposal. He mentioned that the proposal was for extension of underground mining by Hindustan Copper Ltd. The representative of the project proponent explained that the mines were in existence prior to 1978. The proposal was for recommendation of the Standing Committee of NBWL for continuing as extension ofunderground mining in an area of 479.9 ha which was within the lease area of 728.73 ha and that no new area was required to be diverted. The proposed site is 8.05 km from the Kanha National Park, which is core of Kanha Tiger Reserve. The Member Secretary, NTCA mentioned that they do not have any objection for the underground mining within the lease area.

After discussions, the Standing Committee decided to recommend the proposal with the conditions stipulated by the State Board for Wildlife and that the project proponent shall prepare a wildlife conservation plan in consultation with NTCA and to be approved by the Chief Wildlife Warden, Madhya Pradesh. The implementation of the wildlife management plan shall be done by the State Forest Department with funding support from the project proponents.

ii. Establishment of 1050 MW Thermal Power Plant by M/s KVK Nilachal Power Pvt. Ltd in Kandrei village, Athagarh, Cuttack district of Odisha. The project site is located outside the Kapilash Wildlife Sanctuary within 3.5 km radius

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposal. The representative of project proponent explained that the site is located at a distance of 3.5 kms from the boundary of the Kapilash Wildlife Sanctuary. He added that there was a case before the Hon’ble High Court of Cuttack on this matter. Hon’ble Court has directed that subject to recommendation of the NBWL, the Plant may be operationalized. Environmental Clearance for the Plant was already been obtained in 2011. The representative of the Government of Odisha informed that the Power plant was in existence prior to the notification of the Kapilash Sanchuary, which was recently notified. He also added that the draft notification for the eco-sensitive zone around Kapilash Sanctuary has been issued by the MoEF&CC and the width proposed by the State Government ranged between 500 meters to 13.5 kms.

Dr. R. Sukumar desired to know about the elephant movement in the area. The representative of the Government of Odisha informed that there have been reports of movement of elephants in the region and that measures for protection of the elephants and their habitats has been taken up by the Forest Department.

After discussions, the Standing Committee recommended the proposal subject to the following conditions, as stipulated by the State Chief Wildlife Warden:

a. M/s KVK Nilachal Power Pvt. Ltd. will ensure strict implementation of the activities suggested in the site specific wildlife conservation plan.

b. The project proponent shall also take up the following measures in addition to the activities proposed in the site specific wildlife conservation plan.


22

i) The Laterite quarries lying in the project area and in area surrounding the project area shall be developed and maintained by the project proponent in form of water bodies. At least 15 such water bodies shall be developed and maintained.

ii) Barajora nala in its natural form should be maintained as far as possible. If diverted with due permission from water resources Deptt., the diverted nala inside project area shallfollow proper gradients and soil conservation measures. Further, on both side of the diverted nala green belt shall be maintained.iii) 3 underpasses for smooth movement of elephants at suitable locations as per suggestion of the DFO be constructed in collaboration with the railways observing all the technical formalities.

c) The project proponent shall undertake to implement the ameliorative measures as and when stipulated by the Chief Wildlife Warden, Odisha as well as the Director, Env., Govt. of Odisha, F&E Deptt.

It was also decided by the Standing Committee that a specific elephant management plan shall be charted for the region, in consultation with Dr. R.Sukumar. This plan can be integratedwith the wildlife conservation plan and the measures proposed by the Chief Wildlife Warden into it. The plan shall be implemented by the State Forest Department. The cost for this shall be borne by the project proponent.

PROPOSALS WITHIN PROTECTED AREAS:

1. Proposal for setting up of Kisan Seva Kendra, retail outlet at Khasra No.255/1, village-Chandai, tehsil-Chakarnagar, District-Etawah, Uttar Pradesh (within boundary of Chambal Wildlife Sanctuary) by Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposal. The Chief Wildlife Warden, Uttar Pradesh mentioned that the project has been set up and operated for Kisan Seva Kendra (Retail outlet) dealership by Indian Oil Corporation, Agra. The proposed site is located within the boundary of Chambal Wildlife Sanctuary, Agra and is in a private land which is notified within the boundary of Chambal Wildlife Sanctuary. No forest land is involved in the said project. He also informed that the State Board for Wildlife has also recommended the proposal in its meeting held on 21st October 2013.

After discussions, the Standing Committee decided to recommend the proposal subject to the following conditions, as stipulated by the State Chief Wildlife Warden:

i. Protection and mitigation measures for wildlife should be ensured as per standard practice in such cases.

ii. Land shall not be used for any other purpose other than that specified in the proposal.iii. User agency will ensure that none of their employee/worker shall indulge into any kind

of unlawful activities. If this happens then user agency shall be held responsible for the same.

iv. Construction waste materials will not be thrown inside the sanctuary area or movement corridor of wildlife.

v. User agency will take all precautions including technical measures to contain the noise the air pollution, protection from fire due to construction activities.


23

vi. The project proponent shall obtain consent to establish and to operate from U.P. Pollution Control Board and effectively implement all the condition stipulated therein.

vii. The project proponent shall undertake plantation/afforestation work by planting the native species in the nearly adjacent to project area/sanctuary for which necessary finance will be provided by the user agency.

viii. No labour camp shall be established in the sanctuary/forest area or other sensitive area.

2. Proposal for laying of Keetham Mathura Refinery water pipeline passing through Sursarovar Bird Sanctuary, Uttar Pradesh by Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Mathura Refinery

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposal. The Chief Wildlife Warden, Uttar Pradesh informed the Committee that the proposal was for diversion of 4.15 ha of forest land from Sursarovar Bird Sanctuary for extension of lease for further 30 years for Keetham Mathura Refinery water pipeline, Uttar Pradesh, which expired on 15th December 2007. and that the pipeline was laid in the late 1970s for drawing water from Keetham Lake for round the clock water supply to Mathura Refinery and its treatment and the entire functioning of the refinery is dependent on supply of water. The area proposed for diversion was within the boundary of Surdas Forest block of the reserve forest. In 1991, Surdas Reserve Forest has been declared as Sursarovar Bird Sanctuary. The treatment plant, which covers 4.15 ha falls within the boundary of sanctuary. He also added that the proposed area is already under non forest use for last 30 years and no new area is proposed to be diverted. He also informed that the Sanctuary was an excellent habitat for the birds and every year lot of migratory birds visit the Sanctuary. He also added that some kind of protection was required from trespassing into the sanctuary, as the Sanctuary was amidst village/township.

Dr. Bharat Pathak, GEER Foundation desired to know whether there was possibility of drawl of water from the lake resulting reduction in water level. The Chief Wildlife Warden, Uttar Pradesh apprised that maintenance of a minimum water level in the lake was essential for the Refinery itself and so the level is maintained at the optimal level throughout the year with help of the state irrigation department under an agreement. Hydrological regime would not change because of project activities.

After discussions, the Standing Committee decided to recommend the proposal subject to the following conditions, as stipulated by the State Chief Wildlife Warden:

i. Refinery authorities should take steps to ensure that the water level in lake, particularly during migratory seasons of birds, i.e. November to March should not exceed the level, fixed in consultation with the Dy. Conservator of Forests, in charge, Sur Sarovar Bird Sanctuary.

ii. The lighting in the campus should be minimum and it should not be facing towards the sanctuary in order to reduce negative impact on the animals and birds.

iii. The road inside the sanctuary should be maintained properly with adequate no. of speed breakers.

iv. Steps must be taken to ensure the water hyacinth does not enter into the sanctuary and the user agency shall fund the annual weed eradication as per the approved Management Plan.

v. The forest land shall not be used for any purpose other than that specified in the proposal.

vi. The legal status of the forest shall remain unchanged.


24

vii. The user agency shall be responsible for any loss to the flora/fauna in the surroundings and therefore shall take all possible measures to conserve the same.

viii. All dues as per the rules and orders of the State Government should be paid by the agency.

ix. A boundary wall shall be constructed around the sanctuary at the cost of the user agency for the protection of the wildlife in consultation with the Deputy Conservator of Forests, National Chambal Sanctuary project, Agra.

x. The user agency shall deposit with the agency advised by the Chief Wildlife Warden for wildlife management, 2% of the project cost on pro rata basis for the portion of the pipeline falling within the Protected Area, or bear the cost of mitigation, whichever is higher.

3. Diversion of 0.0225 ha of forestland from East Sister Islands for establishment of Light Beacon, Andaman & Nicobar Islands.

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposal. The representative of the project proponent explained to the committee that the proposal was for establishment of lighted beacon at East Sister Island and would provide navigational aid to mariners/vessels plying along the west coast of the country. He informed that the proposed lighthouse structure would be 16m tall with a base covering 9 Sq m shall be located within a reserved forest area. The structure shall be located amidst the forest area at the top of the mountain on the eastern side of Sister Island. The proposed site is devoid of any tree and found to be covered primarily with bamboo and small shrubs. The proposed lighthouse is planned to be unmanned (solar powered) without any other additional infrastructure development.

After discussion, the Standing Committee decided to recommend the proposal subject to such conditions to be prescribed by the Chief Wildlife Warden, Andaman & Nicobar Islands.

4. Proposal for exclusion of 281.97 ha from Ramgarh Wildlife Sanctuary for rationalization of the boundary of the Sanctuary, Rajasthan.

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposal. The Chief Wildlife Warden explained that the total area of the sanctuary is 307 Sq Km and the historical Ramgarh Mahal and two ancient temples were within the boundaries of the Sanctuary. Apart from this, a part of the Bundi township was also within its boundary limits. The State Government has proposed that this area be excluded from the sanctuary through rationalization of the boundary of the sanctuary, which would help in reducing the conflict with locals and seeking their cooperation in conservation. The representatives of the Bundi Nagar Parishad also explained about the project to the Committee.

After discussions, the Standing Committee decided that Dr. R.Sukumar and Dr. H.S. Singh may carry out a site inspection and submit a report to the Standing Committee within one month.


25

5. Construction of 765 KVS/C Anpara “D” Unnao transmission line (from distt. Sonebhadra to Unnao) passing through Kaimur WLS within jurisdiction Kaimur WL Division in distt. Sonebhadra and Mirzapur, U.P. by Power Transmission Corporation Ltd.

Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposal. The Chief Wildlife Warden, Uttar Pradesh mentioned that the the project is to provide electric supply to Sonebhadra, Mirzapur, Allahabad, Pratap Gargh, Rai Bareilly, and Unnao and was in public interest. The total towers are to be erected 1207 out of which 22 towers falls within Kaimur Wildlife Sanctuary and 06 towers are out of sanctuary area within jurisdiction of Kaimur Wildlife Division. He added that only shrubs are being cut for the purpose of laying of the line and that the status of the land would remain the same.

After discussions, the Standing Committee decided to recommend the proposal as per the following conditions and mitigation measures as proposed by the Chief Wildlife Warden, Uttar Pradesh:

Conditions:i. Protection and mitigation measures for wild life should be ensured as per guidelines of

Govt. Of India.ii. The land shall not be used for any other purpose specified in the proposal.

iii. U.P. Power Transmission Corporation Ltd should provide funds for reducing the negative impact on conservation by way of support for conservation and eco-development activities of wild life and habitat for Kaimur Wildlife Sanctuary.Plan for this will be prepared by the Divisional forest officer and will be appraised and approved by the Chief Wildlife Warden. This may include the mitigation measures mentioned below.

Mitigation measures:i. User agency shall provide logistic support for intensified patrolling during construction

period of transmission line like vehicles, search lights, certain necessary equipments and wages to casual employees.

ii. The user agency will ensure that none of their workers will indulge into any kind of anti-wildlife activities. If this happens, user agency will be held responsible and appropriate action will be initiated against them under relevant Act.

iii. During the construction period, temporary forest checkpost will be established, for which necessary payment will be made by the user agency.

iv. User agency will adopt certain necessary technical measures to mitigate pollution and to avoid electrocution.

v. The excavated pit shall be properly fenced so as to avoid injury/death of the wild animals in the sanctuary/forest area. These pits shall be levelled upon completion of the work so that there is no hindrance to the movement of wild animals.

vi. No work shall be allowed between sunset to sunrise. vii. No labour camp shall be established in sanctuary area.viii. The user agency shall deposit with the agency advised by the Chief Wildlife Warden for

wildlife management, 2% of the project cost on pro rata basis for the portion of the transmission line falling within the Protected Area, or bear the cost of mitigation, whichever is higher.


26

6. Renewal and up-gradation of Sewari to Peepla Road km.0/0 to 1/0 & 3/0 to 9/0 passing through Kumbalgarh Wildlife Sanctuary, Rajasthan.

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposal. The Chief Wildlife Warden, Rajasthan informed that the proposal was for renewal and upgradation of Sewari to Peepla Road passing through Kumbalgarh Wildlife Sanctuary and that at present there is no direct alternate route from Peepla to nearest market centre Sewari except this proposed road and this B/T road is badly damaged, hence renewal of the road has been proposed. He also informed that no widening is involved and only repair of existing road has been proposed.

After discussion, considering the need of connectivity and the fact that no widening is involved, the Standing Committee decided to recommend the proposal subject to the following conditions, as proposed by the Chief Wildlife Warden, Rajasthan:

i. To check the accidents to wild life by vehicular traffic, sufficient number of speed breakers should be constructed at an interval of 500 meters.

ii. Sufficient water pass/under pass will be constructed in the area by the user agency as per direction of PA incharge. Existing water pass/under pass may be upgraded to a level that the wild animals could pass through easily.

iii. No night camping will be allowed in sanctuary area by labour.iv. The work will be done only in day light (8 am to 6 pm).

7. Proposal for diversion of 0.726 ha of forest land from Kesharbagh Wildlife Sanctuary for laying of underground drinking water supply pipeline from PHED Dholpur to Rashtriya Military School, Dholpur (Raj) along the road side (NH-11 B), Rajasthan.

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposal. The representative of the project proponents informed that the proposal was for laying of underground water supply pipeline along the NH-11B. It was also informed that this was the only alternative and that there would be need of removal of 26 no. of trees and 193 no. of bushes falling in the alignment.

After discussion, the Committee was of the opinion that as the proposal was for laying underground drinking water pipeline for the school and they were laying the pipeline along the existing National Highway only, the proposal be recommended subject to the following conditions, as stipulated by the Chief Wildlife Warden, Rajasthan:

i. No night camping will be allowed in sanctuary area during laying of pipeline.ii. No blasting will be carried out in the sanctuary area.

iii. No disturbance/obstacle will be created to wild life during laying of pipe line & maintenance.

iv. Water supply will be made to two waterholes in the sanctuary area for benefit of wildlife.

8. Proposal for upgradation of B.T. Road from Bijapur to Korwa Fanta km 0/0 to 5/0 & 8/0 to 18/0 (15 km) from Kumbalgarh Wildlife Sanctuary, Rajasthan.

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposal. The Chief Wildlife Warden mentioned that this road is an important connecting road between Kundal, Danwarli and Goriya. The alignment of B/T road passes through partly along the side of the sanctuary area and partly through revenue land.


27

After discussions, the Standing Committee decided to recommend the proposal with the condition that no widening of the road shall be permitted and only repair and maintenance shall be taken up. The Committee also decided that the following conditions, as stipulated by the Chief Wildlife Warden, Rajasthan shall also be complied with:

i. To check the accidents to wild life by vehicular traffic, sufficient number of speed breakers should be constructed at an internal of 500 meters.

ii. Sufficient number of water pass/under pass will be constructed in the area by the user agency as per direction of PA incharge. Existing water pass/under pass may be upgraded to a level that the wild animals should pass through easily.

iii. No night camping will be allowed in sanctuary area by labour. iv. The work will be done only in day light (8 am to 6 pm).

9. Diversion of 0.60 ha of forest land from Gangotri NP for construction of Tripani post of 12th BN, Uttarakhand.

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposal. The representative of the applicant agency mentioned that only an outpost is being built and the land is already with the ITBP.

As this was for construction of border outposts and was strategically important, the Committee decided to recommend the proposal subject to the following conditions, as stipulated by the Chief Wildlife Warden, Uttarakhand:

i. No quarrying of stones shall be permissible in the National Park. The debris and spoils shall not be thrown in areas with steep slopes.

ii. As far as possible the cut and fill method for construction of road should be employed.iii. Debris and spoils shall not be dumped in the streams of river area but shall be dumped

in the areas identified in consultation with the forest department it.iv. Controlled blasting, only if necessary should be undertaken.v. The user agency will provide the fuel wood and kerosene oil to the labour and will not

cut the local trees or shrubs.

10. Proposal for laying of 2 no 4” dia G.I. Pipeline in Dachigam NP by Rural Water Supply, Sub Division, Srinagar, Jammu & Kashmir.

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposal. The Chief Wildlife Warden, Jammu & Kashmir informed that the proposal was for rural drinking water supply and would be laid along the inspection path. No trees felling was envisaged in the proposal.

After discussion, the Standing Committee decided to recommend the proposal as the proposal was for rural drinking water supply. It was also decided that the status of land shall remain unchanged. Concurrence of Wildlife warden shall be obtained on the lay out to ensure that the pipeline is appropriately camouflaged and does not cause obstruction in movement of animals crossing the same.


28

11. Proposal for diversion of 0.655 ha of forest land from Periyar Tiger Reserve for increasing the height of Kunnar Dam for providing water supply to Sabarimala, Kerala.

The Member Secretary briefed the committee regarding the proposal. The representative of Government of Kerala explained the proposal. He informed that purpose for increasing the height was to meet the water requirement for Sabarimala Temple. The Standing Committee desired to know if any other alternate have been considered before considering the proposal for height of the dam. The proposed diversion does not indicate the area of submergence resulting from the increased height. The Committee desired that the State Government may submit other alternative option(s) and all relevant information on the area of the tiger reserve involved/ affected by the dam to the Standing Committee for taking a view on the proposal.

12. Diversion of 0.144 ha of forest land from Keoladeo National Park for construction of Semi Captive Siberian crane exhibit centre in Bhartpur Rajasthan.

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposal. The Chief Wildlife Warden informed that this was for establishment of a Semi-Captive Siberian Crane Exhibit Centre in Keoladeo National Park and has been proposed with a view to meet India’s International commitment towards conservation of wildlife. The project envisages development of a permanent facility to create awareness amongst the general public & visitors about the Siberian Cranes ex situ conservation techniques in restoration ecology.

The Standing Committee, after discussions, decided to recommend the proposal subject to feasibility by concerned policy and laws as it was helping in conservation activities.

13. Diversion of 1.35 ha of forest land from Son Ghariyal Wildlife Sanctuary and within 10 kms periphery of Son Ghariyal WLS for laying of Gas pipeline from Shahdol-Phulpur, Madhya Pradesh by Reliance Gas Pipelines Ltd.

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposal. The representatives of the applicant agency explained regarding the proposal. They informed that the proposal involved diversion of forest land from Son Ghariyal Wildlife Sanctuary and from within 10 km periphery of Son Ghariyal WLS and was for laying of Gas pipeline from Shahdol-Phulpur, Madhya Pradesh. It was also informed that the proposed pipeline is of 18 inch diameter and shall be installed substantially below the river bed in the Son Ghariyal Sanctuary across Son River by Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD) technique and would be placed 15 meters below the ground.

The Director, Wildlife Institute of India mentioned that the Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD) technique was an extremely low impact mechanism and was considerably safe to the ecology also.

After discussion, the Standing Committee decided to recommend the proposal subject to such conditions as stipulated by the State Board for Wildlife and the State Chief Wildlife Warden.


29

14. Diversion of 27.47 ha (20.77 ha forest land & 6.70 ha of Private Land) from Son Chiriya Wildlife Sanctuary for construction of 765 KV electric transmission line (Partly S/C and Partly D/C) between Madhya Pradesh (Gwalior) and Rajasthan (Jaipur), Madhya Pradesh.

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposal. The representatives of Power Grid Corporation Ltd. explained the details regarding the proposal. The Standing Committee desired to know if any alternative option was worked out, as protection to Great Indian Bustard was of utmost necessity. Accordingly, the Standing Committee decided that the Wildlife Institute of India carry out site inspection and submit a report to the Standing Committee within one month time.

15. Diversion of 2.606 ha of forest land from Kitam Bird Sanctuary for improvement & up-gradation of Melli-Nayabazar State Highway (SK-10) from km 17.100 to Nayabazar, Sikkim.

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposal. The Chief Wildlife Warden informed that there was no clearing of vegetation involved in the improvement of road. He added that Khaleej Pheasant is present in the Kitam Bird Sanctuary. The representatives of Project proponent explained to the Committee regarding the proposal. He said that the proposed upgradation was within the right of way. He also added that the road was constructed in 1950 while the Sanctuary was notified in 2005.

After discussions, the Standing Committee decided to recommend the proposal subject to the condition that necessary under passes for animal movement shall be constructed in consultation with the State Chief Wildlife Warden. It was also decided that the following conditions, as stipulated by the State Chief Wildlife Warden shall also be complied with:

i. Labour camps will not be permitted to be set up inside or nearby sanctuary.ii. Construction materials should be stored in the identified area.

iii. No felling of tree or destruction of wildlife habitat, exploitation or removal of any wildlife including forest produce from the sanctuary or forest areas should take place.

iv. Authorised forest personnel will check the construction sites as when required. v. No collection of Fuel-wood permitted from the PA or forest area.

vi. Project authority should obey the Acts, rules and guidelines of the land in letter and spirit.

16. Diversion of 0.372 ha of forestland from Gautala Autramghat Wildlife Sanctuary for laying of Optical Fibre Cable along with existing Aurangabad-Kannad Chalisgaon Highway No.211, Maharashtra.

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposal. The Chief Wildlife Warden, Maharashtra informed that the proposal was for laying of Optical Fibre Cable along with existing Aurangabad-Kannad Chalisgaon Highway No.211, Maharashtra.

After discussion, considering that the cable is to be laid underground along the existing highway the Standing Committee decided to recommend the proposal subject to such conditions, as stipulated by the State Board for Wildlife and the State Chief Wildlife Warden.


30

17. Diversion of 1.80 ha of forest land for upgradation and widening of L-51 (Kartoli) to Kesali road in Singhori Wildlife Sanctuary, Madhya Pradesh

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposal. The State Chief Wildlife Warden informed that this was an existing road and proposal was for widening from 3 meters to 6 meters within the existing right of way. No additional land is required for the purpose, however it would involve cutting of 166 trees.

After discussion, the Standing Committee decided to recommend the proposal for repair and maintenance only, subject to such conditions as stipulated by the State Chief Wildlife Warden.

18. Diversion of 1.68 ha of forestland for upgradation and widening of Rampura to Bajani road in Singhori Wildlife sanctuary, Madhya Pradesh

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposal. The Chief Wildlife Warden, Madhya Pradesh informed that the proposal was for diversion of 1.68 ha of forest land from Singhori Wildlife Sanctuary for upgradation and widening of Rampura to Bajni road, Madhya Pradesh. He mentioned that the road was already in existence. He added that widening work has been proposed in 251 meter on forest land and for this purpose 69 trees would require to be felled.

After discussion, the Standing Committee decided to recommend the proposal for repair and maintenance only subject to such conditions as stipulated by the State Chief Wildlife Warden. The Committee also decided that in case widening was required, a detailed proposal with clear map and other details be re-submitted for consideration of the Standing Committee

19. Proposal for maintenance and strengthening of old existing Akona distributary canal of Ranganwa canal project in Ken Ghariyal WLS, Madhya Pradesh.

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposal. The Chief Wildlife Warden, Madhya Pradesh explained that the proposal was for maintenance and strengthening of old existing Akona distributaries canal and its minors from 16.60 to 19.00 km of Rangawan Canal project in Ken Ghariyal Wildlife Sanctuary, Madhya Pradesh. He added that the proposed site is within 0.5 km from Panna Tiger Reserve. Member Secretary NTCA concurred with the proposal.

After discussion, the Standing Committee decided to recommend the proposal subject to the condition that adequate precautions shall be taken during the repair as well as provision for passage of animals. The Standing Committee also decided that the conditions, as stipulated by the State Board for Wildlife and State Chief Wildlife Warden shall be complied with.


31

20. Proposal for investigation and survey for construction of NH-3 bypass road in Son Chiriya Wildlife Sanctuary, Ghatigaon, Madhya Pradesh.

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposal. The Chief Wildlife Warden, Madhya Pradesh mentioned that this proposal was only for survey and investigation for the road.

After discussion, the Standing Committee decided to recommend the proposal for survey and investigation subject to the condition that this recommendation shall not be construed as an approval for the project and alternative routes shall be explored so that the road through the sanctuary is totally avoided.

21. Diversion of 9.0 ha of land for upgradation & widening of Satanwara to Narvar road in and 10 km periphery of Madhav NP, Madhya Pradesh

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposal. The Chief Wildlife Warden, Madhya Pradesh mentioned that the proposal was for upgradation and widening of the Satanwara to Narvar road both within and inside 10 km periphery of Madhav National Park, Madhya Pradesh. He added that the existing Satanbada-Narwar road was constructed in Mughal period. The existing bituminous top of the road is 3.05 m. And is proposed to be upgraded to 5.50 m. The upgradation of proposed existing road will be completed within the available right of way of road which is 40 M.

After discussion, the Standing Committee decided to recommend the proposal subject to only repair of existing width of the road.

22. Proposal for construction of Drainage Channel across Hokersar Wetland Reserve along Old age alignment under Flood Management programme, Jammu & Kashmir

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposal. The Chief Wildlife Warden, Jammu & Kashmir informed that the proposal was for construction of Drainage Channel across Hokersar Wetland Reserve and Conservation Reserve along old age alignment under Flood Management Programme, Jammu and Kashmir. He added that there shall be no change in land use of wetland, no submergence of any habitation or Houses and no construction of housing for staff or road is proposed/involved.

The Standing Committee opined that adequate consideration of the wetland dynamics should be taken into account. The Chief Wildlife Warden informed that there has been lot of discussions on this matter.

After discussions, the Standing Committee decided to recommend the proposal subject to the condition that during the implementation, Wildlife Institute of India shall advise adequate mitigation measures. The Standing Committee also decided that the following conditions, as stipulated by the State Chief Wildlife Warden shall be complied with:

i. 5% of the project cost shall be paid by the user agency for management of wildlife in Hokersar Wetland Conservation Reserve.


32

ii. The user agency shall also pay NPV charges on the land to be diverted as per Hon’ble Supreme Court orders.

iii. The user agency, while implementing the drainage construction project, will abide by the orders to be issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and follow provisions of the Jammu & Kashmir Wildlife Protection Act, 1978 (Amended upto 2002) strictly.

iv. The user agency will follow the eco friendly engineering practices during the construction.

v. The sluice gate should be constructed at the entry and exit points of the flood channel into Hokersar Wetland for regulating water level.

vi. The User Agency shall ensure at least 3-4 feet of water level in the wetland throughout the year.

vii. Network of longitudinal and latitudinal channels including the main one is extremely important for the sustenance of wetland as also for activation of the flood basin.

viii. Main flood Channel (Dood-Ganga) has to be realigned to follow the lowest contour line in the wetland and proper gradient has to be given to facilitate free and fast natural flow to flush out the slit entering the wetland from all sides and the streams/channels.

ix. Regular water quality monitoring be ensured by the user agency at frequent intervals to avoid pollution in wetland.

x. The execution of the work may be restricted to deepening/earth work in excavation part only and no permanent structures i.e. masonry toe walls, pitching of banks may be taken up for portion of the Flood Spill Channel passing through the Wetland i.e. Hajibagh to Sozeith.

xi. The material so excavated shall be disposed off outside the wetland by mechanical means or otherwise to the extent of full quantity and no bund rising may be taken up along the alignment. However, the material so obtained from excavation may be utilized for stabilizing and raising of peripheral bunds along the water boundaries towards Soibagh and hajibagh villages.

xii. A proper regulation system by way of strengthening/raising of bunds from Gund Hasibhat to Suzeth plantation and construction of ahead regulator/Lock gate(s) may be proposed at exit point i.e. sozeith (RD 18.1180 KM) which shall ensure adequate and regular water supply to the wetland during optimum periods.

xiii. The user agency shall restrict their activities upto excavation/deepening part of Flood Spill Channel only and no other bund(s) be raised/constructed within the periphery of Wetland Reserve towards these villages as this will pave route to encroachments. The excavated material within this portion may also be disposed off outside the premises of the wetland and preferably be sued for stabilization/raising/strengthening of peripheral existing bunds.

xiv. The user agency shall manage the existing Doodh Ganga Flood Spill Channel after involving all the aforesaid measures in such a way that the whole wetland shall always be having at least 3-4 feet of water available to it throughout the year.

xv. Laying of Gabion/Gabion mattresses on side slopes (but submerged) only and not in the bed of the Channel is proposed to be laid for continuous flow of water and for easy discharge of the slit coming with floods. But the Gabions should not in any case be laid on the embankments of the existing Flood Channel.

xvi. Sufficient number of sluice gates may also be provided in the existing bunds of FSChannel passing through wetland from RD 11.0947 km to 18.1180 km which shall ensure smooth and regulation of water supply to the wetland throughout the year.

xvii. The water quality will be maintained as per existing standards before entering into the wetland.

xviii. The user agency will ensure that all waste material such as plastics, gunny sacks, bottles, tin cans etc. would be properly disposed off. No waste material will be left either near or


33

away from the road in the Wetland. No debris shall be dumped inside the boundaries of Wetland.

xix. The user agency will ensure that minimum damage is done to the local flora. Cutting of vegetation by workers during construction period would be strictly prohibited. The concerned officials of the user agency would conduct surprise checks, in collaboration with the Conservator of Forests (Wildlife), Kashmir or his representative to see that no damage is caused to the flora and fauna.

xx. The mitigatory measures suggested and recommended in Biodiversity Impact Assessment report shall be implemented to safeguard the ecological environment of surrounding areas including the Hokersar Wetland.

xxi. The user agency shall adhere to the following conditions:a) The area under proposed project site shall not be utilized for any other purpose

other than the one for which recommendations are made.b) The area of activity and expansion thereof shall remain confined to the specified

boundaries of the project site without extending them beyond.c) That user agency shall abide by rules and regulations as laid down in J&K

Wildlife (Protection) Act 1978 (amended 2002) and guidelines notified by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India, in connection with Hon’ble Supreme Court of India’s directions issued on 14.12.2006 regarding declaration of Eco-Sensitive Zone.

d) The user agency will ensure minimum damage to the Eco-system will monitor water quality. Cutting of local vegetation by workers during construction period would be strictly prohibited/monitored. The committee comprising of user agency and Conservator of Forests (Wildlife)/RWLW, Kashmir shall monitor the implementation of conditions.

23. Diversion of 0.81 ha of forest land from Dudhwa National Park for laying of Optical Fiber Cable along Palia-Dudhwa Road and Dudhwa to Chandan Chowki, district Lakhimpur Kheri, Uttar Pradesh.

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposal. The Chief Wild life Warden, Uttar Pradesh mentioned that that the proposal was for diversion of forest land from Dudhwa National Park for laying of Optical Fiber Cable along Palia-Dudhwa road in district Lakhimpur Kheri, Uttar Pradesh. The proposed option was the only available option for laying of OFC cable from Palia to Chandachauki.

After discussions, the Standing Committee decided to recommend the proposal subject to the mitigation measures and conditions as stipulated by the Chief Wildlife Warden, Uttar Pradesh:

i. User agency will ensure that none of their employee/worker shall indulge into any kind of illegal wildlife related activities. If this happens then user agency shall be held responsible.

ii. It should be required to take necessary action for adopting suitable compensatory technical measures to negate the impact relating to any environmental pollution/radioactive pollution.

iii. The user agency shall be responsible for any loss of flora/fauna in the surroundings. Thus all possible measures should be taken to conserve the same.

iv. The legal status of the land shall remain unchanged i.e. shall remain protected/reserved as the case may be.


34

v. In reference of U.P. Govt. Order vide letter no.4862/14-2/2008 dated 12.11.2008, the user agency shall plant 20 km in three lane at one place of the division/state and maintain the green cover on the project cost. Planting site for this purpose shall be identified by the concerned DFO/Protected Area manager. Only indigenous forest trees species shall be used for such plantation.

vi. The Forest land shall not be used for any other purpose other than that specified in the proposal. Any change in the land use without prior permission of Central Government shall amounts to violation of Forest Conservation Act, 1980.

vii. No labour camp shall be established in the Dudhwa National Park area.viii. No work shall be allowed between sunset to sunrise.

ix. No tower shall be erect without legal permission.

24. Proposal for construction of 400 KV D/C (quad) Dehradun-Bagpat Electric Transmission line passing through Shivalik Forest Division within the boundary of Elephant TR Saharanpur, U.P.By Powergrid Corporation of India Ltd.

It was informed that this proposal was withdrawn.

25. Proposal for construction of unit office and residential mixed use project ‘OCR complex’ of the Intelligence Bureau (IB), Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India at Gauriphanta within the buffer area of Dudhwa National Park under Dudhwa Tiger Reserve, in district Lakhimpur Kheri, Uttar Pradesh.

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposal. The Chief Wildlife Warden, Uttar Pradesh mentioned that the proposal was for construction of unit office and residential mixed use project ‘OCR complex’ of the Central government in district Lakhimpur Kheri, Uttar Pradesh (within the buffer area of Dudhwa National Park under Dudhwa Tiger Reserve, in district Lakhimpur Kheri. The proposal involves diversion of 0.1266 ha of forest land and felling of 7 trees (Mango-1, Gutel-6) at Dighania Compartment No.01 of Gauriphanta Range within the buffer area of Dudhwa National park under Dudhwa Tiger Reserve, Lakhimpur Kheri.

The Member Secretary, NTCA concurred with the proposal and mentioned that E-surveillance for tiger monitoring should be taken up by the Forest Department in the Dudhwa Tiger Reserve.

After discussions, the Standing Committee decided to recommend the proposal subject to the following mitigation measures and conditions, as stipulated by the Chief Wildlife Warden, Uttar Pradesh, in addition to those proposed by Member Secretary NTCA (to be implemented by the Uttar Pradesh Forest Department):

i. User agency will ensure that none of their employee/worker shall indulge into any kind of wild life/forest offence.

ii. The user agency shall be responsible for any loss of flora & fauna in the surroundings. All possible measures should be under taken to conserve the same.

iii. Forest land shall not be used for any other purposes other than that is specified in the proposal.

iv. No tree cutting and soil digging will be allowed in protected area/forest area other than workable area during the construction work.


35

v. Any condition stipulated by Standing Committee of NBWL, Government of India will be complied.

vi. NPV as per the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India or Government of Uttar Pradesh shall be borne by the user agency.

vii. The user agency and all their employees/workers shall assist in the conservation and protection of wild life.

26. Proposal for construction of staff quarters, chowki and office of Customs department, unit Gauriphanta, Tehsil Palia, district Lakhimpur Kheri within the buffer area of Dudhwa Tiger Reserve, Uttar Pradesh.

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposal. The Chief Wildlife Warden, Uttar Pradesh mentioned that this proposal was also similar to the earlier proposal and was for construction of staff quarters and office of Customs department, unit Gauriphanta, TehsilPalia, district Lakhimpur Kheri within the buffer area of Dudhwa Tiger Reserve, Uttar Pradesh. The proposed area is in buffer area and area proposed only 0.10 ha. The project involves diversion of 0.10 ha of forest land and felling of 17 trees at Dighania Compartment no.01 of Gauriphanta Range within the buffer area of Dudhwa National park.

The Standing Committee, after discussions, with concurrence of Member Secretary NTCA, decided to recommend the proposal subject to the following mitigation measures and conditions, as stipulated by the Chief Wildlife Warden, Uttar Pradesh:

i. User agency will ensure that none of their employee/worker shall indulge into any kind of wild life/forest offence.

ii. The user agency shall be responsible for any loss of flora & fauna in the surrounding. All possible measures should be taken to conserve the same.

iii. Forest land shall not be used in any other purpose than that specified in the proposal. iv. No tree cutting and soil digging will be allowed in protected area/Forest area other than

workable area during the construction work.v. NPV as per the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests,

Government of India or Government of Uttar Pradesh shall be borne by the user agency. vi. The user agency and all their employees/workers shall assist in the conservation and

protection of wild life.

27. Diversion of 7.68 ha of forestland from Mahananda Wildlife Sanctuary for widening of NH-31A from Sevoke-Gangtok, West Bengal in favour of 764 BRTF

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposal. The representative of West Bengal explained that the proposal was for diversion of forestland from Mahananda Wildlife Sanctuary for widening of NH-31A from Sevoke-Gangtok, West Bengal. He mentioned that the Sevoke-Gangtok NH-31A connects Gangtok with rest of country. This road is also strategically important.

Dr. R. Sukumar mentioned that Mahananda Sanctuary had a good population of elephants and movement of elephants across the road should also be considered. He added that passages of movement of elephants should not be blocked, besides, disaster mitigation measures should be in place as landslides are frequent in such hilly terrain. He also said that the debris removed while construction of the road should in no case be dumped on the down hill sides of the road the as this is one of the reasons for landslides.


36

After discussion, the Standing Committee decided to recommend the proposal as it was strategically important road, subject to the condition that the user agency shall construct adequate number of underpasses/overbridges at appropriate locations, in consultation with the Wildlife Institute of India and the Chief Wildlife Warden, West Bengal and also that adequate measures shall be taken while removing debris during the construction. It was also decided that all such conditions, as stipulated by the State Board for Wildlife and the State Chief Wildlife Warden shall be complied with.

28. Proposal for construction of 400 KV D/C Kishenpur New Wanpoh transmission line in Chakore Reserve, Jammu & Kashmir.

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposal. The Chief Wildlife Warden, Jammu and Kashmir explained that the proposal was for construction of 400 KV D/C Kishenpur New Wanpoh transmission line in Chakore Conservation Reserve, Jammu & Kashmir. The added that the project was for strengthening of power system between valley and Northern Grid and to create an additional capacity for evacuation of Power from the future projects in the valley.

After discussions, the Standing Committee decided to recommend the proposal subject to the following mitigation measures and conditions, as stipulated by the State Chief Wildlife Warden:

i. 5% of the project cost proportionate to the length covered within the ConservationReserve shall be paid by the user agency for management of wildlife in Chakore Reserve. The funds can be placed with the State Forest Development Agency for implementation by the Wild Life Warden.

ii. The user agency, while implementing the construction of 400 KV D/C transmission line project will abide by the orders to be issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and follow provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Wildlife Protection Act, 1978 (Amended upto 2002) strictly.

iii. The user agency shall also pay NPV charges on the land to be diverted as per Hon’ble Supreme Court orders.

iv. The user agency will follow the eco friendly engineering practices during the construction.

v. The user agency shall pay Compensatory Afforestation as applicable.vi. No mining operations shall be carried out within boundary of the Chakore Reserve.

vii. The user agency will ensure that littering of any kind is strictly avoided by its staff and also by construction workers. All waste material such as plastics, gunny sacks, bottles, tin cans etc. would be properly disposed off. No waste material will be left either near or away from the Chakore Reserve.

viii. The user agency will ensure that minimum damage is done to the local flora. Cutting of local flora by construction workers would be strictly prohibited. The concerned officials of the user agency would conduct surprise checks, in collaboration with the Conservator of Forests (Wildlife), Jammu or his representative to see that no damage is caused to the flora and fauna.

ix. The labourers employed by the user agency shall not extract any firewood from the Chakore Reserve area.

x. No debris shall be dumped inside the boundaries of the Chakore Reserve.


37

29. Construction of high level bridge across Chambal River at Hanumantpura-Bhind (M.P.) via Babarpur Garha Kasda Mahua Suda and Bansari (Etawah) within boundary of Chambal Wildlife Sanctuary, Uttar Pradesh..

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposal. The Chief Wildlife Warden, Uttar Pradesh mentioned that the proposal was for construction of high level bridge Hanumantpura-Bhind (M.P.) via Babarpur Garha Kasda Mahua Suda and Bansari (Etawah) on Chambal River to provide easy & economic access to the public residing across the both side of river and others. He added that at present, there is no bridge at this place for the use of villagers to travel to nearby town.

After discussions, the Standing Committee decided to recommend the proposal subject to the mitigation measures and conditions, as stipulated by the State Chief Wildlife Warden:

i. Protection & Mitigation measures for wild life should be ensured as per guidelines of Government of India (MOEF, WL).

ii. User agency/the Public works department bridge construction Division Etawah, U.P should provide the funds for reduction in negative impact for conservation & Eco-development activities of wild life & habitat as per guidelines of Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India.

iii. The land shall not be used for any purpose other than that specified in the proposal.iv. During the construction period the user agency will set up a temporary Check

Post/Chowki on Uttar Pradesh side of the bridge and hand over it National Chambal Wildlife Division, Agra to check anti-wild life activities with some temporary employees for which necessary funds will be provided by user agency.

v. During construction works the waste material & garbage will not be thrown into the river under any circumstances, neither the debris will be left on the bank of river.

vi. No construction activities will be taken up during the lean period March to June, as water level is at its lowest during this period.

vii. The loss of vegetation cover during the construction of bridge & link roads, shall be recovered by suitable plantation around construction site as suggested by concerning Protected Area Manager.

viii. Instead of stopping the flow of water in section of river for construction of well/pillars, the user agency will use large huge pipes to allow the flow of water.

ix. No labour camp shall be established within the sanctuary area. x. No work shall be allowed between sunset to sunrise in sanctuary area.

30. Construction of high level bridge across Kuwari River at Lakhana-Hanumantpura-Phoop link road to Umari Bhind (MP) Road within the boundary of Chambal Wildlife Sanctuary, Uttar Pradesh.

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposal. The Chief Wildlife Warden, Uttar Pradesh mentioned that this was a similar proposal as the previous proposal, but was at a different location. This involved construction of high level bridge Lakhana-Hanumantpura-Phoop link road to Umari-Bhind (M.P.) road via Chandrahanspur & Pandari near Pandari (Distt. Bhind, (M.P.) on Kuwari River to access to the public residing across the both side of river.


38

After discussion, the Standing Committee decided to recommend the proposal subject to the mitigation measures and conditions, as stipulated by the State Chief Wildlife Warden:

i. Protection & Mitigation measures for wild life should be ensured under the supervision of the Wildlife Warden, Chambal Sanctuary.

ii. User agency/the Public works department Bridge Construction Division Etawah, U.P should provide the funds for reduction in negative impact for conservation & Eco-development activities of wild life & habitat as per guidelines of Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India.

iii. The land shall not be used for any purpose other than that specified in the proposal.iv. During the construction period the user agency will set up a temporary Check

Post/Chowki on Uttar Pradesh side of the bridge and hand over it National Chambal Wildlife Division, Agra to check anti-wild life activities with some temporary employees for which necessary funds will be provided by user agency.

v. During construction works the waste material & garbage will not be thrown into the river under any circumstances, neither the debris will be left on the bank of river.

vi. The loss of vegetation cover during the construction of bridge & link roads, shall be recovered by suitable plantation around construction site as suggested by concerning Protected Area Manager.

vii. Flow of water shall not be stoppedin the river for construction of well/pillars, the user agency will channelise the flow of water appropriately.

viii. No labour camp shall be established within the sanctuary area. ix. No work shall be allowed between sunset to sunrise in sanctuary area.

31. Diversion of 0.249 of land in Kolleru Wildlife Sanctuary Andhra Pradesh for construction of High Level Bridge at Perantalakanuma in Km.4/2 of Alapadu by R&B Department, by replacing the existing wooden foot bridge with concrete bridge,.

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposal. The representative of Government of Andhra Pradesh mentioned that the proposal involved diversion of 0.249 ha of forestland from Kolleru Wildlife Sanctuary for construction of High Level Bridge at Perantalakanuma by R&B department, by replacing the existing wooden foot bridge with concrete bridge. In view of the importance of the existing bridge for the facility of the locals, the wooden bridge is proposed to be replaced by a concrete bridge consisting of 12 Vents of 16.5 m each span and the length of the bridge from back to back of backing wall is 205.93 m.

After discussion, the Standing Committee decided to recommend the proposal as it entailed replacement of existing wooden bridge by a concrete one. The Committee also decided that the user agency shall comply with all such mitigation measures and conditions as stipulated by the State Board for Wildlife and the State Chief Wildlife Warden.

32. Re adjustment of Boundaries of Wangth Conservation Reserve.

The Member Secretary gave a brief regarding the proposal. The Chief Wildlife warden, Jammu and Kashmir explained that there were several human settlement within the Wangath Conservation Reserve. He added that these villages have movable and non-movable properties besides huge livestocks. Besides the villagers of the areas also migrate to the upper pasture areas of Conservation Reserve and from the wildlife conservation point of view, this particular part of


39

the conservation reserve remains highly disturbed round the year and there is no evidence of presence of Hangul in this portion of the area.

The Standing Committee, after discussions, decided to recommend the proposal subject to the condition that an area of 25.89 sq.kms, free from human settlements and as per distribution and site occupancy of Hangul Report prepared by Wildlife Trust of India in May 2013, may be added in lieu of the area proposed to be excluded.

33. De notification of Ajas Conservation Reserve

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposal. The Chief Wildlife Warden, Jammu and Kashmir mentioned that the proposal was for de-notification of Ajas Conservation Reserve. He added that the public of the Ajas, Bandipora are showing their resentment constantly against the holding of Ajas Forest and its allied areas under the wildlife protection enactment which is restraining them from various activities. The main reason for this impulsive approach is that there are restrictions on movement and are being permitted no developmental activities including promotion of wildlife activities. He added that the State Government was proposing to declare a Sanctuary in another part of the state that was free from human settlements.

After discussion, the Standing Committee decided to recommend the proposal subject to such conditions as stipulated by the State Board for Wildlife and the State Chief Wildlife Warden.

34. De-notification/Diversion of a part of Kishtwar High Altitude National Park (KHANP) for Pakul Dul Hydro Project-redefining of the core area of the Kishtwar High Altitude of National Park, Jammu and Kashmir.

The Member Secretary mentioned that Hon’ble Supreme court of India vide their order dated 6.12..2010 in IA No.114-115,133 and 140 in Civil Writ Petition No.337 of 1995 granted the permission for diversion of 366.186 ha of land falling in Kishtwar High altitude National Park of land falling within Kishtwar High altitude National park subject to the prior compliance to the conditions/recommendations imposed by National Board for Wildlife and Central Empowered Committee. The Chief Wildlife warden, Jammu and Kashmir mentioned that the State Government had consulted the Wildlife Institute of India and the mitigation plan has been modified appropriately. The State Government has decided to re-define the Kishtwear National Park from existing 1453.98 Sq km to2191.50 and Standing Committee may like to consider this re-adjustment of boundary of Kishtwar National Park.

After discussions, the Standing Committee decided to recommend the proposal of re-adjustment of boundary of Kishtwar National Park.

35. Diversion of 11.40 ha of forestland from Sri Penisula Narasimha Wildlife Sanctuary, Andhra Pradesh for laying of pipeline to draw water from Kandaleru Reservoir through an intake well and intake channel.

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposal. The representative explained regarding the project proposal. Thereafter, the representative of the Project Proponent


40

informed that the proposal was for diversion of forestland from Sri Penisula Narasimha Wildlife Sanctuary for laying of pipeline to draw water from Kandaleru Reservoir through an intake well and intake channel. He added that this project aims to provide safe drinking water to the rural and urban areas of the drought prone district serving 40 lakh people in two phases.

After discussions, the Standing committee decided to recommend the proposal, as it was for providing drinking water for rural areas. The Standing Committee also decided that the pipeline will be laid underground and legal status of the land will not be changed. All conditions as stipulated by the State Board for Wildlife and State Chief Wildlife Warden shall be complied with.

36. Diversion of 154.42 ha (381.61 Acres) of forestland in Sy.No.636 & 374 of Gullalamoda village, Nagayalanka Mandal in Krishna district Andhra Pradesh to set up test facility on the sea shore of bay of Bengal, Technical facilities by Defence Research and Development Organization (DRDO)

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposal. The representative of the DRDO explained that the DRDO is proposing to set up Test Facility at the sea shore of Bay of Bengal, Technical facilities near village Gullalamoda and an approach road fromTechnical Facility to Test Facility near light house. He added that the aim of the project is to establish facilities and approach road for testing various kinds of equipments used for the Defence and also to carry out Research and Development activities relating to Defence projects.

Dr. H.S. Singh desired that more areas needs to be added in lieu of the diversion. The representative of Government of Andhra Pradesh informed that this is a mangrove area and that the user agency had agreed to bear the cost for mitigation purpose and that an area of 6.07 ha is to be added to the Protected Area.

After discussion, the Standing Committee decided to recommend the proposal subject to the following conditions, as stipulated by the State Chief Wildlife Warden:

Test facility:i. The activities shall be confined to day time only.

ii. The activities shall not be taken up during the Olive Ridley turtle nesting season i. e. January to May.

iii. The lighting facility should be wildlife friendly i.e. to be limited to red spectrum which will cause least disturbance to the wildlife activity.

Road: i. Instead of constructing the road alternatively the option of transporting the material

through the Krishna water way from technical facility to test facility to be looked into.ii. If at all a connecting road has to be constructed between technical facility to test facility,

it should be done on elevated piers, so that tidal action and wildlife movement will not be restricted.

iii. The road facility should be made available for use of A.P. Forest Department in the protection activity.

Technical facility:

i. The balance area left out after construction of the facility should be regenerated with mangrove vegetation.


41

ii. In lieu of 381.61 acres of mangrove and mudflats which are being diverted for DRDO project, about 15 acre has been agreed to be added to the sanctuary. Chief Wildlife Warden AP will identify an equivalent mangrove and mudflat area adjacent and contiguous to Krishna Wildlife sanctuary to be notified as addition to the Wildlife Sanctuary.

iii. The use agency should deposit an amount of Rs.5.00 crores in BIOSAP account and from the interest earned from the deposit, the Krishna Wildlife sanctuary will be protected, mangrove vegetation enhanced, wildlife research projects undertaken for improvementand better management of the sanctuary

37. Alteration of boundary of Kaimur Wildlife Sanctuary for exclusion of part of limestone bearing mineral zone from the limits of sanctuary, Bihar.

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposal. The representative of the State Government made a presentation on the proposal.

The Standing Committee, after discussion decided that Dr. H.S. Singh and a representative of Wildlife Institute of India will carry out site inspection and submit a report to the Standing Committee within one month.

38. Proposal for development of Bari-Baseri-Weir-Bhusawar-Chonkarwara-Nagar-Pahari road upto Haryana border (Bari to Kherli 0/0 to 122/0 road passing through Bandh Baretha Wildlife Sanctuary, Rajasthan

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposal. The Chief Wildlife Warden, Rajasthan mentioned that the proposal was for development of Bari-Baseri-Weir-Bhusawar-Chonkarwara-Nagar-Pahari road upto Haryana Border (Bari to Kherli 0/0 to 122/0) passing through Bandh Baretha Wildlife Sanctuary, Rajasthan. He added that this is an existing State Highway No.43 which has been proposed for upgradation and two lanning. The existing road is of 3-4 meters width and is proposed to be widened to 8 meters with 2.5 meters and ROW of 30 meters. The road passes through Bandh Baretha Wildlife Sanctuary from 23/0 to 47/500.

After discussions, the Standing Committee decided to recommend the proposal with a condition that development of the road shall be done only within the existing width and subject to such conditions as stipulated by the State Chief Wildlife Warden and State Board for Wildlife.

39. Diversion of 1.0125 ha of forest land from Sariska TR for laying of 24F Optical Fibre Cable work between Alwar, Kushalgarh Tiraha and Thanagazi (via Sariska Forest), Rajasthan.

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposal. The Chief Wildlife Warden mentioned that the proposal was for diversion of 1.0125 ha of forest land from Sariska Tiger Reserve for laying of 24F Optical Fibre Cable work between Alwar, Kushalgarh Tiraha and Thanagazi (via Sariska Forest), Rajasthan. The length in the Sariska Sanctuary which is a part of Sariska Tiger Reserve is from 21 km to 43.5 km (22.5 km) between Alwar-Kushalgarh Tiraha via Sariska to Thanagazi. He added that the optical fibre was being laid undergropund along the road only.

After discussion, the Standing Committee decided to recommend the proposal subject to the following conditions as stipulated by the State Chief Wildlife Warden:


42

i. No cutting of trees will be allowed.ii. No night camping should be allowed by labour force during laying OFC in sanctuary

area.iii. Work will be done during day time only.iv. Appropriate protection measures for trees will be provided at user agency’s cost.v. No disturbance to wildlife and its habitat will be caused.

vi. The project personnel engaged in the project shall observe the provisions of Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 & rules made there under.

40. Proposal for construction of High Level Bridge over Chambal river Sone Ka Gurja Distt. Dholpur Forest Division, Rajasthan by P.W.D, Department.

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposal. The Chief Wildlife Warden informed that the proposal involved diversion of 0.8274 ha of forestland from National Chambal Sanctuary for construction of High Level Bridge over Chambal river Sone Ka Gurja Distt. Dholpur Forest Division, Rajasthan by P.W.D, Department for providing connectivity between Sone ka Gurja and many other villages in Dang area.

After discussion, the Standing Committee decided to recommend the proposal subject to the following proposals as stipulated by the State Chief Wildlife Warden:

i. In order to minimize adverse effects of construction of the bridge on the Wildlife habitat, the work of construction must be completed in minimum possible time.

ii. During construction works, it must be ensured that building material and wasted material is not thrown/dropped in the flow of Chambal river.

iii. Flow of water will not be stopped for construction of the bridge, but only diverted within the span, if needed.

iv. A chain link fencing of about 8 feet should be erected on both side of the bridge to reduce the incidences of throwing waste into the Chambal river.

41. Renewal of approach road from Berisiyala from 0/0 to 9/200(V.R.-74) passing through Desert National Park, Rajasthan.

The Member Secretary informed the Committee regarding the proposal. The Chief Wildlife Wraden mentioned that this proposal was for renewal of the existing road from Berisiyala from km 0/0 to 9/200(V.R.-74) passing through Desert National Park, Rajasthan. There are no need of any land acquisition or dug borrow pits etc. It is only repair of existing road within 7.50 mtr. width.

After discussion, the Standing Committee decided to recommend the proposal subject to the condition that renewal of road shall be done only within the existing width. The Committee also decided that the following conditions, as stipulated by the Chief Wildlife Warden, Rajasthan may be complied with:

i. The project authority would erect and display boards at places decided by DCF for cautioning presence of wildlife, display permissible speed limit of vehicles and directions.


43

ii. The labour force required for road maintenance must have their camps outside the Protected Areas.

iii. No vegetation/tree should be cut or damaged/during the maintenance.

42. Periodical renewal work from km.291/0 to 298/0 on NH-12 (existing road length 7.00 km and width 7.00 mtr) passing through Dara wildlife Sanctuary and on boundary of Mukundra Hills NP, Rajasthan.

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposal. The Chief Wildlife Warden mentioned that the proposal was for taking up periodical renewal work from km.291/0 to 298/0 on NH-12 (existing road length 7.00 km and width 7.00 mtr) passing through Dara wildlife Sanctuary and on boundary of Mukundra Hills NP, Rajasthan, which is part of Mukundara Tiger Reserve. Member Secretary NTCA expressed his concurrence for permitting the task of renovation of the existing National Highway.

After discussion, the Standing Committee decided to recommend the proposal subject to the condition that renewal of road shall be done only in the existing width. The Committee also decided that the following conditions, as stipulated by the Chief Wildlife Warden, Rajasthan may be complied with:

i. The project authority would erect and display boards at places decided by DCF for cautioning presence of wild life, displaying permissible speed limit of vehicles and directions.

ii. The labour force required for road maintenance must have their camps outside the protected area.

iii. No vegetation/tree should be cut or damaged/during the maintenance of NH-12.iv. Provide underpasses at places decided by the DCF for crossing of wild animals in

sufficient numbers with at least 1.5 meter vertical clearance. v. The project personnel engaged in the project shall observe the provision of Wildlife

(Protection) Act, 1972 & rules made there under.vi. Considering that the NH 12 may need further upgradation in the time to come, NTCA

and NHAI will work out suitable mitigatory measures for the portion of the NH 12 cutting across the Tiger Reserve, so that it does not become a barrier in the continuity of the landscape.

43. Construction of High Level Bridge on Chambal river on Sabalgarh-Mangarole-Atar-Mandrayal Karauli Road (SH-22), Rajasthan.

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposal. He added that this proposal was considered by the Standing Committee of NBWL in its 28th Meeting held on 20th

March 2013 wherein the Committee, had decided that the user agency may forward the proposal to the Chief Wildlife Warden, Rajasthan, who shall seek the recommendations of the Rajasthan SBWL. Thereafter, a consolidated proposal shall be submitted to the Standing Committee of NBWL for its consideration.

The Chief Wildlife Warden, Rajasthan informed that the proposal was placed before the State Board for Wildlife of Rajasthan on 16th June 2014 and was recommended.


44

After discussion, the Standing Committee decided to recommend the proposal subject to the following conditions stipulated by the Chief Wildlife Warden of Rajasthan:

i. In order to minimize adverse effects of construction of the bridge on the Wildlife habitat, the work of construction must be complete in minimum possible time.

ii. During construction works, it must be ensured that building material and wasted material is not thrown/dropped in the flow of Chambal river.

iii. A chain link fencing of about 8 feet should be erected on both site of the bridge to reduce the incidences of throwing waste into the Chambal river.

iv. The flow of water will not be stopped for construction of bridge. Temporary diversion will be resorted to temporarily, if required.

The Standing Committee also decided that such conditions as imposed by Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan State Boards for Wildlife shall also be complied with by the user agency.

44. Renewal and upgradation of existing Pali-Nadol-Gomti Ka Chauraha State Highway-16 of section 280/0 to 290/0 (Wildlife portion) & approach road to Charbhuja temple passing through Kumbhalgarh Wildlife Sanctuary, Rajasthan.

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposal. The Chief Wildlife Warden, Rajasthan mentioned that the proposal was for renewal and upgradation of existing Pali-Nadol-Gomti Ka Chauraha State Highway-16 of section 280/0 to 290/0 and approach road to Charbhuja temple passing through Kumbhalgarh Wildlife Sanctuary, Rajasthan.

After discussion, the Standing Committee decided to recommend the proposal subject to the condition that renewal of road shall be done only within the existing width. The Committee also decided that the following conditions, as stipulated by the Chief Wildlife Warden, Rajasthan may be complied with:

i. There shall be no camping by labour within 500 meters from Kumbhalgarh Wildlife Sanctuary boundary.

ii. There shall be no blasting within 500 meters from Kumbhalgarh Wildlife Sanctuary boundary.

iii. Pucca stone wall should be provided along the sides of forest block boundary so that no wild animal can cross the road.

iv. Provide underpasses at placed decided by the DCF for crossing of wild animals in sufficient numbers with at least 1.5 meter vertical clearance.

v. Sign boards holding with captions like WILD LIFE AREA STARTS, SILENCE ZONE and NO HONKING ZONE etc. should be erected at strategic points on the road as decided by concerning DCF.

vi. The project personnel engaged in the project shall observe the provision of Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 & Rules made there under

45. Diversion of 0.975 ha of forest land from Bassi Wildlife Sanctuary for construction of 33 KV line maintenance near Parsoli, Rajasthan.

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposal. The Chief Wildlife Warden Rajasthan mentioned the proposal was for diversion of of 0.975 ha of forest land from Bassi Wildlife Sanctuary for maintenance of existing 33 KV electricity line near Parsoli, Rajasthan.


45

After discussion, the Standing Committee decided to recommend the proposal subject to the condition that insulated line shall be used during renewal of transmission line. The issue of legal status of the land involved being a part of FC clearance, will be abided by accordingly by the user agency.

46. Diversion of 18.68 ha of reserved forest land from Dudwa TR and 44.61 ha reserved forest within eco-sensitive zone for construction of the road from Gaurifanta to Chandanchauki under Indo-Nepal border road in distt. Lakhimpur-Khiri, U.P.

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposal. The Chief Wildlife Warden, Uttar Pradesh mentioned that this proposal involved diversion of 18.68 ha of reserved forest land from Dudwa TR and 44.61 ha reserved forest within eco-sensitive zone for construction of the road from Gaurifanta to Chandanchauki under Indo-Nepal border road in distt. Lakhimpur-Khiri, U.P. He informed that the road is of strategic importance and is required. Considering the importance of the proposed road, Member Secretary NTCA indicated his concurrence with the suggestion that the designing of the road would take into account the necessity of maintaining the continuity of the tiger landscape and for this purpose NTCA and Wildlife Institute are involved.

After discussion, the Standing Committee decided to recommend the proposal subject to the condition that the road be elevated at identified locations for providing proper passage for animal movement. The Committee also decided that the project proponents shall undertake mitigation measures in consultation with NTCA, Wildlife Institute of India and the State Chief Wildlife Warden. It was also decided that the State Forest Department shall take up E-surveillance in the Tiger Reserve.

PROPOSALS WITHIN 10 KMS FROM BOUNDARY OF NATIONAL PARKS AND SANCTUARIES

1. Permission for Environmental Impact Assessment Study (EIA) for construction of a new Mullaperiyar Dam, Kerala. (EIA study will be carried out in 10 km radius area, around the project site).

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposal. The representative of the State Government of Kerala informed that the proposal was for permission of Standing Committee of NBWL for conducting an EIA for construction of new Mullaperiyar dam. He said that the EIA would be carried out in a 10 kms radius of around the proposed dam site. The present Mullaperiyar dam is within the Periyar Tiger Reserve. However, the present EIA study does not entail any diversion of land not any erosion to forest land.

After discussion, the Standing committee decided to recommend the proposal, as it was only for an EIA study. The Committee was of the opinion that carrying out EIA should not be construed as recommendation for diversion. The Standing Committee also decided that all such conditions, as stipulated by the State Board for Wildlife and State Chief Wildlife Warden shall be complied with by the project proponents.


46

2. Proposal for mining lease no.21/93 having mining lease situated about 6.00 km from common boundary of Mukundra Hills National Park and Darra Wildlife Sanctuary, Rajasthan

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposal. The Chief Wildlife Warden, Rajasthan informed that this proposal for mining lease no.21/93 having mining lease situated about 6.00 km from boundary of Mukundra Hills National Park and Darra Wildlife Sanctuary, Rajasthan by M/s Deejay mining and exports Pvt. Ltd., was similar to the earlier proposals discussed in the Action Taken Report. He added that the area is a revenue land and is already broken up. He said that the Government of Rajasthan had proposed an ESZ of 1 km from the boundary of Mukundra Hills National Parks and Darra Sanctuary.

After discussion, the Standing Committee decided to recommend the proposal subject to the following conditions as stipulated by the Chief Wildlife Warden, Rajasthan and that the CSR fund be placed in the Ranthambhore Tiger Foundation for the management of Mukundara Tiger Reserve as well as taking up GIS based monitoring:

i. Project authorities will transport goods from the presently used road passing through chechat village to NH-12 and will not use Khedli-Manoharpura-Amjhar link road adjoining the sanctuary for transportation of minerals.

ii. Manpower engaged in project works will not use fire woods for any purpose. The user agency will provide alternative fuel for domestic use to resident staff and labour.

iii. Transportation of mineral should be carried out during the day hours only.iv. The user agency will deposit an amount of Rs.30 lac in the accounts of Rajasthan

Protected Area Conservation Society, for SMC structure and boundary wall in the forest area. The deposited amount will be used specifically for this work in Darrah Sanctuary and will be over and above the CSR fund.

v. Precautions to avoid disturbance to existing flora and fauna. vi. The land will be broken for mining only upto the depth of ground water intervention.

3. Proposal for 4-lanning of Sangrur-Punjab/Haryana Border Section of NH-71 from km 181.805 (Sangrur) to km 238.695 (Punjab/Haryana Border), Punjab. The project road passes 1.208 km away from the boundary of Bir Aishwan Wildlife Sanctuary, located in Sangrur district, Punjab.

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposal. The Chief Wildlife Warden, Punjab informed that this proposal was for 4-lanning of Sangrur-Punjab/Haryana Border Section of NH-71 and that the road passes 1.208 km away from the boundary of Bir Aishwan Wildlife Sanctuary.

After discussion, the Standing Committee decided to recommend the proposal subject to such conditions, as stipulated by the State Chief Wildlife Warden, Punjab along with construction of adequate number of passages for wildlife movement, in consultation with the Chief Wildlife Warden.


47

4. Proposal for strengthening the existing (embankment) from Moriaholla to Diffalupathar to avoid any beach resulting flash flood in eastern range of Kaziranga NP, Assam.

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposal. The Chief Wildlife Warden, Assam mentioned that the proposal was for strengthening the existing embankment from Moriaholla to Diffalupathar to avoid any breach resulting flash flood in eastern range of Kaziranga National Park and also in order to control flash floods inside the Park.

After discussion, the Standing Committee decided to recommend the proposal as it would help in controlling flash floods inside Kaziranga National Park. The Committee also decided that the following conditions, as stipulated by the State Chief Wildlife Warden be also complied with:

i. Entire work shall be executed under close supervision of park authorities.ii. Top of the dyke shall be graveled.

iii. Three new sluice gates shall be constructed in order to regulate flow of water across the dyke.

iv. All the sluice gates shall be operated during high flood as well lean season jointly by the water Resources Department and Kaziranga National Park officials.

v. Material for porcupine works shall be transported through river route only

5. Proposal for Kotri-Chechat Limestone mine (M.L.No.24/93) of M/s Shiva Stones vill. Chechat teh. Ramganjmandi, Distt. Kota, Rajasthan. (within 10 kms of Mukandra NP/Dara Wildlife Sanctuary).

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposal. The Chief Wildlife Warden, Rajasthan mentioned that this proposal for Kotri-Chechat Limestone mine (M.L.No.24/93) of M/s Shiva Stones is located at a distance of 6 km. of the Mukandra Hills National Park and 9 kms away from Darra Wildlife Sanctuary and is surrounded all around by revenue villages and no forest land is involved. The operational areas do not have any wild life and vegetative cover. He added that this proposal was also similar to those being considered earlier.

After discussion, with the concurrence of Member Secretary NTCA, the Standing Committee decided to recommend the proposal subject to the following conditions as stipulated by the Chief Wildlife Warden, Rajasthan and that the CSR fund be placed in the Ranthambhore Tiger Foundation for the management of Mukundara Tiger Reserve as well as taking up GIS based monitoring:

i. Project authorities will transport goods from the presently used road passing through chechat village to NH-12 and will not use Khedli-Manoharpura-Amjhar link road adjoining to sanctuary for transportation of minerals.

ii. Manpower engaged in project works will not use fire woods for any purpose. The user agency will provide alternative fuel for domestic use to resident staff and labour.

iii. Transportation of mineral should be carried out during the day hours only.iv. The user agency will deposit an amount of Rs.30 lac in the accounts of Rajasthan

Protected Area Conservation Society, for SMC structure and boundary wall in the forest area. The deposited amount will be used specifically for this work in Darrah Sanctuary, and will be in addition to the depositing CSR funds mentioned above.

v. Precautions to avoid disturbance to existing flora and fauna.


48

vi. The land will be broken for mining only upto the depth of ground water intervention.

The Standing Committee also decided that as there were several mines in the same region, the State Government should initiate a comprehensive cumulative EIA for the all the mines on the locality with specific focus on wildlife and submit a report to the Standing Committee.

6. Establishment of Solid Waste Management Unit in the area of SIDCUL, Haridwar, Uttarakhand by Bharat Oil and Waste Management Ltd. (The proposed site is 3.5 km away from Rajaji National Park).

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposal. The Chief Wildlife Warden, Uttarakhand mentioned that this proposal was for establishment of Solid Waste Management Unit in the area of SIDCUL Haridwar, Uttarakhand by Bharat Oil and Waste Management Ltd . He added that the proposed site is 3.5 km away from Rajaji National Park and that the proposal was recommended by the State Board for Wildlife subject to depositing an amount of Rs. 10.00 lakhs for wildlife management of Rajaji National Park.

After discussion, the Standing Committee recommended the proposal subject to the conditions, as stipulated by the State Board for Wildlife and State Chief Wildlife Warden.

7. Construction of 132 KV DCDS Mungalia Chhap (220 KV)-Bhopal (MACT) line with in 4.5 kms away from the Ratapani Wildlife Sanctuary, Madhya Pradesh.

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposal. The Chief Wildlife Warden informed the Committee that they were withdrawing the proposal.

8. Proposal for use of 14.11 ha of private land for soap stone & marble mining at village Karmai in Sidhi Distt. Madhya Pradesh. (within 10 kms from Sanjay Tiger Reserve & Son Ghariyal Wildlife Sanctuary).

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposal. The Chief Wildlife Warden, Madhya Pradesh mentioned that the proposed mine is located at a distance of 9.20 km core zone of Sanjay Tiger Reserve and 4 km from Son Ghariyal Wildlife Sanctuary. The proposal is also for use of 14.11 ha of private land for soap stone & Marble mining.

After discussions, considering that the project is situated quite far from the buffer zone of the tiger reserve, the Standing Committee with the concurrence of member secretary NTCA, recommended the proposal subject to such conditions, as stipulated by the State Chief Wildlife Warden.

9. Diversion of 22.995 ha of forest land for construction of Balakot reservoir project to irrigation Deptt. (within 10 kms periphery of Nauradehi Wildlife Sanctuary).

The member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposal. The Chief Wildlife Warden, Madhya Pradesh informed that the proposal is for diversion of 22.995 ha of forestland


49

for construction of Balakot reservoir project to irrigation department, Madhya Pradesh and is 1.5 km away from the Neoradehi Sanctuary. However, no area of Neoradehi Sanctuary is to be used as submergence.

Members wanted more information about submergence, ecological impact and irrigation canal network involved in the project. After discussion, the Standing Committee desired to have comprehensive proposal of the reservoir project including the canal also, to take a view on the proposal.

10. Proposal for proposed enhancement in the capacity of existing products-Manufacturing of “Synthetic Organic Chemicals (Organic Titanates)’ at Survey No.358/1P, village-Dadra, U.T. of Dadra & Nagar Haveli-396 230 by M/s Polygel Industries Pvt. Ltd.

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposal. The Chief Wildlife Warden, Dadra & Nagar Haveli informed that the proposal was for enhancing the capacity of existing products-Manufacturing of “Synthetic Organic Chemicals (Organic Titanates)” by M/s Polygel Industries Pvt. Ltd., Dadra & Nagar Haveli and that the proposed site is 6-8 kms away from the nearest point of Dadra & Nagar Haveli Wildlife Sanctuary. He informed that the Environmental Clearance for the project has been issued.

He Committee was informed that the Dadra and Nagar Haveli sanctuary harbours a mix of landuses including private holding and the location of the project is far away from the ecosensitive zone proposed by the UT. After discussion, the Standing Committee recommended the proposal subject to the following conditions, as stipulated by the Chief Wildlife Warden:

i. The emission control, waste & wastewater management as well as hazardous substance management shall be done by the project proponent in line with the environment management plan designed for the respective operations/attributes.

ii. Emergency management plan shall be prepared and implemented to overcome issues of chemical & fire hazards associated with the proposed project.

iii. Greenbelt shall be developed in at least 1/3rd of the project area.iv. A site specific Eco Development Plan is required to be prepared by the project proponent

in consultation with the forest Department, DNH for conservation and protection of wildlife and also for the Eco development of the surrounding human population. The cost towards the implementation of eco-development plan shall be borne by the project proponent. A minimum of 10% of the project cost be earmarked for this purpose in the construction phase and also the same proportion of annual budget on yearly basis under CSR.

v. All safety/mitigation measures as envisaged in the EIA Report/Risk Assessment Report are to be strictly ensured which are required to be monitored by CPCB/UTPCC and forest Department, DNH from time to time.

11. Construction, operation and maintenance of Jakhol Sankri Hydro Electric Project (51 MW) in District Uttarkashi of Uttarakhand.

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposal. The Standing Committee was of the view that, as this matter was pending before Hon’ble Supreme Court, the proposal may be deferred.


50

12. Construction of Rapti Main Canal passing through Kakardari Forest Range of Shrawasti forest division in district Shrawasti located 6 kms away from Suhelwa Wildlife Sanctuary, Uttar Pradesh.

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposal. The Chief Wildlife Warden, Uttar Pradesh informed that the proposal is for providing irrigation facility of 2.294 lakh Ha. area in Distt. Shrawasti, Balrampur, Siddharthnagar, Basti and Sant Kabirnagar, Uttar Pradesh. He added that this was a major canal project and the Environment Clearance for the project has been obtained in 2000.

After discussions, the Standing Committee recommended the proposal subject to the following conditions, as stipulated by the Chief Wildlife Warden, Uttar Pradesh:

i. User agency will ensure that none of their employee/worker shall indulge into any kind of Wild Life/forest offence.

ii. The user agency shall be responsible for any loss of flora & fauna in the surroundings. All possible measures should be taken to conserve the same.

iii. Forest land shall not be used in any other purpose than that specified in the proposal.iv. No tree cutting and soil digging will be allowed in sanctuary/Forest area other than

workable area during the construction work.v. Any condition stipulated by Standing Committee of NBWL/Govt. of India will be

complied with.vi. NPV as per the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests,

Government of India or Government of Uttar Pradesh shall be borne by the user agency.vii. To maintain the environment, provision for plantation of selected species of trees shall

have to be made in the selective and vacant places in consultation with concern Divisional Forest Officer.

viii. The slope of the ramp should be properly designed (around 1:20) to ensure wild animals not fall in the canal.

ix. In case of any exigency water can be pumped from the canal for wildlife purpose without any charge.

x. The concerned Divisional Forest Officer or Chief Conservator of Forests may impose any other conditions from time to time in the interest of conservation, protection and/or development of Wild Life habitat.

13. Proposal for setting up non-polluting leather industries under leather park scheme in district Agra located within 7.5 kms away from Soor Sarovar Bird Sanctuary, Uttar Pradesh.

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposal. The Chief Wildlife Warden informed that the proposal involves setting up of non-polluting leather industries within 7.5 km away from Soor Sarovar Wildlife Sanctuary and that wet processing of raw leather under this project shall be completely restricted. Only processed leather would come to the industry.

The Standing Committee, after discussion, recommended the proposal subject to the mitigation measures and conditions, as stipulated by the State Chief Wildlife Warden:

i. The project proponent should also comply with TTZ Authority norms and directions of Hon’ble Supreme Court applicable in this project.


51

ii. A green belt should be developed around the project and outside the Soor Sarovar Bird Sanctuary from the project cost, so as to mitigate the air pollution. Planting site for this purpose shall be identified by the concerned DFO/Protected Area Manager.

iii. Effluents shall not be released in any water body such as minor canal or other water resources which are connected to Soor Sarovar Bird Sanctuary.

iv. No wetland should be infringed upon during the construction and operation phases. Any wetland coming in the project area/or located nearest the project area should be suitably rejuvenated and conserved.

v. Monitoring or air/water/etc. quality will be got done by the industry at regular/prescribed intervals so as to ensure that there are no adverse environmental impacts. These reports will be submitted to the concerned Divisional Forest Officer for further appropriate action.

vi. The concerned Divisional Forest Officer may impose any other condition from time to time in the interest of conservation, protection and/or development of forest/wildlife habitat according to the direction of Government of India.

14. Permission for laying of 36" dia natural gas pipeline from Mehasana in Gujarat, Ajmer (Rajasthan)-Bhatinda (Punjab) (within 10 kms from Todgarh Raoil WLS) Rajasthan.

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposal. The Chief Wildlife Warden informed that the proposal was for laying of natural gas pipeline from Mehsana in Gujarat to Bhatinda in Punjab State that was passing within 10 kms from Mount Abu Wildlife Sanctuary, Todgarh Raoli WLS and Kumbalgarh Wildlife Sanctuary, in Rajasthan. The proposed gas pipeline is being laid underground.

After discussion, the Standing Committee recommended the proposal subject to the condition that the user agency shall deposit with the agency as advised by the respective Chief Wildlife Warden for ecodevelopment in the ESZ, 2% of the project cost on pro rata basis for the portion of the gas pipeline falling within the eco-sensitive zones of the respective Sanctuaries, or bear the cost of mitigation , whichever is higher.

15. Proposal for aerial passenger ropeway between Ghangaria and Hemkund Sahib, Distt.Chamoli, Uttarakhand.

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposal. The Chief Wildlife Warden and the representatives of the user agency explained about the project to the Committee. It was informed that this proposal envisaged construction of aerial passenger ropeway between Ghangaria and Hemkund Sahib, on a Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) basis to provide safe, quick and convenient journey to devotees as the approach is extremely difficult.

The Chief Wildlife warden mentioned that the proposed project location is within 50 meters from the Valley of Flowers National Park. Director, Wildlife Institute of India mentioned that Valley of Flowers was a World Natural Heritage Site and therefore the impact of the project needs to be studied in detail.

After discussion, the Standing Committee recommended for a site inspection by representative of Wildlife Institute of India and that the report may be submitted to the Standing Committee within one month.


52

16. Proposals of M/s V.K. Walia (M/s Sangrah Limestone Mine-lease area 8.0555 ha) and M/s Bhootmarhi Limestone Mine lease area 32.57 ha) distt. Sirmouir, Himachal Pradesh. The proposed sites are 8.5 and 8.75 km from the Renukaji Wildlife Sanctuary.

17. Proposals of M/s V.K. Walia (M/s Sangrah Limestone Mine-lease area 8.0555 ha) distt. Sirmouir, Himachal Pradesh. The proposed sites are 8.5 from the Renuka Wildlife Sanctuary.

Both the proposals were taken up together for discussion.

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposals. The representative of State Government of Himachal Pradesh mentioned that these proposals involve limestone mine for M/s Bhootmarhi Limestone mine of lease area 32.57 ha and M/s Sangrah Limestone Mine of lease area 8.0555 ha. It was also informed that the mine sites are located about 8.5 kms from the boundary of Renuka Wildlife Sanctuary. Check ESZ status please.

After discussion, considering that the mines are situated far away from the Renuka Dam and sanctuary, the Standing Committee recommended the proposals subject to the condition that2% of the project cost shall be deposited as mitigation measures /conservation and management of wildlife of the Protected Area.

18. Proposal for expansion of Kashlog Limestone mining project (3.3 MTPA to 5.5. MTPA) at villages Kashlog, Mangu, Patti, Chola, Gyana, Rauri and Sangoi Distt., Solan, Himachal Pradesh.

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposal. The representative of the State Government of Himachal Pradesh mentioned that the proposal was for expansion of Kashlog Limestone mining project at villages Kashlog, Mangu, Patti, Chola, Gyana, Rauri and Sangoi in district Solan. The mining area is 1.20 km from Majathal Wildlife Sanctuary and 8.25 km from Darlaghat Conservation Reserve. He also mentioned that Government of Himachal Pradesh had proposed an eco-sensitive zone of 1.5 kms around the Majathal sanctuary except on the boundary abutting the Sutlej river.

After discussions, the Standing Committee recommended the proposal subject to the condition that 2% of the project cost shall be deposited as mitigation measures /conservation and management of wildlife of the Protected Area. The project proponents shall also take mitigation measures suggested by the Wildlife warden and WLW shall monitor the state of mitigation and order necessary measures, if and when required for maintaining the ecological status of the zone.

19. Proposal for expansion of Clinkerisation unit (1.8 MTPA to 2.6 MTPA) at vill. Rauri and Limestone Mining (5.5 MTPA to 7.6 MTPA) at vill. Kashlog, Mangu and Pati, Tehsil Arki, Distt. Solan, H.P.

20. Proposal for 1.8 MTPA Clinkerisation Plant of M/s Ambuja Cements Ltd., located at village Rauri, PO Darlaghat, Tehsil Arki, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh. The proposed proposal is 3.95 km from Majathal Wildlife Sanctuary and 7.00 km from Darlaghat Conservation Reserve.


53

21. Proposal for expansion of existing cement plant of M/s Ambuja Cement Ltd., (2.0 MTPA to 2.6 MTPA clinker) located at Vill., Suli, PO Darlaghat, Tehsil, Arki, Distt., Solan, H.P.

The above mentioned three proposals were taken up together for discussion.

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposals. The representative of the State Government of Himachal Pradesh and also the representatives of the user agency explained that these proposals were for expansion of Clinkerisation unit and Limestone Mining and also for expansion of Cement Plant. The proposed site is 1.20 km and 3.95 km away from Majathal Wildlife Sanctuary and that the Darlaghat Conservation Reserve is 8.25 km from the mining area and 7.0 km from the clinker unit.

After discussions, the Standing Committee recommended the proposals subject to the condition that 2% of the project cost shall be deposited as mitigation measures /conservation and management of wildlife of the Protected Area. A system for periodic, not more than annual monitoring and review of the ecological impact will be set up by the Wildlife wing of the state for this area and appropriate mitigation measures will be taken by the project proponents as ordered by the wildlife warden after review.

22. Construction of 4.810 km road “Katwalta to Gali Mandola” by PMGSY division Udhampur-I, in Block Chenani of Udhampur Distt., Jammu & Kashmir. The proposed site varies from 200 mtrs to 4 kms approximately from the boundary of the Sudhmahdev Conservation Reserve.

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposal. The Chief Wildlife Warden, Jammu and Kashmir mentioned that this proposal was for construction of road from “Katwalta to Gali Mandola” passing at a distance which varies approximately from 200 mtrs to 4 km from the boundary of the Sudhmahadev Conservation Reserve.

The Standing Committee was of the view that as the eco-sensitive zones were to be notified around National Parks and Sanctuaries and presently there was no dispensation for notification of eco-sensitive zones around Conservation Reserves, this proposal be returned to the State Government, as recommendation of Standing Committee of NBWL was not required.

23. Proposal for M/s Jaypee Himachal regarding augmentation of clinker capacity of existing Cement Plant at Bagga and enhancing the production capacity within its existing mine leasehold area of 332 ha, Himachal Pradesh.

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposal. The representative of the State Government informed that the proposed site was 5.550 kms from the boundary of Majathal Sanctuary and 9.9 kms from Bandli Sanctuary. It was informed that no additional area was required for this purpose.

After discussion, the Standing Committee recommended the proposal subject to the condition that 2% of the project cost shall be deposited as mitigation measures /conservation and management of wildlife of the Protected Area. The state CWLW shall set up a process of periodic, not exceeding yearly, review of the ecological status/impact of the project in the area and the instructions related to mitigation measures shall be implemented by the project proponent.


54

24. Proposal for integrated Kashang Hydro Electric Power, (IKHEP 243 MW, Stage-I, II, III & IV) Distt., Kinnaur being implemented by the HP Power Corp. Ltd. (The proposed site is 1.5 km from Lippa-Asrang Wildlife Sanctuary)

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposal. The Representative of the State Government of Himachal Pradesh mentioned that the proposed site was 6 km horizontal distance from Lippa-Asrang Wildlife Sanctuary and as informed by the project proponents, the project is being taken up underground and surface activities are limited to construction phase and were of temporary in nature and that the project area is downstream to the Sanctuary.

After discussions, the Standing Committee recommended the proposal subject to thecondition that 2% of the project cost shall be deposited as mitigation measures /conservation and management of wildlife of the Protected Area

25. Proposal for mining project (area 10.25 ha) with production capacity of 54,400 TPA (Khasra No.283/3/1) on river yamuna, distt. Sirmour, Himachal Pradesh by M/s Mahender Singh & Co. (The proposed site is within 8.5 kms from the Simbalwara National Park).

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposal. The representative of the State Government of Himachal Pradesh explained about the project.

After discussion, the Standing Committee decided to defer the proposal as the Environment Clearance for the project was still awaited.

26. Proposal for construction of 45 MW Rupin Hydro Electric Project in Tehsil Dodra-Kwar, Distt. Shimla, H.P. by M/s Bajrang Power & Ispat ltd.

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposal. The representative of State of Himachal Pradesh mentioned that the proposal involved construction of 45 MW Rupin Hydro Electric Project in Tehsil Dodra-Kwar. The Power House Point and Barrage site is 1.75 km and 6 km away from the Boundary of Govind pashu Vihar Sanctuary/National Park.

The Standing Committee desired to seek the opinion of the Chief Wildlife Warden, Uttarakhand on this proposal as the project site was within 10 kms of a Protected Area of Uttarakhand. The Chief Wildlife Warden, Uttarakhand mentioned that he was in agreement with the proposal subject to implementation of a wildlife management plan.

After discussion, the Standing Committee decided that the State of Himachal Pradesh, the project proponent have consultation with Wildlife Institute of India and Chief Wildlife Warden, Uttarakhand and that the Project Proponent shall fund the wildlife management plan of both Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh.


55

27. Proposal for Bangur underground Chromite Mines in Keonjahar district of M/s OMC ltd.

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposal. The representative of the user agency explained that the proposal was for an underground Chromite Mines in Keonjahar district of M/s Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd. He added that lease for this mining area was executed in September1975. The mine commenced production in the year 1979-80 in open-cast mode and as the yield from the open-cast mine reduced gradually, the opencast operation was stopped and underground operation started from the year 2000. He said that the proposed mine site is 1 to 1.6 km from the Hadagarh Wildlife Sanctuary.

It was informed that no mining activity was permissible upto 1 km from the boundary of National Park and Sanctuary. Dr. R. Sukumar opined that the movement of trucks carrying the ore would have to be regulated. He also mentioned that the site was in close vicinity to the Simlipal Tiger Reserve. The Chief Wildlife Warden, Odisha informed that the eco-sensitive zone proposal for Hadagarh Sanctuary is being submitted to the Ministry.

After discussions, the Standing Committee considered the views of Member Secretary NTCA and recommended the proposal subject to the conditions as stipulated by the State Board for Wildlife alongwith the following conditions, as stipulated by the Chief Wildlife Warden, Odisha:

i. Orissa Mining Corporation will limit transportation of minerals to maximum 600 trucks per month during day time only.

ii. The project proponent shall maintain all the mining parameters prescribed by IBM and other regulatory authorities.

28. Rehabilitation & upgradation of existing 2-lane to 4-lane from Solapur to Yedshi Section NH-211 from km 0.000 to km 100.000 and for 249.00 to 255.00 kms of NH-9, Maharashtra under NHDP Phase-IV. The proposed site is within 10 kms from Yedshi Ramling Wildlife Sanctuary.

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposal. The Principal Secretary (Forests), Maharashtra mentioned that this project includes two new bypasses and four new realignments to enhance the transport capability of the state by avoiding extra congestion in local and urban area. He added that the State Board for Wildlife had recommended this proposal with a condition that 2% of the proportionate project cost falling within the area of 10 kms from the boundary of the Protected Area shall be paid for wildlife conservation and management. He said that Black bucks were very common in this sanctuary and their frequent movement across the roads would have to be considered.

Dr. R. Sukumar opined that adequate number of underpasses and over-bridges would have to be constructed to avoid road kills in the stretch of 12 kms. It was noted that the legth of NH 211 falling in the 10 kms zone of the Yeshdi Ramling Sanctuary is 32 kms, the nearest stretch being 100 meters to 2.9 kms between km.77.00 and 89.00 ( approx. 12 kms).

After discussions, the Standing Committee recommended the proposal subject to the conditions as stipulated by the State Board for Wildlife along with the following conditions stipulated by the State Chief Wildlife Warden:


56

i. Two special bore well, for making water available throughout the year with the help of Solar energy operated pumps should be installed as recommended by Dy.C.F(WL) Aurangabad.

ii. Five watch towers should be erected as recommended by Dr. C.F. (WL) Aurangabad.iii. For the safety of wild animals crossing, the project authority should provide

underpasses at two sites as recommended by Dy.C.F. Aurangabad, with speed breaker at proper distance. Is it against a distance of 100 km?

iv. Proper permanent signage of stone or brick wall should be erected on the both sides of road with the information about sanctuary and wildlife by the project authority as recommended by Dy.C.F. (WL) Aurangabad.

v. Project authority should raise the road side plantation with trees of local species in the Eco-Sensitive Zone area.

vi. The project authority should make fund available to wildlife wing to carry the works in the above items. This should be specific.

29. Widening of existing 2 lane to 4/6 lanning of Sholapur-Bijapur Section of NH-13 BY NHAI in the State of Maharashtra. The proposed site is within 10 kms from Great Indian Bustard Sanctuary.

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposal. The Principal Secretary (Forests), Maharashtra mentioned that this proposal is similar to the previous one, but was passing within 10 kms from the Great Indian Bustard Sanctuary. He said that the proposed road starts from KM 0.000 (existing km 236.560 of NH-9) in the outskirts of Solapur city in Solapur by-pass and ends at proposed Km 27.187 (existing km 18.411) and the proposed length of the road is 27.187 kms. He added that a considerable length of NH-13 passes through built up area of Solapur city. He said that the Government had rationalized the boundary of Great Indian Bustard sanctuary as it had several habitations within the Sanctuary. It was also informed that the nearest distance from the Great Indian Bustard Sanctuary boundary was between 487 meters to 1.9 kms.

The Principal Secretary (Forests) also informed that the State Board for Wildlife had recommended this proposal with a condition that 2% of the proportionate project cost falling within the area of 10 kms from the boundary of the Protected Area shall be paid for wildlife conservation and management.

After discussions, the Standing Committee recommended the proposal subject to the conditions as stipulated by the State Board for Wildlife along with such conditions as stipulated by the State Chief Wildlife Warden.

30. Rehabilitation and up-gradation of existing 2 lane to 4 lane of Solapur to Yedshi section of NH-211 from km 0.000 to km 100.000 and from Km 249.000 to km 255.000 of NH-9 in the state of Maharashtra under NHDP Phase IV B, Maharashtra. The proposed site is within 10 kms from the Great Indian Bustard Sanctuary.

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposal. The Principal Secretary (Forests), Maharashtra mentioned that this is another proposal similar to the previous one. This proposal was for rehabilitation and up-gradation of existing 2 lane to 4 lane of Solapur to Yedshi section of NH-9 and the proposed site is within 10 kms from the Great Indian Bustard Sanctuary. . He added that the nearest boundary of the Sanctuary was about seven kms from the

satyajitray

Highlight


57

road and that the Solapur city was lying in between the proposed road and the Great Indian Bustard Sanctuary.

He further added that the State Board for Wildlife had recommended this proposal with a condition that 2% of the proportionate project cost falling within the area of 10 kms from the boundary of the Protected Area shall be paid for wildlife conservation and management.


31. Diversion of 8.75 ha Reserve Forest land for Raperi (Storage) Minor Irrigation Project Tah. Karanja, Distt. Washim, Maharashtra.

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposal.

It was informed that as there was no requirement of an Environmental Clearance for this minor irrigation project, and as it was located outside the boundary of National Park and Sanctuary, the State Government requested to withdraw this proposal.

32. Proposal for Phase-II expansion of Dhamra Port in village Dosinga, Chandbali Tehsil, Bhadrak District of Odisha by Dhamra Port Company Ltd., Odisha.

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposal. The representatives of the user agency explained that this proposal was for Phase-II expansion of Dhamra Port by the Dhamra Port Company Ltd., Odisha. The Phase II Expansion of the Port would generate employment, and would accelerate the economic growth of the District. It was informed that the Central Empowered Committee of the Hon’ble Supreme Court had given their report to Hon’ble Court and they had not indicated any adverse impact on ecology due to the expansion of this port. It was also informed that the Environmental Clearance and CRZ Clearance for this project had been obtained.

The Chief Wildlife Warden, Odisha informed that this project site was beyond the proposed eco-sensitive zone boundary of the Gahirmatha Sanctuary and Bhitarkanika Sanctuary/National Park. He added that the expansion project area contains 75.50 ha of Mangrove plantation and this area will not be diverted by the project proponents.

Dr. R. Sukumar was of the opinion that nesting of Olive Ridley Turtles could be impacted due to the expansion. As the Port authorities claimed that WII had conducted sufficient studies on this aspect, the Director, Wildlife Institute of India clarified that WII had carried out a five year study on the impact of lighting on the nesting of Olive Ridley Turtles and did not cover any impact assessment related to activities of the Port.

The Inspector General of Forests (WL) indicated that the cumulative impacts of the traffic across the mass nesting habitat and ambient seascape as a result of expansion, etc also will have to be considered.

After discussions, the Standing Committee recommended the proposal subject to the condition that the project proponents shall prepare and implement the mitigation plan in


58

consultation with the Wildlife Institute of India and the Chief Wildlife Warden. The Committee also decided that all such conditions, as stipulated by the Chief Wildlife Warden, Odisha shall be complied with by the project proponents.

33. Proposal for establishment of Cement Grinding Unit (1.5 MTPA) & DG sets (2x6 MW) of M/s J.K. Lakshmi Cement Ltd. at village-Ghantikhal and Radhashyampur under Athagarh Tehsil in Cuttack District, Odisha.

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposal. The representatives of the project proponents mentioned that this proposal was for establishment of Cement Grinding Unit (1.5 MTPA) & DG sets (2x6 MW) of M/s J.K. Lakshmi Cement Ltd. Andthe site is within 8.5 km of the boundary of the Kapilash Wildlife Sanctuary. He said that the TOR for the project was given before the State Government notified the Sanctuary.

The Chief Wildlife Warden mentioned that the eco-sensitive zone proposed for this Sanctuary was between 500 meters and 13 kms and that this area was not part of the traditional elephant corridor.

After discussions, the Standing Committee recommended the proposal subject to the condition that the project proponents shall deposit 2% of the project cost for mitigation measures and for implementation of the elephant management plan in the area. The Committee also decided that the following conditions, as stipulated by the State Chief Wildlife Warden shall be complied with by the Project Proponents:

i. M/s J.K. Lakshmi Cement Ltd. will ensure remittance of the cost of the activities suggested in the site specific wildlife conservation plan. Chief Wildlife Warden will be responsible for its implementation.

ii. One row of Avenue Plantation has been proposed to work as Green belt all around the boundary. This is not adequate. There shall be minimum 3 rows of plantation all around the boundary of the plant except on north-east side adjoining to Subasi RF. In north-east side adjoining to Subasi RF the width of the green belt shall be double to the width of green belt on other side i.e. 6 rows of planting.

iii. The project proponent shall provide cost of construction of one underpass for smooth movement of elephants and other wild animals at a suitable location as per suggestion of the DFO in collaboration with the Railways observing all the technical formalities.

iv. Maintenance of 5 water holes shall be supported by the project proponent in Subasi RF and Brahmanbasta RF instead of 2 proposed in the site specific wildlife conservation plan.

v. The project proponent shall undertake to implementation the ameliorative measures as and when stipulated by the Chief Wildlife Warden, Odisha as well as the Director, Env., Govt. of Odisha, F&E Deptt

The recommendations are subject to the approval of the Hon’ble Court in the court case/PIL in the Court.


59

34. Proposal for laying LPG cross country pipeline from Kochi Refinery to Coimbatore, Kerala. The project site is 5.3 km away from the Peechi-Vazhani Wildlife Sanctuary.

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposal. The representative of Government of Kerala mentioned that the project envisages laying of 12” dia 229 km long pipeline from Kochi refinery in Ernakulam district to the proposed bottling plant in Coimbatore district, Tamil Nadu for transportation of LPG from its refinery at Kochi. The pipeline is proposed to be laid underground and would be 5.3 kms from the boundary of the Peechi-Vazahani Sanctuary.

After discussion, the Standing Committee recommended the proposal subject to the condition that 2% of the project cost of the area falling in the vicinity of the Sanctuary shall be deposited with the state wildlife department for wildlife management.

35. Widening of existing 2 lane to 4 lane road divided carriage configuration for Panvel-Indapur (Km 0.000 to km.84.000) section of NH-17, Maharashtra. The proposed site is within 10 kms from Karnala Bird Sanctuary.

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposal. The Principal Secretary (Forests) mentioned that this proposal envisaged widening of NH-17 which is the Bombay to Kochi Highway. The highway passes through both within and outside the Karnala Bird Sanctuary. He added that alternate alignments were not feasible. The State Government has already added about 8 sq. kms of forest land to the Sanctuary and that the State Board for Wildlife had recommended this proposal with a condition that 2% of the project cost shall be paid for wildlife conservation and management.

After discussions, the Standing Committee recommended the proposal subject to the conditions as stipulated by the State Board for Wildlife along with the following conditions as stipulated by the State Chief Wildlife Warden:

i. Widening of road should be restricted beyond 1 km distance, on the both sides, from the boundary of the sanctuary and at these points, (i.e. 1km away from sanctuary area on both sides):a. Proper speed breakers should be created, barriers will be erected and the traffic will

be channelized within the existing lanes of the road, passing through the sanctuary area. This will facilitate smooth traffic on the road passing through the sanctuary area.

b. Signage should be displayed restricting the speed limit to 30 km/hour, while passing through the sanctuary area.

ii. There shall be controlled movement of traffic in the sanctuary with proper traffic signals located on the boundaries of the sanctuary.

iii. The entire stretch has a high rainfall area. Hence, proper measures to prevent flooding of the road, landslide etc, shall be used by the vehicles in the Karnala Sanctuary.

iv. Adequate number of under passes for the animals shall be provided in the Karnala sanctuary and in the forest area in consultation with the Forest Department and Wildlife Wing.


60

36. Proposal for laying of Natural Gas pipeline from Mallavaram in Andhra Pradesh to Bhilwara in Rajasthan State that passes through the states of Maharashtra & Madhya Pradesh. The proposed area is 1.8 km away from the Bor & New Bor WLS.

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposal. The Principal Secretary (Forests) Maharashtra mentioned that this proposal was for laying of Natural Gas pipeline from Mallavaram in Andhra Pradesh to Bhilwara in Rajasthan State that passes through the states of Maharashtra & Madhya Pradesh. In Maharashtra, this underground pipeline passes through about 1.8 kms from the boundary of Bor and New Bor Sanctuaries.

It was noted that Bor sanctuary has been approved to be included in the Tiger Reserve netork. As such, the area may be within the buffer of the Tiger Reserve. After discussions, the Standing Committee considering that the pipeline is laid underground, recommended the proposal subject to the condition that 2% of the project cost of the proportion to the area falling within the vicinity of the Protected Area shall be deposited with the Pench Tiger Conservation Foundation, Maharashtra for wildlife management and also that it shall be subject to clearance from the National Tiger Conservation Authority.

37. Laying of 12" diameter HPCL's Uran-Chakanl Shikrapur LPG Gas pipeline along with 6" dia OFC passing through Karnala Bird Sanctuary, Maharashtra.

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposal. The Principal Secretary (Forests), Maharashtra mentioned that this proposal was for laying of 12” diameter HPCL’s Uran-Chakani Shikrapur LPG Gas pipeline along with 6” dia OFC passing near Karnala Bird Sanctuary, Maharashtra. The project involves laying of the 12” Dia (0.3 meter) underground LPG pipeline within the Right of Way (ROW) of the Road. Once the pipeline is laid the excavated Soil is restored back. No cutting of vegetation/Tress is envisaged in the process. The trench of maximum 1.5 meter will be dug within the road’s right of way while using the road for laying purpose and once the pipeline is laid, the trench is closed and restored back to the original condition. He added that the State Board for Wildlife had recommended this proposal with a condition that 2% of the project cost shall be paid for wildlife conservation and management.


38. Proposal for mining of minor minerals from village Karkhara, area 93.20 ha falls 0.59 km & 8.1 km away from Kathalur Kaushlian Wildlife Sanctuary, distt., Pathankot, Punjab.

39. Proposal for mining of minor minerals from village Chak Hari Rai, area 47.20 ha falls 6 km & 11.1 km away from Kathalur Kaushlian Wildlife Sanctuary, distt. Pathankot, Punjab.

40. Proposal for mining of minor minerals from village Jhumber, area 53.20 ha falls 2.3 km & 9.3 km away from Kathalur Kaushlian Wildlife Sanctuary, distt. Pathankot, Punjab.


61

41. Proposal for mining of minor minerals from village Bela Ramgarh, area 105.22 ha falls 9.3 km away from Jhajjar bachauli Wildlife Sanctuary, distt. Rupnagar, Punjab.

42. Proposal for mining of minor minerals from village Kapoori, Area 6.63 ha falls 2.7 km away from Bir Bunerheri Wildlife Sanctuary, District-Patiala, Punjab.

43. Proposal for mining of minor minerals from village Maira, area 103.6 ha falls 10.02 km & 3.04 km away from Kathalur Kaushlian Wildlife Sanctuary, distt. Pathankot, Punjab.

44. Proposal for mining of minor minerals from village Siunti, Area 49.60 ha falls 1.4 km & 9.01 km away from Kathalur Kaushlian Wildlife Sanctuary, distt. Pathankot, Punjab.

45. Proposal for mining of minor minerals from village Baihara, Area 26.01 ha falls 7.2 km away from Jhajjar bachauli Wildlife Sanctuary, distt. Rupnagar, Punjab.

46. Proposal for mining of minor minerals from village Lodhipur, Area 10.17 ha falls 5.2 km away from Jhajjar bachauli Wildlife Sanctuary, distt. Rupnagar, Punjab.

47. Proposal for mining of minor minerals from village Raipur Saini, Area 18.71 ha falls 5.5 km away from Jhajjar bachauli Wildlife Sanctuary, distt. Rupnagar, Punjab.

48. Proposal for mining of minor minerals from village Chak Ram Sahai, area 19.20 ha falls 9.5 km & 3.6 km away from Kathalur Kaushlian Wildlife Sanctuary, distt. Pathankot, Punjab.

49. Proposal for mining of minor minerals from village Mindwan, Area 6.22 ha falls 3.7 km away from Jhajjar bachauli Wildlife Sanctuary, distt. Rupnagar, Punjab.

50. Proposal for mining of minor minerals from village Dulpat, Area 11.6 ha falls 1.8 km & 9.3 km away from Kathalur Kaushlian Wildlife Sanctuary, District-Pathankot, Punjab.

51. Proposal for mining of minor minerals from village Harsabela, Area 79.29 ha falls 7.7 km away from Jhajjar bachauli Wildlife Sanctuary, District-Rupnagar, Punjab.

56. Proposal for mining of minor minerals from village Chandpur, Area 61.44 ha falls 7.3 km away from Jhajjar Bachauli Wildlife Sanctuary, District-Rupnagar, Punjab.

The above 15 proposals for minor mineral mining in Punjab were taken up together for discussion.

The Chief Wildlife Warden, Punjab mentioned that the Government had auctioned sand mining, but bidders were not ready as they were not certain about obtaining the environment clearance. As Environment Clearance cannot be issued without an application by the owner, meaning the owner of the permit/bid of the mining right, the Ministry had issued site clearances


62

for potential bidders. He also informed that the following proposal was located within one kilometer from the boundary of Kathlaur Kaushlian Sanctuary:

Proposal for mining of minor minerals from village Karkhara, area 93.20 ha falls 0.59 km & 8.1 km away from Kathalur Kaushlian Wildlife Sanctuary, distt., Pathankot, Punjab

The Committee, after discussion took the following decisions:

i. The proposal for mining of minor minerals from village Karkhara, area 93.20 ha located 0.59 km & 8.1 km away from Kathalur Kaushlian Wildlife Sanctuary, distt., Pathankot, Punjab not to be recommended as it was within 1 Kms from boundary of Sanctuary.

ii. As far as the rest of the 14 proposals are concerned, only those proposals for which site clearance (potential EC) certificates have already been issued by MoEF & CC, shall be recommended.

52. Upgradation of Karauli to Dholpur section of NH-11B (K.M. 83.500 to km 186.750) to 2 lane paved shoulder configuration, Rajasthan.

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposal. The Chief Wildlife Warden, Rajasthan mentioned that the proposed road is situated at a distance of approximately 850 mts away from the boundary of Kesar Bagh Wildlife Sanctuary, 1.0 km from Van Vihar Wildlife Sanctuary and 3.5 km from the boundary of Ram Sagar Wildlife Sanctuary. He said that the original alignment has been changed so that the road now passes outside the boundary of the Protected Areas.

After discussions, the Standing Committee recommended the proposal subject to the condition that 2% of the project cost of the area passing through the vicinity of the Protected Area(s) shall be deposited by the user agency for wildlife management. Besides, adequate number of underpasses and over-bridges shall be constructed at appropriate locations, in consultation with the Chief Wildlife Warden.

53. Establishment of Nuclear Fuel Complex and Township near Kota, Rajasthan. The proposed site is 800 to 1000 meters from Bhainsrodgarh Wildlife Sanctuary, 4.6 km from Jawaharsagar, 7 km from Darrah and 4 km from the Buffer area of Mukundra Tiger Reserve.

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposal. The representatives of the user agency mentioned that the proposal was for establishment of Nuclear Fuel Complex and Township near Kota, Rajasthan. The proposed site is 800 to 1000 meters from Bhainsrodgarh Wildlife Sanctuary, 4.6 km from Jawaharsagar, 7 km from Darrah and 4 km from the Buffer area of Mukundra Tiger Reserve.

After discussions the Standing Committee recommended the proposal subject to the condition that the user agency shall prepare a mitigation plan in consultation with the Wildlife Institute of India and the National Tiger Conservation Authority. The Committee also decided that the following conditions, as stipulated by the Chief Wildlife Warden, Rajasthan shall also be complied with by the project proponents:


63

i. The user agency will provide an amount of Rs.200.00 lacs in the account of Rajasthan Protected Area Conservation Society to mitigate any disaster of radiation effect in the wildlife habitat.

ii. User agency would deposit Rs.595.00 lacs in the account of Rajasthan Protected Area Conservation Society for construction of stone wall measuring of 6 feet height and 17 km in length along the periphery of Mukandara Tiger Reserve (Buffer Area Kaniya Talab).

iii. User agency will provide Rs.48.00 lacs in the account of Rajasthan Protected Area Conservation Society for deployment of strike Force/Home Guard to improve protection of Wildlife habitat.

iv. Man power engaged in the project works will not use wood from forest area for any purpose.

v. User agency will provide LPG connection for domestic use to resident staff and labour. vi. The project personnel engaged in the project shall observe the provision of Wildlife

(Protection) Act, 1972 & Rules made there under

54. Mining lease no.36/91 New Lease No.25/2006 of Biloniya Sand Stone is situated at village Bilonia, Jhalrapatan, Distt. Jhalawar, Rajasthan. The proposed site is 2.5 km from the Darrah Wildlife Sanctuary.

55. Proposal for Kotra Sandstone (building stone) (lease area 19.68 ha) M.L. No.37 (New 26/2006) near village kotra Teh., Jhalarampatan, distt. Jhalawar, Rajasthan.

The above two proposals were taken up for discussion together.

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposal. The Chief Wildlife Warden, Rajasthan mentioned that both the mining lease sites were about 2 and 2.5 kms from the Darra Sanctuary. The Government of Rajasthan had proposed an eco-sensitive zone of 1 kms around the Darra Sanctuary, which is part of Mukundara Tiger Reserve..

As Standing Committee of NBWL clearance has been a norm for cases of environmental clearance located outside protected Area, its recommendation will be effective only after environmental clearance for the project has been obtained. After discussion, with concurrence of Member Secretary NTCA, the Standing Committee recommended the proposal, subject to verification of environmental clearance by the Chief Wildlife Warden before operationalization and also subject to following conditions, as stipulated by the State Chief Wildlife Warden:

i. Manpower engaged in project works will not use wood for any purpose. User agency will provide LPG connection for domestic use to resident staff & labour.

ii. Transportation of mineral should be carried out during the day hours only.iii. The user agency will deposit an amount of Rs.50 lacs in the accounts of Rajasthan

Protected Area Conservation Society for the development of adjoining sanctuary area.iv. Precautionary measures to be adopted by the user agency to avoid disturbance to

existing flora & fauna. v. The project personnel engaged in the project shall observe the provision of Wildlife

(Protection) Act, 1972 & Rules made there under.


64

57. Proposal for Lakheri-Chamovali mining lease of M/s ACC limited, Lakheri Cement Works, Lakheri, Distt. Bundi (Rajasthan) for mining purpose of limestone, Rajasthan.

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposal. The Chief Wildlife Warden, Rajasthan mentioned that the proposal was for Lakheri-Chamovali mining lease of M/s ACC limited, for mining purpose of limestone, Rajasthan. The 1107 ha of revenue land lies at a distance of 2.65 km of Ramgarh Vishdhari Sanctuary and 2.50 km from the National Chambal Sanctuary.

After discussions, the Standing Committee recommended the proposal subject to the following conditions, as stipulated by the State Chief Wildlife Warden:

i. Manpower engaged in project works will not use wood for any purpose. User agency will provide LPG connection for domestic use to resident staff & labour.

ii. Transportation of mineral should be carried out during the day hours only.iii. Precautionary measures to be adopted by user agency to avoid disturbance to existing

flora & fauna.

58. Rehabilitation & upgradation of NH-233 from existing 2 lane to 4-lane from Ghaghara Bridge abutment on basti side to Varanasi (from km 121.800 to 299.350), U.P. The proposed site is 7.85 km away from Turtle WLS.

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposal. The Chief Wildlife Warden, Uttar Pradesh mentioned that this project involves rehabilitation & upgardation of NH-233 from existing 2-lane to 4-lane from Ghaghara Bridge Abutment on Basti side to Varanasi (from km 121.800 to 299.350), Uttar Pradesh. The project road runs majority through agricultural fields and many built up areas. The land use by the side of the existing project road includes agriculture activities, residential use, village population, commercial purpose and industrial activities. He said that the Turtle Wildlife Sanctuary, Varanasi is located at the aerial distance of 7.85 kms from the end point of the project alignment.

The Standing Committee, after discussions, recommended the proposal subject to the condition that the user agency shall deposit 2% of the project cost of the area passing through the vicinity of the Protected Area for the wildlife management with the Wildlife Warden of the sanctuary for conservation and eco development activities. Besides, the user agency shall also comply with the following mitigation measures and conditions, as stipulated by the State Chief Wildlife Warden:

i. Protection and mitigation measures for wild life should ensured as per guidelines of Government of India (MOEF WL).

ii. User agency National Highways Authroity of India, unit Varanasi should provide the funds(as detailed above) for reducing the negative impact for conservation & eco-development activities of wild life.

iii. In order to minimize the adverse effect on the movement of wild animals the agency shall construct underpasses and other relevant structure at identified places as suggested by concerned Divisional Forest Officer.

iv. No quarrying/mining shall be carried out within sanctuary/protected area.


65

v. User agency will ensure that the construction of road does not affect the nesting site of turtle and others reptiles found nearby wetlands/ponds during construction and maintenance period of the project road. Wild life Warden shall indicate such locations to the project implementors.

vi. User agency or the constructor and workers will strictly follow the provisions of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 as amended time to time.

59. Rehabilitation and upgradation of Uncha Nagla-khanua Rupbas-Dholpur (newly declared national Highway 123) to 2 lanes with paved shoulder, in the States of Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh.

The Member Secretary briefed the Committee regarding the proposal. The Chief Wildlife Warden, Rajasthan mentioned that this proposal involved rehabilitation and upgradation of Uncha Nagla-khanua Rupbas-Dholpur (newly declared National Highway 123) to 2 lanes with paved shoulder, in the States of Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh. The project road is situated at a ground distance of approximately 4.260 kms away from the boundary of Kesar Bagh Wildlife Sanctuary and 520 mts., from Keoladeo National Park.

The Standing Committee, after discussions, recommended the proposal subject to the condition that the user agency shall deposit 2% of the project cost proportionate to the area passing through the vicinity of both the Protected Areas for the wildlife management Besides, the user agency shall also comply with the following mitigation measures and conditions, as stipulated by the State Chief Wildlife Warden:

i. There shall be no camping of labour within 500 meters from Wildlife Sanctuary boundary.

ii. There shall be no blasting within 500 meters from wildlife sanctuary boundary.iii. The project personnel engaged in the project shall observe the provision of Wildlife

(Protection) Act, 1972 & Rules made there under.

Agenda No. 5: Any other item with the permission of the Chair.

The Members were of the opinion that there should a separate meeting exclusively to deliberate upon the wildlife conservation related matters. This was agreed to.

The meeting thereafter ended with a vote of thanks to the Chair.

****


66

ANNEXURE-1

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS OF THE 31ST MEETING OF STANDING COMMITTEE OF NBWL HELD ON 12TH -13TH AUGUST 2014.

***

1 Shri Prakash JavadekarHon’ble Minister of State (Independent Charge) for Environment & Forests

Chairman

2 Dr. V. Rajagopalan, Secretary, Environment & Forests Invitee3 Dr S.S. Garbeyal

Director General of Forests & Special SecretaryMember

4 Shri A.K. SrivastavaAddl. Director General of Forests (FC)

Member

5 Dr V.B. MathurDirector, Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun

Member

6 Professor Raman Sukumar Member7 Shri Bharat Pathak, Director, GEER Foundation, Gujarat Member8 Dr H.S. Singh Member9 Shri Rajendra P Agarwalla, PCCF (WL) & Chief Wildlife Warden Assam Invitee10 Shri Pradeep Vyas, Addl. PCCF(WL), West Bengal Invitee11 Dr Atul K. Gupta, Pr. Chief Conservator of Forests & Chief Wildlife Warden,

TripuraInvitee

12 Shri S.S. Sharma, Pr. Chief Conservator of Forests, Uttarakhand Invitee

13 Shri D.K. Pandey, Addl. Pr.Chief Conservator of Forests, Andhra Pradesh Invitee

14 Shri Pramod Krishnan, Conservator of Forests(WL), Palakkad, Kerala Invitee

15 Shri Praveen Pandey, Pr. Secretary(Forests) Invitee

16 Shri Amit Mallick, CCF&FD(PT), Kerala

17 Shri Rupak De, PCCF cum Chief Wildlife Warden, Uttar Pradesh Invitee

18 Shri S.N. Singh, Addl.PCCF & Chief Wildlife Warden, Rajasthan Invitee

19 Shri A.K. Singh, Pr.CCF(WL) & Chief Wildlife Warden, Jammu and Kashmir Invitee

20 Shri P.L. Chauhan, CCF(WL) South Shimla, Himachal Pradesh Invitee

21 Shri Kailash Ch Bebarta, Addl.PCCF(WL) Invitee

22 Shri Dhirendra Singh, Addl. PCCF & Chief Wildlife Warden, Punjab Invitee

23 Shri C.N. Pandey, Pr.CCF (WL) & Chief Wildlife Warden, Gujarat Invitee

24 Shri Narendra Kumar, Chief Wildlife Warden, Madhya Pradesh Invitee

25 Dr Vivek Saxena, OSD(Forests), Haryana Bhawan, New Delhi Invitee

26 Shri Vinod Kumar, CF(WL), Gurgaon, Haryana Invitee

27 Dr Rajesh Gopal,Member Secretary, NTCA

Invitee


67

28 Dr S.K. Khanduri,Inspector General of Forests (WL)

Invitee

29 Shri M.L. Srivastava, Deputy Inspector General of Forests(WL) Invitee

***

''Kt iL,Llr l'r,!\rd Llhrvrnl'@ Lls .o :.Lltrk ltfxJ N. :l

L 5.iEsil in/lt iShnolr, \i!x.{m (tulo)/Bhofrl 16lrl. ([1 P ]

:+lii,n /T.Lclix l.lll)6I i.1165.194.116:l L112

qrtd a /F.,rrl: rp.c$h.pxl! sn[i].unnr

ql{q Tl{4r{covEll\llll) I ol: INDI]\{qlqi"l f?i ar {trdq

\rr\rs r'rt\ ol, rN\ rRof,'NIIiNr & l oRfsls

6 \lllB-li/201 r lJllU/r r\ri.

Thr P,,d.i]ll S.r'.hf( n\, lrl\l,lr n islnrr{o\cnuc & l.r.n D.txn i. .

\lrtrL-rr. i!lunbri llr0ull

Srbr L)r\.snn fl2.6ai l,x lt.s.trcd rnr.sl lx lo crnn'trrli.D .1 116 lr.iD! .l Nll l:i r dinri'L

Srlrttr, .l\lrhr.!n(rx itr li\.u, rl lal, ..r Di,.c!tr. \ll,\1. SoLrfrr

1n tr) invrc tr,.I$cn.. kr sLllc co\t.l i\1xlirfush(rr lcrLo NoDcsk l?rNcll'lDl2l69(ll) l'lal ll Ll drlclL 0a 0l,l0Ll rd. ,\ kx'hr -1 \ltr di virprnr\rl9lrLl l1 Jrd 26 06 llLl u) r r')bo\c ricilidr.d s,bi{1 s.ckfu prnr x)p!rrl .l thc Ccilrrl Crncr!ncnl ! or sccttn 2 'llh! For'!rC.isd\rliori cl. lrS0

r\li$Lircc0nfdr.r!oD.llhci,]lir.lrlurlortl'.Si(.Co\otrni.r.rhc(nner\igdcl.'trtrchxllollh.(crrtrlGo\rnncnl.i\lrctli\Jirc.L.nki.oi\qlh. IPrii.i clllrr'\xl lirr 2665 hx R\'rrrdlirc{ lx d lircoinnLdurnl.l'6 hrirgoLNl!ll rr d(b,.t So ifur fl\ rhrrsn x II li\'r ''l lnrj'rt1i .'1t . ,,. .l

'lh. Logrl !.(r.lrho ln.cn ]li!L:hill onrurt r.hu4d

(.n|cn:r.rt rlti,rrslrfd sllL bc lrLol trtr l,l l.rcn Drox,l'n.nror.r i'll l[ Dcgrtr]rd nrcnlrftl (C!1 No SN.tl6. SllrN LL'!|nr r Dabi.t-Solrn! ) d ric con.l Lht lis$ Al.rc)Nttra'{ L(uD nulL Dol licfuis.d A\ LiLrr\ p'r.li.ihlcx nnrtucoli)uLlvttrh!.nous !|coci IilL|!trnLo(L r iJ nf rnurlrrrc tl r :f.r.s h i !, b. rroi!cd

'Lhr co{ .l !) nfen\rktr} xll!fuslrl on \lrxll 1)c l.lisiLo(L ,! xtl\ricc d 0rc![lin! \xgc 'rres

\'i1h

tLr0l 0ron DqislDlcnr bl lhr Lir, ^!0r!)

lhcsrxrcOo\.nnn.Dtshrll.hrr!.trcN.rProscn\irluc(Nrv)l.o.rhc]665 hr Lii.cn rli 1() bt(Li\ d.l rtr(lc' rhi\ p,!tfil li.nr rh. t:d Ag.rcl r\ ld t]lc odcrr ol llic ll0n trlc SLlr'trr' Coun

.1 ln(Lir i$cd lr)101002 011r3.:(rl)l.13irll00ri 0r0i2ir08irlANo j66itr$rP(al\.ll)l'lt9ir.r isId r,ogrnLrli .slsn,0ib!1lr\\linisr!rnLcl.tr.,sNo 5 lrl!9S_FC0l.l )drtrd

3 lr9l1)(rl r\ \!.lL xs lclrlr N,) i 1:o(rn a (lxrrd 01 10 21)116:rnl i lrl007 l a (lrtrd 0i 0l lllrrl

k/-.,\I'Al?

.l

Cfinn r1... .lmlL b. .r loiL b! llr. sLd. arrrrfr[r li

rl lL linr nr xn t n{lorrrktrr! nr thr!.1lc.L

r rrr r.!fm slocxicr i l/rhf ii'rc.rLl' .l rh. qrf'r rln th. :\Nnf rhc I:cr ,\!cr!\ Th.I \. \!.lr

1qlr rf, lli. rrcs (,1,. .lloiLil th.:\(Lh.r'aA\lP\ \.\

I'o|c"r Dqr:rLiddLfLJii( on tlru ifi lhrPi(i..1sLlcs rl (hc \rti(ml Hirhqrl

i.l

t:t,t, \ jtti) ^,r ".rIn!,ltr., trn t Jn.l ). t rit ! ,l I nltrt:t ld ll ,\h r/ /lr rLrr rJ rd

ALI thc li,i(L! (rcir(i Liinr Lh! rlc rgen.! ri{l'r lLrc frr o'L 'hrlL ho t xrll'irrn trr tr! A(Lht!

i:."."""1,' r ,rrli',"trr-u rurl \'lnlf.nrf1.! r'Lxnrd! tr'ncr ll Ar'1P^l n Sr\rfg Bml ^ '\. rl^F \rr r, rsh'r SB0l0lSllr.lCfrrrrn) i Br r[. lf(]lri( rnnfl'1' N'\ rlcLhi_ Iltl('01

I i) Tlic r \o ,\!crrr *ill {lllrrv th..orl fl rnNrl ' irr5 b'cs ll1\rc\'r 'nlr th' ''l]lt'J rnr

Di,,intrir nr h.r.l hccs wLllb.lc l.1l

I lhr Urd /\!.tN triLl rLrlr n !l{rxrr. rrl. trc frdisr'r rl _sl & OTFD (lt!t'g rit{ f l Ft'':lR]

t. Fd.i LxD(l.hrl! rrb.r(li/(llir rnr litrrf'\' flli' lhrLr V(ilirlr r|' Dn)irllftrrln\rl

l0 Pr,\i!.r\.lrlLrxttr,\rr. 1c'nrrlh"{ {l'r naigfilcrro:'|fli'rbL'1"rhcIo"rlrullr . !,l.{ r.1lr lirlnrrcr

Ll lnrioNonrsrl.lrrdsrsnrfrLNlc(Lbv(Lr'r'lfrhJil Fn\Ninur & li"{\ rr r\ 'trfur '

" l- r"ll

l) Thc li,ii\ liriL [c drN! lld br L scl

I \r (rxc\rt,Ll qillbc Ldrcd.0 tro rehL. cs 'l^,

rh.r (v \,lL r.c n,ri \iiltrrhrtr olonhoilr

Allcr rc.crpl.l 1l,o

((rurnont P'.!.\xl \ri l

ll Aryothu c.idil r' trhrrlr rhca.tr(nlCl\crmi'nr nx! {lLllxl' lilir rinrri I iroJrxlLhr\o n' h'

l

Any order lor ransld ollbrestland ro usfagcrcyshallnotbc issuc! bvlomal apprcval odei for divctsion ol lorcst llnd n issued by dre ResioDll Oftlce,

(t clnel Consetr rL{ uAFolostslC)0l Lre Il

dre Stlte Covmmem till

solapu' Fore* D 'a,on Disrr cr.Solstrur (MJl Dshtra)

Hlshway Audrority olI ia, Solapur, Dktrict-Solapul(Mlhdrashlra)

Chret Con.e arorof Fo'esrs(C)

otnlg

L Dirccff, RO HQ. Mnrhrr) olEnvnon$mt and Forests. Parydlaran Bhawan,CCO Complcx, Lodi

Road. New Delhi 110003.

2. Thc Addl PrincipalChierconsc.latorofForcsls and Nodal Oficcr. MahaFshtm van Bha*ar",Cnil Lines. Nxepur;140001.

3. The Dy ConsewlLor of FoGt.

4. The Pojecl Dircctor, Nrtional

F. No.2/612015-PPPGovernment of IndiaMinistry of Finance

Department of Economic Affairs(PPP Cell)

New Delhi the, March 4,2015

OFFICE MEMORANDUM

Subject: Record of Discussions of the 70th Meeting of the Public-Private-Partnership-Appraisal-committee (PppAC), held on February 1g, 2015

Please find enclosed the Record of Discussions of the 70th Meeting of thePublic-Private-Partnership-Appraisal-Committee (PPPAC) chaired by Secretary,Economic Affairs & Finance Secretary held on Februarv 18.2015.

Encl: as stated

To,

1. Secretary, Department of Expenditure, North Block, New Delhi.2. Secretary, NITI Aayog, Yojana Bhawan, New Delhi.3. Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport & Highways, Transport Bhavan, New Delhi.4. Secretary, Department of Legal Affairs, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi.5. Secretary, Ministry of Environment & Forest, Indira Paryavaran Bhavan, New Delhi

Copy to:Shri R.K. Singho Joint Secretary (Highways), Ministry of Road Transport & Highways,Transport Bhawan, New Delhi.

Copy also to:1. PSO to Finance Secretary

2. Sr. PPS to AS (EA)3. Sr. PS to JS (Infra.)4. PS to Director (PPP)

F. No. 2161201i-PPP

Government of IndiaMinistry of Finance

Department of Economic Affairs

Public Private Partnership Appraisal Committee

70th Meeting held on February 18,2015

Record Note of Discussion

The 70th meeting of the Public-Private-Partnership-Appraisal-Committee (PPPAC),

chaired by Secretary, Economic Affairs &Finance Secretary, was held on February L8,

2015. The list of participants is attached.

2. The PPPAC considered three proposals in the road sector from Ministry ofRoad Transport & Highways (MoRTH) for grant of final approval. The Ports sector

project from the Ministry of Shipping was deferred as the Ministry has stated that a

revised Memo will be submitted.

Agenda Item I: Proposal from Ministry of Road Transport & Highways for grantof final approval: Six laning of Agra-Etawah section of NH-2 from km L99.560 tokm 323.525 (length 124.520 km) under NHDP - V on Design, Build, Finance,Operate, Transfer (DBFOT) Toll basis

Total length:124.520 km; Total Project Cost Rs. 1650.20 crore; Cost of pre-constructionactivities to be financed by NHAI: Rs. 136.82 crore; Concession Period: 24 yearcincluding 2.5 years of construction period.Land status: Total land required: 685.80 ha; Land available: 519 ha (75.68'h); land to beacquired- 166.80 ha(24.32%); Notified under 3D: 159.54ha(23.26%); Govt. Land: 7.26ha(1.06%;).Status of Clearences: Forest Cleareances: Obtained for Stage-l in May,20l4; MoEF: Obtainedin March, 2013; GAD: Approved.

Maior development works/ structures: 1 Major Bridge (new on Yamuna River); 2 MajorBridges (repair); Crade separator/flyovers (4 new and 2 repair); ROBs (1 new and 6 repair ); 1

Bypass (Firozabad bypass, 20.25 km); 10 Major road junctions; Service roads (47.69 km new,both sides), 55.60 (existing); Slip Roads: 30.282 km;2 Toll plazas (km 224.950 & km 285.200);12 Minor bridges (for repair); 14 Minor bridges (new); 154 Minor road junctions; 4 MinorBridge-service road (new); Vehicular underpass (11 new and 1 repair); 10/6 Pedestrian/Cattleunderpasses;213 Culverts (new and repair);4 Truck laybyes;20 Bus bays and shelters; MetalCrash Barrier: 53.006 km.

3. Director, DEA informed the PPPAC that the project was earlier approved bythe PPPAC at its 46th meeting held on September 1.4,201,1 for a project cost of Rs.7207 crores with concession period of 30 years. The project was awarded to M/sRamky Infrastructure on 30.11.2011 on a premium of Rs. 128.07 crores (first year)and the Concession Agreement was signed on 19.01.2012, however, the project wasterminated in May, 201,4. MoRTH was requested to provide clarifications andreasons for termination and the present status of fulfilment of Conditions Precedentsfor the project.

4. Member, NHAI responded that while the Concessionaire had fulfilled majorityof the Conditions Precedents, NHAI could not fulfil its part of the ConditionsPrecedents, in terms of 80% land availability and Stage-II forest clearance, due to theTajTrapezium Zone (TTZ) issue and accordingly, the project was terminated in May,2074 on mutual consent. The present status of clearances of the project is thatEnvironment clearance and Stage- I forest clearance was obtained in Marctu 2013and TTZ clearance was obtained in Muy, 201,4. The proposal for Stage-II Forestclearance has been submitted in October, 2014. GADs for RoB has been approvedfrom Railways and 509.00 Ha of land is available (about 76 percent of the total landrequirement). 3(C) Notification for the balance land is likely to be completed withina month. The project is expected to be viable with premium of Rs. 114.02 crore toachieve 15% Return on Equity.

5. joint Secretary, DEA indicated that while the project is for six laning theintervening 4-lane Etawah bypass of 73.6 km (from km 309.9 to km 322.6) has notbeen envisaged for six laning and sought reasons for the same. Member, NHAIresponded that Etawah bypass is an isolated stretch which includes 12 structuresconstructed with RE/retaining walls and cannot be widened due to technical reasonsunless the existing RE walls are reconstructed and the embankments refilled. Thiswould lead to high expenditure and therefore it was requested that the project maybe approved with the present configuration. Whereas, this would be a narrowing ofthe road, Member NHAI stated this is unlikely to had to user complaints as the flowwould be smooth, as per design.

6. Director, DEA sought clarification from MoRTH on clause 29.2.3 of DCA,according to which the design capacity of Etawah bypass has been kept as 60,000PCUs with user fee reduced to 40"/" w.e.f. April 1, 203'J., when the capacity isbreached . It was stated that the MoRTH Fee Notification dated 12th lanuary,2011does not indicate reduction of toll on achieving of design capacity and necessaryprovisions may be made in the project documents accordingly.

(Action: MoRTH/ NHAI)

70tt1 PPPAC: February 78th,2015

Record of Discussiott

,,V\ Page 2 of 11

7. Director, DEA indicated that TPC for the project has been increased from Rs.

1207 crorcs (Rs. 9.69 crores per km), approved by the PPPAC in September, 2011 toRs. 1650.20 crores (Rs. 13.25 crores per km) now proposed, the justification forincrease in project cost were sought. Member, NHAI responded that increase inproject cost is due to the updation of the Schedule of Rates (SOR) from 2010-11 to2073-14 and further updation to 2015 by increasing 5% per year as per the NHAIpolicy. Also, two flyovers have been added to the project scope and other projectspecific changes have been made in addition to technical compliance of the revisedManual of Standard & Specifications IRC:SP:87-2013. The cost per km for theproposed project is Rs. 1,3.25 crores which is within the MoRTH's 2014-15 norms ofRs. 13.67 crores per km for 4- lane projects .The proposed cost is hence reasonable.All members of the PPPAC were in agreement to recommend the proposal to thecompetent authority.

8. The PPPAC recommended the proposal , Six laning of Agra-Etawah sectionof NH-2 from km 199.650 to km 323.525 (length 124.520 km) under NHDP - V onDesign Build, Finance, Operate and Transfer (DBFOT) basis, for TpC of Rs.1650.20 crore with VGF as per the Scheme Guidelines, for grant of final approval,subject to fulfilment of the following conditions:

8.1. MoRTH shall issue Request for Proposal (RFP) only after;8.1.1. Completing the land acquisition as per the decision of PPPAC in

its 56th meeting held on December 21,2012 that " atleast 60% ofthe totql land should be aaailable or notification under Section 3(A)should haae been issued for at least 90 percent of the land requiredand notification under Section 3(D) should haae been issued foratleast 60 percent of the land required for the project"

8.1,.2. Obtaining the environment clearances for the project

MoRTH shall incorporate the observations of NITI Aayog and DEAwith respect to the project DCAs as agreed to by MoRTH in theirresponses.

MoRTH shall obtain prior approval of the PPPAC on any change inscope of work or project configuration as noted above.MoRTH shall circulate the revised documents to the members of thePPPAC for record.

(Action: MoRTH|NI{A/)

8.2.

70th PPPAC: February 18th,2015

Record of Discussion

8.3.

8.4.

(b

Pase 3 of 11

Agenda Item II: Proposal from Ministry of Road Transport & Highways for grantof final approval: Eight laning of Mukarba Chowk (Km L5.500) to Panipat (Km86.000) of NH - 1 (New NH-44) in the state of Delhi & Haryana on Desig+ Build,Finance, Operate, Transfer (DBFOT) Toll basis

Total length: 69.849 km plus 1.54 km EPC stretch =71.389 km; Total Project Cosfi Rs.2128.72 crore; Cost of pre-construction activities to be financed by NHAI: Rs. 75.79 crore;Concession Period: 17 yearc including 2.5 years of construction period.Land status: Total land required: 464.40 ha; Land available: 464.40 ha (100%); land to beacquired- Nil. However, land aquisition of 6ha is in process for toll plaza;Status of Clearences: Environment Clearance: Not required; Forest Cleareances: underprocess; GAD: Not required; Wild life Cleareance: Not required

Maior development works/ structures: Major Bridge: Nil; Grade separator/flyovers 10( new );ROBs; Nil; Bypass: Nil ; Major road junctions: 15; Service roads: 141,.826 km (new, both sides);Slip Roads: 31.92 km (new, both sides); Toll plazas: 1 at km 51.400; Minor bridges : 33 (15-new, 12 for re-constructiory 1 for widening and 5for repair); Minor road junctions: 23;Vehicular underpass: 5 (new); Pedestrian/Cattle underpasses: 8; Culverts: 75 + 25 onJunctions; Truck laybyes: Nil; Bus bays and shelters: 78; FoB: 1.

9. Joint Secretary, DEA informed the PPPAC that response to DEA's and NITIAayog's Appraisal Notes has been received. A few issues remain outstanding forwhich clarifications are required. The existing road from km 15.500 (MukarbaChowk) to km 29.300 (Delhi lHaryana Border) on the Dethi side is already 8-laned,constructed on EPC basis by NHAI in 2009-10 and a 6-laned highway from km29.300 to km 86.000 on the Haryana side. MoRTH may justify the mandate for 8

laning and the phase under which the project is to be undertaken.

10. Member, NHAI responded that proposed highway is a part of Sher Shah SuriMarg (now NH-1) connecting the States of J&K Punjab, HP, Haryana, Chandigarhand Western UP with Delhi . This road is also important from a strategic/defencepoint of view as it leads to the borders of the country. The present traffic is between79,000 PCU to 1,10,426 PCU with both slow moving and fast moving traffic plyingon the same carriageway and endangering the safety of road users. In order to copewith heavy growth of traffic, the highway is proposed to be 8-laned with 2-laneservice roads on each side. On completion of the project highway, the slow movingvehicles will ply only on the service road enhancing the safety of the road users.

ll. Member, NHAI also informed the PPPAC that the proposed project is not a

part of the NHDP, but has been proposed due to heavy traffic. Joint Secretary, DEAstated that in such cases, it may be clarified whether the project is eligible for VGF

70th PPPAC' February 18th,2015

Record of Discussion

(bPaee 4 of 1l

from the Cess fund. Joint Secretary, MoRTH responded that project is viable withpremium of Rs. 90.65 crore and being bid out on premium. On the deposit of thepremium received from the project, MoRTH agreed that this would be deposited inthe Consolidated Fund of India.

(Action: MoRTH/ NHAI)

12. Director, DEA stated that MoRTH has indicated the design capacity for the 8lane highway as 2,10,000 PCUs as against 1,20,A00 capacity being used for 6 laneprojects. Member, NHAI responded that design capacity of the 8 lane highway isconsidered as 1,80,000 PCUs, in addition, capacity of 30,000 PCUs has been addedfor 2 lane service lanes on either side of the road . The capacity of 2,10,000 PCUs istherefore justified for 8 lane highway with2lane service road all along the highway.To a question about whether capacity of service roads can be added, CGM, NHAIresponded that the service roads merged at Toll PIaza, and accordingly the trafficplying on service road is tollable and hence adding this capacity of service roads isjustified.

(Action: MoRTH(NI{Af)

13. Director, DEA requested NHAI to clarify on the status of the 1.54 km stretchbeing constructed by NHAI and proposed to be included as part of the project forcollection of toll. Member, NHAI responded that the stretch of 'J..54 km includesconstruction of a flyover at Bahalgarh and an additional bridge at Rasoi, theestimated completion date of these works is 12.11.201"6. joint Secretary, DEA askedthat in the DCA, the date of handover of sites to the Concessionaire should be clearlyindicated in the DCA, alongwith the consequences of delay and whether extra toll isapplicable for structures. This was agreed to.

(Action: MoRTH|NHAI)

T4. Advisor, Niti Aayog stated that the TPC for the project is higtu at Rs. 2128.72crore/ i.e. Rs. 30.48 crore per km as against Rs. 14.40 crore estimated by MORTH foradding two lanes (augmentation from 4-lane to 6-lane). Further, TPC has beencaiculated by adding 29.41% to the civil cost of Rs. 1644.80 crore as against 25o/o ofcivil cost allowed as per MCA to meet other cost like IDC, escalation, etc.

1,5. Member, NHAI responded that there are 35 median openings on the existinghighway which are a major cause for accidents which have been proposed to beclosed and grade separated structures provided at these locations for safe andsmooth movement of traffic. The cost of providing these strucfures along with theprovision of RE wall, side drains and culverts itself comes to Rs. 684 crores, which isRs. 9.51 crores/km. Further, for the entire project length, new 2-lane service road hasbeen proposed on both sides along-with widening of existing 6-1ane highway to 8-lane,i.e., in all 6 new lanes are proposed to be added to the existing 6-lane highway.

70tt' PPPAC: February 18th,2015Record of Discussion

+Pase 5 of 11

The cost is high due to bridges and structures, including ten flyove$ costing Rs.

1,95.04 crore, service roads on both sides costing Rs. 262.85 crore, RE wall inapproaches to grade separators costing Rs. 200.33 crore, RCC Drains costing Rs.266.67 crore. The cost of the project has been examined in detail by the Standing CostCommittee headed by SS&FA and approved in its meeting held on 23.12.2014.Advisor, Niti Aayog suggested that NHAI may review the TPC adding maximum of25% of civil cost as against 29.47"/o to the civil cost in line with the other PPP project.MoRTH/NHAI was also requested to provide a copy of the Minutes of the StandingCost Committee for record. This was agreed to.


16. Advisor, Niti Aayog further stated that ROW available is from 60 to 75 m as

against 90 m required for six laning and no provision has been made for additionalland acquisition to provide 90 m ROW. Member, NHAI responded that noadditional land acquisition is proposed except 6(six) ha for To11 Plaza as the entirestretch includes built up area on both sides and no further land acquisition ispossible, the proposed eight laning and service road would be accommodatedwithin the existing RoW.

17. Advisor, Niti Aayog indicated that DCA of the project has been preparedbased on the MCA of a four laning project. He sought clarification on why the MCAfor six laning was not taken as the base document for an eight laning. Joint Secretary,MoRTH responded that MCA for four laning has been adopted as this is considereda better document than that for 6laning.. The MCA for six laning allows tollingduring the construction period which has led to delays in completion of the projectsgiven on six laning and user dissatisfaction. The Concessionaire is not incentivizedto complete construction work on time. This was agreed to.

(Action: MoRTH/NI{AI)

18. Advisor, Niti Aayog indicated that Concessionaire is mandated to adoptManual of Specifications and Standards for six laning of Highway through PPP (IRC:SP:87-2073) with certain modifications as manual for eight laning is not available. Itwas suggested that MoRTH may review the modifications along with width of thehighway and other technical parameter to remove anomalies and future disputes.This was agreed to'

(Aetion: MoRTH:NHAr)

19. The PPPAC recommended the proposal for Eight laning of Mukarba Chowk(Km 15.500) to Panipat (Km 36.000) of NH - 1 (New NH-44) in the state of Delhi &Haryana on Design Build, Finance, Operate and Transfer (DBFOT) basis, for TpCof Rs. 2128.72 crore with VGF as per the Scheme Guidelines, for grant of finalapproval, subject to fulfilment of the following conditions:


Record of Discussion Pase 6 of 1l

79.L.

79.2.

79.3.

L9.4.

MoRTH shall issue Request for Proposal (RFP) only after;19.7.7. Completing the land acquisition as per the decision of PPPAC in

its 56th meeting held on December 21., 2012 that " atleast 60% ofthe total land should be auqilnble or notification under Section 3(A)should haae been issued for at least 90 percent of the land requiredand notification under Section 3(D) should haae been issued foratleast 60 percent of the lnnd required for the project"

19.7.2. Obtaining the environment clearances for the project

MoRTH shall incorporate the observations of NITI Aayog and DEAwith respect to the project DCAs as agreed to by MoRTH in theirresponses.

MoRTH shall obtain prior approval of the PPPAC on any change inscope of work or project configuration as noted above.MoRTH shall circulate the revised documents to the members of thePPPAC for record

@ction: MoRTH: NHAI)

Agenda Item III: Proposal from Ministry of Road Transport & Highways(MoRTH) for grant of final approval: 4 Laning of Solapur- Bijapur Section of NH13 (New NH 52) from Km 0.000 to Km 110.542 in the states of Maharashtra andKarnataka under Design, Build, Finance, Operate and Transfer (DBFOT) Tollbasis.

Total length: 109.075 Km; Total Project Cost Rs. 1377.54 Crores; Cost of pre-constructionactivities to be financed by NHAI: Rs 160.10 crore; Concession Period: 22 yearc including2.5 years of construction period.

Major development works/ structures: Major Bridges: 3; Minor bridges: 34; Grade separatedflyovers: 6; ROBs: 2; Vehicular underpasses: 11; Pedestrian/Cattle Underpass: 12104; Majorroad junctions: 18; Service roads: 46.234 km; No. of By-passes and length: 2 I 22.063 Km;Minor road junctions: 33; Toll plazas: 2 (At Km 32.100, and at Km 85.950); Truck laybays:2;Bus laybays/Shelters: 24

20. JS, MoRTH explained the salient features of the Project Highway. It wasinformed that the Authority is in possession of about 85% of RoW required for theProject Highway i.e. Land available with the authority is 359.61 Ha. (54%) andNotification under Section 3D has been issued for 207.80 H,a. (37"/"). In additionForest clearances and approval from Railway Authority for the proposed RoB andState Support Agreement have been obtained.

2'1'. Director, DEA stated that the Project Highway was earlier approved in 49th

meeting of the PPPAC held on January 23,2012. The reason for rebidding is not clear

70th PPPAC' February L8th,2015Record of Discussion Page 7 of 1l

neither does the PPPAC Memo mention this. It was pointed out that the PPPACMemo did not mention that this was an earlier bid out project. It was requested thatin all such cases previously considered by the PPPAC or bid out earlier, the prirjectAuthority should provide the case history and clearly state the reason forresubmission of the MFC Memo for consideration under PPPAC i.e. the detailsrelated to award of concession (grant vs. premium), reasons behind cancellation ofconcession and re-bidding etc. This was agreed to.


22. jS, MoRTH explained that the earlier proposal was submitted with anestimated grant of 7.83% of TPC of Rs. 1002.48 crore and the project was awarded tothe Concessionaire with a premium of Rs.75.60 Crore i.e. 7.54% of TPC. TheConcession was, however, terminated due to non-fulfilment of Conditions Precedentby the Authority mainly due to Solapur Bypass alignment passing through GreatIndian Bustard Sanctuary (GIB) i.e. the Authority could not procure all ApplicablePermits relating to environmental protection and conservation of the Site.

23. CGM, NHAI stated that as per the direction of Government of Maharashtra,the Authority has realigned the Bypass by avoiding the core area of GIB Sanctuary inDecember 2012. The issue of Wild Life Clearance was discussed in 31"t Meeting ofthe Standing Committee of National Board for Wildlife (NBWL) held on August L2

& 13, 201.4 and accordingly the Committee has granted clearance for the ProjectHighway.

24. Member, Niti Aayog pointed out that the TPC of the Project Highway hasincreased from Rs. 1002.48 crore to Rs. 1337.54 crore, an increase of Rs. 375.06 crore(increase of 37.1'4%) in the last 3 years at an annual rate of about 12% which is high.Reasons for such a large increase of the TPC have not been given.JS (MoRTH)explained that the original cost estimate was based on SOR 2010-11, while thepresent cost estimates are based on SOR 201,3-'1,4. Similarly, a number of additionalfeatures i.e. 4 Cattle Underpass, one Vehicular Underpass, one flyover, increasedspans of ROB etc. have been added to the revised proposal.

25. The PPPAC recommended grant of final approval to the proposal tor 4Laning of Solapur- Bijapur Section of NH 1"3 (New NH 52) from Km 0.000 to Km1\0.542 in the states of Maharashtra and Karnataka under Design, Buil4 Finance,Operate and Transfer (DBFOT) Toll basis, for TPC of Rs. \377.54 Crores with VGFas Per the Scheme Guidelines, subject to fulfilment of the following conditions:

25.1. MoRTH shall issue Request for Proposal (RFP) only after;25.I.1. Completing the land acquisition as per the decision of PPPAC in

its 56th meeting held on December 2'J,, 2012 that "atleast 60percent of the total land should be aaailable or notification underSection 3(A) should haae been issued for nt least g0 percent of the

70tt, PPPAC' February 18th,2015Record of Discussion Pase 8 of 11

land required and notification under Section 3(D) should haae been

issued for atleast 60 percent of the lnnd required for the project"25.1".2. Obtaining the environment clearances for the project.

25.2. MoRTH shall incorporate the observations of Planning Commissionand DEA with respect to the project DCAs as agreed to by MoRTH intheir responses.

25.3. MoRTH shall obtain prior approval of the PPPAC on any change inscope of work or project configuration as noted above.

25.4. MoRTH shall circulate the revised documents to the members of thePPPAC for record.

(Action: MoRTH)


Record of Discussion Page 9 ofll

Annex

Ministry of Finance

Department of Economic Affairs

Public Private Partnership Appraisal Committee

70th Meeting on February 18,2015

List of Participants

I. Department of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Finance

i. Dr. Rajiv Mehrishi, Secretary, Economic Affairs &Finance Secretary (In

Chair)

ii. Shri Dinesh Sharma, Additional Secretary

iii. Ms. Sharmila Chavaly, ]oint Secretary, Infraiv. Ms. Abhilasha Mahapatra, Director (PPP)

v. Shri V. Srikanth, Deputy Director (PPP)

il. Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance

vi. Smt. Saheli Ghosh Roy, Director (PF-II)

III. NITI AAYOGvii. Shri Praveen Mehto, Adviser

viii. Shri K. Ranga Reddy, Consultant

IV. Ministry of Road Transport & Highways (MoRTH)

i. Shri Vijay Chhibber, Secretary

ii. Shri Rohit K. Singh, Joint Secretary

iii. Shri Rakesh Kumar, SE

iv. Shri Pawan Kumar, SE (PPP)

v. Shri Akhtarul Hanif. DS & DFA

V. Department of Legal Affairsvi. Shri T.K. Malik, Dy. Legal Advisor

70th PPPAC: February 18th,2015Record of Discussion

tu

Page 10 ofll

ea

1-i VI. Ministry of Environment and Forest

vii. Shri T.C. Nautiyaf Sr. AIG (FC)

Vll.National Hiehwav Authoritv of Indiaviii. Shri Sudhir Kumar, Member (PPP)

ix. Shri Satish Chandra, Member (Fin)x. Shri M.P.Sharma, Member (Tech)

xi. Shri B.S.Sing!a, CGMxii. Shri A.K. Singh, CGMxiii. Shri Mahabir Singtu CGM (Tech.)

xiv. Shri Ashish Asati, GM (T)

xv. Shri V.K.]oshi, DGM (Tech.)

70th PPPAC' February 18th,2015Record of Discussion Page 11 of11

1.environmentclearance.nic.in/writereaddata/online/... · 1 minutes the minutes of the 126th...

Documents