E-160VOL. 4

The Andhra Pradesh State Highway Rehabilitation andMaintenance Project

THE NANDYAL-GIDDALUR-THOKAPALLI ROAD:TECHNICAL REPORT

- . t~~~~~~~-

.~ ~ ;; ,. [ * . *

_ 'S ~~~ '- .~ ;'t \

Prepared for

The World Bank & Andhra Pradesh Roads and Buildings Department

By

Asha Rajvanshi, Vinod Mathur and Sujit K. MukherjeeWildlife Institute of India

Dehra Dun, India

&Geza C. Teleki

Canadian Environmental Collaborative Ltd.Toronto, Canada

Ss gflg q^q z wq t Wildlife Institute of India

August, 1998

f$L g k..

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

I

The Andhra Pradesh State Highway Rehabilitation andMaintenance Project

THE NANDYAL-GIDDALUR-THOKAPALLI ROAD:TECHNICAL REPORT

Prepared for

The World Bank & Andhra Pradesh Roads and Buildings Department

By

Asha Rajvanshi, Vinod Mathur and Sujit K. MukherjeeWildlife Institute of India

Dehra Dun, India

&Geza C. Teleki

Canadian Environmental Collaborative Ltd.Toronto, Canada

WildIlife Institute of India

August, 1998

I I

Acknowledgements

We express our gratitude to the following individuals and agencies for their co-operation and

support during the fieldwork and valuable suggestions, helpful comments, technical inputs and

assistance in the preparation of this report.

Ministry of Environment & Forests, Govt. of India (MOEF)

Dr. R. Anandkumar, Director, IA Division and Dr. S.K. Aggarwal, Additional Director,

(Infrastructure)

Andhtra Pradeshi Roads & Buildings Department (APRBD)

Mr. Murahari Reddy, Engineer-in-Chief; Mr. Ramahia, Executive Engineer; Mr. G. Ram Reddy,

Deputy Executive Engineer and Mr. Mahendra Reddy, Environmental Officer

Andhra Pradesh Forest Department (APFD)

Mr. S.D. Mukherjee, Principal Chief Conservator of Forest; Mr. T. Ramakrishna, Chief Conservator

of Forests; Md Sultan Moiuddin, Chief Conservator of Forests; Mr. Sunil Kumar, Conservator of

Forests, Telgu Ganga Project; Mr. Vinay Kumar, D.F.O. Nandyal Division; Mr. Vara Prasad, ACF;

Mr. Waheed, Asstt. Field Director, Rajiv Gandhi Tiger Reserve, Achampet; Mr. B.M. Chanikya Raju,

Forest Range Officer; Mr. R.C.P. Kumar, F.S.O. Train Party; Mr. S. Madar Saheb; Mr. Dhana Raj,

Forest Guard, Train Party; Mr. P. Ahmad Khan and Mr. K Anandam, Forest Guard

Kirloskar Consultants LidMr. V.C.N. Mukund, Consultant

Wildlife Insttute of IndiaMr. Panna Lal, Mr. Jayanta Kalitha, Mr. Sunit Naithani, Mr. Prakash Kr. Dash, Mr. Antesh, Mr.

Narinder Singh Bist, Mr. Mukesh Arora, and Mr. Mohan Singh.

We are grateful to Mr. Chris Hoban and Mr. Anil Somani of The World Bank for providing us the

opportunity and the financial support to undertake this study.

(Asha Rajvanshi) (Vinod B. Mathur) (Sujit K. ee) (Geza C. Teleki)

ii

I

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 BACKGROUND AND WORK PROGRAMME .................................... 1

1.1 BACKGROUND .................. 1................................................. 11.2 WORK PROGRAMME ...... 2................ ...... 2

2 NANDYAL-GIDDALUR-THOKAPALLI ROAD PROJECT .2

2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH THE NGT ROAD .............................. 42.2 RESETTLEMENT ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH THE NGT ROAD ................................................... 42.3 THE TECHNO-ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY STUDY ............................................... . 4

3 FIELD OBSERVATIONS. 4

3.1 LOCATION OF NGT ROAD IN RELATION TO RESERVED FORESTS AND SANCTUARIES... 43.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS OF NGT ROAD IMPROVEMENTS . . 7

3.2.1 Conservation values. 73.2.2 Habitat. 73.2.3 Hydrology. 73.2.4 Road-Kills, Obstruction of Movement and Poaching. 7

4 MMIGATIVE MEASURES. 9

4.1 TRAFFIC...................................................................9............................. 94.2 ROAD KILLS ............................................. 9...................... 94.3 ILLEGAL EXPLOITATION OF RESOURCES ............................ 9........... ................. .94.4 ANIMAL MIGRATION ................................................................................. ......... ..... 94.5 CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES ................................. 1.. ..................................................... 10

5 ACTIONS PROPOSED TO ADDRESS ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS RAISED BYTHE MOEF ON THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE HIGHWAY PROJECT .................... 10

6 CONSULTATION AND CONCLUSIONS ................................................................ 19

6.1 WRAP-UP MEETING SUMMARY ............................................. 1...9.............. ..... 196.2 CONCLUSIONS ...................................................... 2....................... 20

7 REFERENCES ..................... 23

PLATESANNEXURE I COPIES OF ORIGINAL LETTERS FROM MOEFANNEXURE 11 WORK PROGRAMME OF WII-CEC CONSULTANTSANNEXURE m LIST OF PEOPLE MET DURING THE WII-CEC TRIP TO THE NGT

PROJECT SITE

iii

I I

LIST OF FIGURES, PLATES AN]) TABLES

Figure 1. Network of roads proposed under Andhra Pradesh Highway Project.Figure 2. Nandyal-Giddalur-Thokapalli (NGT) Road Section through the Forest Stretch.

Plate 1. Reconnaissance survey along the project road and the reserved forestsPlate 2. Road alignment through the forest stretchPlate 3. Indirect and direct evidence of wild animals in the reserved forestsPlate 4. New rail track through the Chelama Reserved Forest and its associated ecological impactsPlate 5. Existing structures permitting crossing by wildlife along the NGT road and the new rail

line

Table 1. Summary of actions implemented and to be completed in response to MOEF's conditions

iv

I I- II

1 BACKGROUND AND WORK PROGRAMME

1.1 BackgroundThe Government of India, with the assistance of the World Bank, has embarked on a majorprogranmme to improve the country's transport infrastructure. Under this programme, theGovernment of Andhra Pradesh sought loan assistance from the World Bank for improving thestate's roads. In early 1994, the Andhra Pradesh Roads and Buildings Department (APRBD),on behalf of the Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, engaged consultants to undertake a feasibility studyof 3178km of roads to identify a priority 1400km that would be improved' under the AndhraPradesh State Highway Rehabilitation and Maintenance Project (referred to as the Project). Thefeasibility study was completed in 1997, identifying about 1400km of roads for upgrading.

In accordance with the Government of India's requirements (EIA Notification, May 1994), theEnvironmental Assessment (entitled Environmental Analysis in the SMEC report) for theseidentified road sections was prepared, on behalf of the APRBD, by Snowy MountainEngineering Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Australia (SMEC) and Consulting Engineering Service Pvt.Ltd., India (CES). Both the Environmental Assessment Report and draft of the engineeringfeasibility study were submitted in November 1996 to the Ministry of Enviromnent and Forests(MOEF) to seek environmental clearance. These documents were examined by the Ministry ofEnvironment and Forest's (MOEF) Expert Committee in December 1996.

In March 1997, the MOEF granted environmental clearance (letter no. J-21012/12/96-IA-IHdated March 5, 1997 see Annexure I) to the project overall but imposed a set of strictconditions. Generally, the conditions in the March 1997 letter addressed the entire 1400 kmn ofroad under study in the SMEC-CES reports, but focused on the ecological and socio-economicimpacts of the proposed widening of the project roads which pass through protected areas andreserved forests. One of the key conditions stipulated by the expert committee was to add theNandyal-Giddalur-Thokapalli road and drop the Atmakur to Thokapalli section which fronts theRajiv Gandhi Tiger Reserve to the north and the Gundla Brahmeswaram (GBM) Sanctuary tothe south. This road was dropped from consideration.

An expert sub-committee constituted by the MOEF visited the project sites flagged in theMOEF's letter (No. J-21012/12/96-IA-II dated March 5' 1997) from June 10 - 14 1997. Basedon the observations and recommendations made by the sub-committee during the site visit,additional conditions (Annexure I) were placed on the project (vide MOEF letter no. J-21012/12/96-AmI) on Sept. 18, 1997. This second set of conditions was much more detailedand wide-ranging, and included requirements for the completion of a techno-feasibility studyincluding an environmental analysis of the Nandyal-Giddalur-Thokapalli road section. Theexisting mapping showed this road as passing along the southern boundary of the GBMSanctuary as well as the Pacherla Reserved Forest to the south. As a result, the sub-committeereemphasized the analysis of impacts on wildlife. The environmental analysis, as specified bythe sub-committee, was undertaken by Kirloskar Consultants Ltd. and specifically addressed theNandyal-Giddalur-Thokapalli road section. This study resulted in the Techno-EconomicFeasibility Report (Kirloskar, 1997), which was submitted by the consultants to the APRBD inDecember 1997. The report has been retained by the APRBD for developing the EnvironmentalManagement Plan that is to be submitted to the MOEF in support of the environmentaldocumentation already on file and as a requirement for project appraisal by the World Bank,prior to committing loan assistance.

In late March 1998, representatives of The World Bank and Canadian EnvironmentalCollaborative Ltd. (CEC) asked the Wildlife Institute of India (WIT) to examine theenvironmental and wildlife issues related to this project and to assist the APRBD in resolvingthe concerns raised by the MOEF (Annexure I). WIT was contracted by CEC Ltd., to lead a joint

'Improved meant widening, strengthening and minor realignments of existing road sections

I

effort to advise and assist the APRBD in addressing the project-wide generic issues andconcerns raised by the MOEF, focussing primarily on the Nandyal-Giddalur-Thokapalli road.

1.2 Work ProgrammeThe work consisted of the planning and execution of the field trip and preparation of theguideline document for the APRBD, which would help them to fully comply with allenvironmental and social requirements of the project. The field trip, undertaken jointly by WIIand CEC, included meetings with the MOEF (Delhi), an intensive site visit, and preparation ofthis documentation. A detailed itinerary of the field visit is presented in Annexure II. Followingthe field trip, intensive analysis and writing was completed, making certain that all conditionsset by the MOEF had been dealt with and that the APRBD was being provided with a clear'road map' for implementation of all mitigative measures.

2 NANDYAL-GIDDALUR-THOKAPALLI ROAD PROJECT

The Nandyal-Giddalur-Thokapalli Project Road is 132 Ikn long and runs between StateHighways 53 and 54, linking the towns of Nandyal, Giddalur, Markapur and Thokapalli (Figure1). A 108km-long section of this road is proposed to be widened from an existing 5m to a 7mcarriageway width, with a further 1.25m soft shoulder on each side. The remaining 24krnstretch (chainage 151/0 to 175/0), which falls within the reserved forests, will only bestrengthened within the existing 5.5 to 6.5m-wide pavement, for its entire length. Thestrengthening of the existing pavement involves the placement of an overlay consisting of 5cm-thick bituminous macadam and a 4 cm-thick asphaltic concrete. All activities related to thestrengthening of the road section running through the forest lands will remain confined to withinthe existing roadway width ranging from 8 to 10m. All preparatory work, such as asphaltmixing and aggregate extraction, will be done outside the 24km forested section. The NGTroad was built during the British colonial period and has been in use ever since, thus has been awell established geographic feature of the reserved forest areas for the past half century ormore.

No land would be acquired in the forested section of this road, while in the non-forest section,2.4ha of additional land, in areas that are currently in agricultural production, will be needed.As per the details provided by the project authorities, there are 3 major and 16 minor bridgesalong the project road, all of which are in good condition. A few minor bridges in the hilly(Ghat) section are old brick arch bridges and need to be replaced by reinforced concrete slabbridges. There are 14 cut stone slab culverts, of which a few need to be replaced. Onecauseway with reinforced concrete slab needs to be reconstructed as a minor bridge or culvert.

2

Figure 1 - Network of Roads Covered Under Andhra Pradesh Highway Project

Atmakur ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Thokapalli

0 1 A)/ 15

an ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~km mm

fiii /Project road (NGT)

u apa iguvameffa wanwmm ~~~~~~~~Excluded from project

Forested alignment (see Figure 2)

Wildlife Institute of India Giddalur RailroadGIS Cell, 1998

2.1 Environmental Issues Associated with the NGT RoadRoad projects have been recognized as major threats to conservation of wildlife habitats andspecies. The greatest impacts are loss of habitat and direct physical danger to wildlife, whichare the result of:

* Conversion of wildlife habitat for use in road rights-of-way;* Fragmentation and degradation of contiguous wildlife habitat;* Interruption of wildlife movements and migration due to careless RoW placement;* Collisions with vehicles; and* Improved access for poachers.

This road project was therefore closely scrutinized by the MOEF for its likely impact on thenatural environment. The MOEF's conditions (see Annexure I) included the exclusion of threeroads from further consideration due to their location in highly sensitive forest areas, andinclusion of the NGT road as a replacement. Subsequent directives (see Annexure I) requiredthe completion of a techno-economic feasibility study and environmental analysis of the NGTroad, including a focus on wildlife issues.

2.2 Resettlement Issues Associated with the NGT RoadBecause the proposed road improvements along the NGT road involve only minimal changes inalignment, the need for resettlement of people living along the road has been kept to amninimum. It should be noted, however, that the MOEF calls for the completion of arehabilitation plan for the people relocated as a result of the project in its letter dated March 5I,1997 (Annexure 1). Social and resettlement issues arising from this project were not examinedin detail during this study. The resettlement needs of this project are covered in a separateResettlement Action Plan.

2.3 The Techno-Economic Feasibility StudyThe Techno-Economic Feasibility (TEF) Study, completed by Kirloskar Consultants Ltd.(1997), was prepared as the key response of the APRBD to the MOEF's conditions. Section 6of the TEF Report, the Initial Environmental Examination (IEE), was examined in terms of howwell it covered the issues raised by the MOEF and the provision of an adequate level of detailon technical points. This report provides supplementary information on the relative locations ofthe project road and sensitive habitats, sources of impacts, and appropriate mitigative measures.

3 FIELD OBSERVATIONS

The following points represent major observations that help in clarifying the issues raised by themembers of the Expert Committee of the MOEF and suggest the necessary steps needed tosatisfy the conditions placed on the Nandyal-Giddalur-Thokapalli section of the project.

3.1 Location of NGT Road in Relation to Reserved Forests and SanctuariesThe project road meets National Highway 18 at point 192/5192 of the Ongole-Nandyal road(283/000 of NH 18) at its westerly end near Nandyal, and intersects State Highway 50 at itseasterly terminus at Thokapalli (148/000 of State Highway No. 50). See Figure 1. About 24 kmof the Project road (Iam 151/000 to 175/000) falls in reserved forest areas, of which km 155/000to 164/200 is in the Ghat section (Plate 2).

For the 24 km that the NGT road passes through the reserved forests, it does not traversethrough any protected area (i.e. national park or sanctuary). The road does not traverse through

192/519 refers to Km 192 of the total distance of 519 kan.

4

any part of the GBM Sanctuary, although it does skirt its southern boundary for approximately1.5 km near Compartments no. 532 and 487 of the Chelama Range (see Figure 2). The NGTroad also skirts the boundary of reserved forests just outside the boundary of the GBMSanctuary in Compartment no. 681 of Uyyalavada Reserved Forest. The alignment of the NGTroad (Figure 2) does not intersect or pass by any designated wildlife reserves-.

The NGT road corridor outside the 24 km stretch has no significant wildlife habitat. Theunforested sections of the road pass through barren land, agricultural fields and built-up land,which makes up the predominant land use. The 2.4 ha of land required for new alignments fallswithin this unforested area. Major settlements along the project road include the townships ofGiddalur, Pacherla, Gajulapalle, Bestavari Peta and Kambham.

5

Figure 2 - Alignment of Nandyal-Giddalur-Thokapalli (NGT) Road Section through the Forest Stretch

| ~~~~4I

To Nandyal

To Thokapalli

;*'~~ ~ Diguvametta 0lillllllG~iddaluro I \ _ dd~~~ujlaa Nandyal-Giddalur-Thokapalli Road

Gundla Brahmeswaram (GBM) Sanctuary!< =rtNandyal Reserved Forest (Extension)

cWildlife Institute of P n ti

3.2 Environmental Implications of NGT Road Improvements

3.2.1 Conservation valuesThe dry deciduous mixed forests of Tectona grandis, Pterocarpus marsupium, Terninaliatomentosa, Albizzia spp., Anogeissus latifolia, Dalbergia sissoo, Boswellia serrata, andbamboo, which describe most of the reserved forest areas along the NGT road, are home to alarge number of endangered species listed in Schedule I of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.These include tiger, panther, hyena, jungle cat, sloth bear, mouse deer, pangolin, giant squirrel,python and marsh crocodile. These forests also support good populations of bonnet macaque,sambar, chital, nilgai, chowsingha, chinkara, and monitor lizard. Wild dogs are also reported tooccur in these forests. During the field visit to the GBM Sanctuary and the adjacent reservedforests, the presence of chital, monitor lizard and giant squirrels could be confirmed by directsightings. As per the records of the census conducted by the Forest Department, 17 tigers and 7leopards were reported in the Nandyal Forest Division (which includes the entire study area) in1997. Indirect evidence of sambar, nilgai and hyena could also be observed during thereconnaissance survey of the area (Plate 3).

The existing NGT road, established more than 50 years ago, is not a barrier to movement ofanimals. The contiguity of the habitat on both sides of the road has been largely maintained, asis evident from observations and reported movements of animals in the larger conservation area,which includes the GBM Sanctuary and Rajiv Gandhi Tiger Reserve to the north of the road, aswell as the reserved forests of the Pacherla Beat of the Chelama Range to the south. During thefield visit chital were observed freely crossing the road and evidence of sambar was found onboth sides of the road. BOX 1. Construction of a New Rail Line within the Sanctuary

3.2.2 Habitat The old narrow gauge railway line alignment abutting the southemwihl n11lot result in boundary of the GBM Sanctuary was converted to a broad gauge railway

The project wl T S line in 1996. This line connects Vijayawada to Guntakal, and the railany modification or spatial alignment runs almost parallel to the road. The construction of this broadloss of wildlife habitats on gauge railway line assumes greater significance than the strengthening ofeither side of the existing the existing NGT road in terms of its visible impact upon the conservationroad alignment, since there values of the GBM Sanctuary and the adjoining reserve forests. The

ecological degradation resulting from this gauge conversion, both duringis no need to acquire any and after construction, is still evident in the form of large clear-felled areas,land in the reserved forests. unreclaimed and unsafe burrow pits and deposits, eroding and unprotectedNo change in the habitat hill slopes, deposits of impervious overburden all along the slopes of theintegrity by way of creation track (Plate 4), and barriers to animal movement imposed by very fewof openings or clearings underpasses connected by long stretches of above-grade track beds. In

relation to the rail project, the proposed road improvement activities,should occur so long as road limited to within the existing RoW, are barely measurable. Fortunately, theconstruction is carried out as relatively minor nature of activities proposed for the NGT road project, indescribed in the IEE and addition to the fact that it has been subjected to environmental review andFeasibility Study (Kirloskar rmitigative measures have been proposed, means that it will not have such1997). Tiger and leopard devastating effects as the new rail line has had.

habitat will not be affected.Since no widening is being proposed in the 24 km section through the forest, no trees will becut. Clearing will be restricted to the removal of shrubs etc. from the road edges and thetrimming of branches of trees overhanging the carriageway.

3.2.3 HydrologyThe road improvement activities will not alter the local hydrology and flooding regime, since nonew catchments will be intercepted.

3.2.4 Road-Kills, Obstruction of Movement and PoachingOne of the direct impacts of road improvement is likely to emanate from the increase in trafficon the NGT road. The traffic projections for the NGT road indicate a substantial increase in thePassenger Car Units (PCU) from 2065 per day in 1997 to 4884 in 2010, just in the Giddalur-

7

Nandyal section (Kirloskar, 1997). This traffic volume increase is not related to the roadimprovement, but rather to the overall growth in vehicle numbers in Andhra Pradesh. Increasesin volume could lead to (I) increased incidences of animals being hit and killed by vehicles; (2)obstruction in the movement of wild animals; and (3) increased probability of poaching andillegal exploitation of resources by road users.

1. Road killsThe mortality of animals resulting from animal-vehicle collisions has been welldocumented (Bennett, 1990; Adam and Geis, 1983; Robinson, 1976) and has been ofconcern to conservation biologists throughout the world. The efforts to collectinformation on road kills or poaching incidences on the NGT road met with practicallyno success. The only information is the anecdotal recollections of the local people whoestimated the numbers of road kills to be about five per year. These observations arebased on kills of large animals as the smaller mammals, birds and reptiles killed wouldhave remained unobserved and must have been overlooked in these estimations. Noneof these recollections involved tigers. Roads passing through protected areas tendgenerally to experience higher incidences of animal mortality, since these areasnaturally have a higher density of animals that frequently use the roads for movementinto adjacent habitats. Roads like the one in question are expected to be sparingly usedby animals, since a) the roadside areas are not part of protected areas3, and b) theroadside forest tracts are heavily exploited, with human presence evident well over 1kni from the road edge. Such heavily modified habitat generally does not attract wildanimals, but merely provides a corridor between preferred habitats. Other factors likelyto deter animals from using the road are noise, movements, emissions and flashinglights.

A somewhat analogous situation can be found along a section of state highway betweenMohund and Dehradun in the State of Uttar Pradesh that separates the Rajaji NationalPark from the adjoining patch of forest of the Mohund Block. Animals abound in thePark. The incidences of road kills on this section are surprisingly low considering thevolume of traffic this road receives (many times greater than along the NGT road). Thelow incidence of road kill is likely attributable to the Mohund Block being a heavilyexploited area and thus not attractive as wildlife habitat. The Park provides good habitatand wildlife remain there. From this comparison, it is possible to infer that wildlife willlikely choose the higher-quality habitat in the interior portions of the reserved forestsalong the NGT over the lower-quality habitat along the roadside, and will thus tend tofeed and seek shelter well back from the road4.

2. ObstruchonThe age of the existing road, the minor nature of the proposed improvements (fewchanges to vertical alignment), and observations of free movement of animals acrossthe road suggest that obstruction to movement and restriction of habitat, as a result ofthe road improvements, will be negligible. In particular, movements of large predatorssuch as tigers and leopards, and their prey, will not be restricted.

3. Poaching and illegal resource exploiationEven though specific poaching data were not available, it is our contention that theupgrading of the NGT road will not provide a stimulus to increased poaching, sincespeed limits will not change and road hazards, which make high-speed getaways very

3Local residents are permitted to harvest bamboo and other forest products from the RFs on both sides of the road,and their presence was evident everywhere along the road.4The APRBD needs to weigh carefully the benefits of habitat restoration against the risk of increasing road kill as aresult of attracting wildlife to newly-restored roadside habitat areas.

8

risky, will remain virtually unchanged. No clearing will take place and access to gamewill not change.

4 MITIGATIVE MEASURES

Our analysis of the environmental issues suggests that this road improvement project, confinedas it is to within the existing limits of the RoW, is likely to result in fairly modest impacts.Nevertheless, the importance of wildlife conservation advocates the need to develop a set ofmitigative actions that will avoid or minimize the likelihood of serious impacts during theplanning, construction and operation of the road. The proposed mitigative measures areexpected to provide adequate protection to the wildlife ecosystem potentially affected by theroad. These measures are described below.

4.1 TrafficThe induced impacts associated with increased traffic on the improved road can be overcome bya variety of measures, e.g., imposition of tolls to discourage/divert non-essential traffic, and theimposition of speed limits along the forested section of the road. For reducing the blindingeffect of oncoming vehicles, the luminous intensity of the headlights of vehicles using the roadcan be reduced by enforcing the use of hoods on headlights. In India, this reduction in theintensity of headlights is being achieved by painting the upper halves of the headlight surfacesblack.

4.2 Road KillsParticular attention must be given to identifying and protecting regular crossing points andmigratory corridors of wildlife, through the use of well-placed signage requiring drivers to useextra caution. Along the section where the NGT road abuts Compartments no. 532 and 693 ofthe Chelamna and Kambham Ranges of the GBM Sanctuary and Compartment no. 681 ofreserved forest outside the GBM, fencing at particularly active crossing sites, as identified bythe Forest Department,. could effectively reduce the possibility of road hit However, due to therelative lack of confirmed knowledge of the effects of wildlife fencing on wildlife populationdynamics', this mitigative measure should be applied only when absolutely necessary.

4.3 Illegal Exploitation of ResourcesOrganized vehicle checks at specially-set-up checkpoints at the entry and exit of the forestedsection of the NGT road would help to control the illegal exploitation of resources. Contractclauses and temporary fencing should be helpful in limiting the spread of support facilities intothe forested areas along the road during construction, and would discourage workers fromexploiting the forest resources.

4.4 Animal MigrationThe design and location of existing bridges and underpasses in the forest and Ghat (hilly)section of the NGT has already ensured that animal crossings in the forested area (Plate 5)remain unhindered. This mitigative action was taken some time ago. In other areas along theroad that are established animal crossing points, fencing during construction will keep largemammals from direct contact with hazardous substances and also from being on the road duringconstruction. Subsequently, signage can be put up at these points to indicate animal crossingpoints. Speed breakers can also be constructed at suitable locations to further ensure speedcontrol.

FoT example, in Banff National Park, Canada, it was found that roadside fencing erected to reduce road kills,especially of elk, actually introduced changes to predator-prey relationships when coyotes discovered that the fencescould be used to corner elk and make capture easier.

9

4.5 Construction ActivitiesTiming of road operations outside the monsoon season will prevent the impacts of soil erosionand water pollution.

It would be useful if the APRBD were to instruct their consultant to incorporate this list ofmitigative measures into the revised IEE. The successful implementation of the proposedmitigative measures will greatly depend on close coordination between the APRBD and theNandyal and Giddalur Forest Divisions of the APFD, as well as the district administration. Tothat end we propose that the APRBD's environmental officer organize a meeting with theNandyal and Giddalur Forest Divisions of the APFD every two months, to brief them on eventsand to seek assistance with all aspects of road planning and design that may impinge on wildlifemanagement. These meetings should be recorded and kept on file by the APRBD.

5 ACTIONS PROPOSED TO ADDRESS ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNSRAISED BY THE MOEF ON THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATEHIGHWAY PROJECT

All the conditions stipulated by the MOEF have been carefully examined by WII-CEC. The listof the MOEF's conditions was transferred into a matrix table, with each condition in a separaterow (Table 1). For each condition an analysis and a set of actions were described such that theAPRBD could, at a glance, see the actions being proposed by WII-CEC (or those actionsalready completed) to meet the conditions stipulated by the MOEF (see Annexure I).

We recommend that the APRBD undertake these actions according to a schedule set up by itsenviromnental officer. The schedule should be based on the column entitled "Time Frame" inTable 1 and would most effectively be presented as a bar chart with time along the horizontalaxis and the conditions and stipulations as defined in Table I-colurn 1 on the vertical axis.

10

Table 1 Summary of Actions Implemented and to be Completed by APRBD, in Response to Conditions Stipulated by the MOEF

Environmental Conditions Stipulated e Actions Proposed/Completed Clarification and Comments Cross-references to Agency Proposed

by the MOEF j by the APRBD to fulfill the Needed from the APRBD and Actions Defined in Responsible Time

g MOEF conditions Added to File Other Documents. Frame

MOEF Conditions: Stipulated videletter dated 05/03/97(Annexure I) _

Exclusion Of Road Sections 2 Exclusion of these roads from Provide confirmation letter or To be provided by E.in.C Completed

Exclude Kumool-Atmakur-Guntur (i) the contract document was reference to memo with respect to Engineer in Chief (E. in (APRBD)

Road required and the same has each road section mentioned in C.), APRBD* Instead include the Nandyal- been done for all the roads. 2.1.

Giddalur-Thokapalli road* Delete consideration of Atmakur -

Nandyal route Provide reference to memo

* Delete consideration of theMadanapally-Chandragiri Roadpassing through S.V. National Park

Delete road section 2A ; Lakshettipet - (ii) Action already taken Provide reference to memo To be provided by E.in.C Completed

Gudihatnur, through the Kawal game E.in.C (APRBD) (APRBD)

Sanctuary

Obtain necessary clearance under FC (iii) No forest land is being Confirmation from APFD To be provided by E.in.C Completed

Act,1980,if forest areas are to be acquired, thus clearance under required E.in.C (APRBD) & (APRBD) &

acquired for road widening the Forest Conservation Act APFD APFD

is not neededAdopt appropriate safeguards while (iv) Appropriate mitigative actions Contract document (No.APSH3) EMP: 02/04/97- E.in.C to Construction

undertaking digging activities to avoid required in EMP and have also was examined. Condition built in Pagel3-15 furnish phase

surface water contamination been accordingly built in to sub-Clause 111.2: Borrow pits for Specification of Indian periodicthe EMP. embankment construction Roads Congress (1997) monitoring

Clarification is needed on the under Clause 306. reports.timing of the construction season, included in Contractin relation to the Monsoon Period document No.APSH3

11

Environmental Conditions Stipulated t Actions Proposed/Completed Clarification and Comments Cross-references to Agency Proposed

by the MOEF : by the APRBD to fulfill the Needed from the APRBD and Actions Defined in Responsible Time

MOEF conditions Added to File Other Documents. Frame

Obtain permission from the competent (v) All trees in RoW with Girth- Details of District Forest EMP (02/04/97) refer E.in.C No later than

authority before felling trees Breast-Height >25cm to be Committees to be made available. Pages: 13 & 14 &Table APRBD) & 3rd quarter ofnumbered (inventoried) 2.1 in Annex 2 & APFD 1998and any cutting will be Indian Roads Congressapproved by the District (1997) SpecificationsForest Committee under Clause 314Greenbelt planting programhas been developed by

Provide sufficient tree plantings (v) APRBD through the efforts of Choice of species needs review EMP: 02/04/97, (Annex E.in.C ConstructionEnvironmental officer (on especially to exclude any exotic 2) and TEF ( Kirloskar APRBD) & period

deputation from AP Forest spp. Consultants Ltd.) APFDDepartment). Section 6.13, (page 6-

12). Specifications inthe contractincorporated to include(Clause 308 and 314 ofIndian Road Congress1997)

Rehabilitate all borrow pits, quarries (vi) Enforceable provisions to be Need exact cross-reference to EMP: 02/04/97, (pages E.in.C Construction

and construction scars added to EMP. terms and conditions and relevant 12-13) (APRBD) periodcontract clauses Specifications of Indian

Roads Congress (1997)under Sub-Clause301.3.2 & also Sub-Clause 308.3 alreadyincluded in contract

Resettlement of project-affected (vii) Resettlement Action Plan, Not assessed during this study. Refer R&R Policy; E.in.C No later than

persons (PAPs) based on a detailed plan according to World Bank Appendix 4 of EMP (APRBD) & 3rd quarter of

Operational Directive 4.30 to NGOs 1998

be prepared. Field survey ofvillages along RoW

.____ needed. ____ . _.

12

Environmental Conditions Stipulated _ Actions Proposed/Completed Clarification and Comments Cross-references to Agency Proposedby the MOEF j by the APRBD to fulfill the Needed from the APRBD and Actions Defined in Responsible Time

MOEF conditions Added to File Other Documents. Frame

During construction, environmental (viii) Enforceable conditions to be EMP-matrix table to be Defined in contract E.in.C Constructionmanagement of following to be ensured built into EMP developed for determining impact T&C and (APRBD) & period* water supply potential Specifications, in too WII-CEC

* fuel and petrol products handling general terms-also inand management SMEC Report

* Sewage and solid wastemanagement at work camps

Construct bypasses around towns & (ix) Bypasses for towns to be Finalization of plans for by pass Techno Economic E.in.C Constructionvillages as required to avoid excessive provided as per necd for . still to be done Feasibility Study (APRBD) & period

resettlement and displacement Giddalur and Kambham Report,Section 5-15 KirloskarConsultant

Provide evidence that budget for (x) Financial arrangements to be Based on the listing of actions E.in.C (APRBD) E.in.C No later thanmitigative measures listed above is evolved and initiated based on needed in the EMP-matrix, (APRBD) 3rd quarter ofprovided for. other World Bank-aided prepare a budget estimate that Already included in 1998

projects. covers: contract document.(i) construction period Reference to be

Need to see the Contract monitoring, providedTerms and Conditions (ii) operational period(general conditions) as well as monitoring,the contract specifications and (iii) the operation of the Env. Unitthe estimated budget figures within the R&BD andfor implementation of (iv) the annual evaluation by anenvironmental mitigative independent evaluationmeasures. agency.

This must be included in the_______________________________ budget of the contractor/PCC etc.

13

Environmental Conditions Stipulated i# Actions Proposed/Completed Clarification and Comments Cross-references to Agency Proposedby the MOEF : by the APRBD to fulflll the Needed from the APRBD and Actions Defined in Responsible Time

MOEF conditions Added to File Other Documents. Frame

Communicate and collaborate with (xi) Facilitation of evaluation and Need to fill communication gaps, E.in.C (APRBD) ProjectBangalore Regional Office of MOEF monitoring by MOEF's by sending to regional office a duration

regional office at Bangalore, summary of what ever progressthrough regular (quarterly) has been made in and keeping themeetings between the APRBD office informed and copied onenvironment officer and correspondence with MOEF andMOEF. At present very related matters. Provide MOEF,general communication has Bangalore with correspondence astaken place but no technical well as this reportexchange has been initiated

MOEF: Conditions Stipulated videletter dated 20/09/97 (Annexure I)Protection Of All Avenue (Roadside) 1 Incorporate appropriate Indian Roads Congress (1997) EMP version 1.1 April ProjectTrees provision in the contract Specifications in Clause: 308-314, 1997 duration

document, including the incorporated in contract documentcontract Terms and Conditions as well as in EMPand Contract Specs.

Only trees within 6m of centre line of (i) Obtain Approval from District The commnitment for not cutting Techno-Economic Projectroad can be cut in sections passing Forest Committee (DFC) any tree along NGT section Feasibility Report (Dec. durationthrough reserved forests and already made by APRBD 1997)sanctuaries.Number all existing trees as well as (ii) Incorporate in the contract Forest Dept. inventory system to Reference to be APRBD & Projectnewly planted trees along the RoW document. be adopted at the time of provided DFC duration

numbering and the certification ofcompliance can be obtained fromAPFD

Undertake avenue plantings, which (iii) At least 3 rows of trees, Species list provided in Table 2.1 Summary record of E.in.C Projectwould act as buffer: at least 3 rows of starting 8 m from centreline- of Annex 2 of EMP but needs meeting held on (APRBD); durationtrees, wherever possible- now being planned as a modification. This modification 27.4.98 (section 7.1 of APFD

community forestry project by is to be done in consultation with this report)the Environmental Officer of APFD and should be initiated atAPRBD. the earliest.

14

Environmental Conditions Stipulated 1 Actions Proposed/Completed Clarification and Comments Cross-references to Agency Proposed

by the MOEF i by the APRBD to fulfill the Needed from the APRBD and Actions Defined in Responsible Time

. MOEF conditions Added to File Other Documents. Frame

Plant groves of trees (300-400) every (iv) Needs discussion with This provision will be applied on Not applicable for NGT None Not

30-50 kin, forming basis for travel rest MOEF's regional office in National Highway segments section applicable

stops Bangalore, due to subject to availability of landquestionable utility

Restoration Of Quarries And Borrow 2 To be ensured by the project Covered in specifications of: Reference of contract APRBD Project

Sites authorities by incorporating Indian Roads Congress - Clause specification to be duration

specification in contract 305, 306, 301 (1997) as well as providedconditions with FIDIC

No excavation or dumping on private (i) Prepare a borrow/quarry Already included in Contract Refer Sub-Clause 111.2 E.in.C Project

property (without owners' permission) operation and management Specifications of IRC already (APRBD) to duration

guideline for inclusion in the incorporated in provide

contract. Contract document approval of

_______________________________ APSHI borrow sites

No activity of any kind permitted in/on (ii) Insert clause in Contract Monitoring Committee already Specification to be E.in.C Project

wetlands, forest areas, or ecologically Specifications, identifying constituted incorporated in the (APRBD), duration

sensitive, valuable locations ecologically sensitive areas contract APFD

and discuss in EMP andconfirmation of the same bythe monitoring committee

For any proposed borrow or quarry site, (iii) Ensure timely consultation Need to confirm that this will take Provide documentation E.in.C Early phase

conduct prior consultation and site with Soil and Water place to this effect (APRBD) of project

screening with soil conservation and Conservation Department andwatershed development agencies. other related agencies as well,

make this a specific task ofAPRBD Environ. Officer

Construction Waste Management 3

15

Environmental Conditions Stipulated r Actions Proposed/Completed Clarification and Comments Cross-references to Agency Proposed

by the MOEF : by the APRBD to fulfill the Needed from the APRBD and Actions Defined in Responsible Time

~ _, MOEF conditions Added to File Other Documents. Frame

Construction waste such as bitumen, (i) Ensure compliance of EMP ( 2/4/97, pg. 14) E. in. C Projectfine materials and other hazardous provisions under various acts; General IRC clause: (APRBD) to durationmaterials should not contaminate The following are other Commitment already made 111 incorporated. liase withsurface water suggested measures. State

(i) all preparatory work, such Provide reference. Pollutionas asphalt mixing and Controlaggregate extraction to be Boarddone outside the 24 km (SPCB);sections through forest area. Regional(ii) provide sedimnentation Need to include in contract terms Office ofbasins at aggregate MOEFpreparation sites(iii) construction of bunds andcontainments to prevent solidwaste transportation to watersources.

Prevent groundwater contamination (ii) Ensure compliance of Should also be incorporated in Provide reference to E.in.C Projectfrom construction waste storage areas provisions under various acts contract specifications, but is not contract specifications (APRBD) to duration

and general clause: II1 of expected to be a significant liase withIndian Road Congress concern, given the low level of State

disturbance proposed. PollutionControlBoard andRegionalOffice of

____________________ M OEF

EA Study On Cuddapah-Renigunta 4Road SectionDetailed EIA study on Cuddapah- (i) Not relevant in the context of Nil Nil NilRenigunta road section to be completed NGT road section _ ___

Feasibility Studies 5 _ _ _ 1

16

Environmental Conditions Stipulated Actions Proposed/Completed Clarification and Comments Cross-references to Agency Proposed

by the MOEF | by the APRBD to fulfill the Needed from the APRBD and Actions Defined in Responsible Time

MOEF conditions Added to File Other Documents. Frame

Complete Feasibility Study on (i) Techno-economic feasibility Report has been prepared TEF report July 1997 Completed

Giddalaur-Nandyal Road in 3 months, (TEF) study is essential and and Dec 1997 but not

including provision of environmental has already been done by submitted to

safeguards Kirloskar Consultants Ltd. the MOEF

Stop Work On The Atmakur Section 6 Not warranted as per Expertise available for Summary record of APRBD On-going

Of The Nagarjunasagar-Srisailam arranten as p maintenance and road repair with meeting held on & APFD with

Tiger Reserve/GBM Sanctuary And agreement between APFD & APRBD. Only maintenance work 27.04.98 (section 7.1 of cooperation

Transfer This Road To Director, expertise to maintain and taking place. this report) of APFD

NSTR ~~~~~~~~~~~repair the road is available AF ol otnet rvdwith APRBDi the necessary coordination for

with APRI3D. regulation of traffic through thesupport of authorities of RajivGandhi Tiger Reserve

Provide Vehicle, Communication 7 No action required since the This fact has been accepted by AP Summary record of N/A Project

And Weapons To Anti-Poaching project does not include Forest Department meeting held on Planning

Squad, As Mitigative Measure, For RGTR or GBM Sanctuary 27.04.98 (section 7.1 of Period

Increased Traffic area. this report)

Emergency Measures For Accidents 8 Not warranted; no relation to Imposition of speed limits would______ road resurfacing. prevent accidents

Conduct wildlife analysis (i) Measures for ensuring safety Measures for safety of wild Refer section 4 of this WII July 1998of wildlife in forest section are animals have been proposed reportrequired to be evolved

Keep Resettlement In Villages To 9 The requirements are included This appears to be an incomplete Need copy of contract E.in.C

Absolute Minimum, By Not Altering in the contract specifications document and needs additional specifications that refer (APRBD)

Alignments data to all environmentalmatters

Initiate action for: (i) Speed breakers and speed Imposition of speed limit in forest An agreement to this E.in.C Construction

* Speed controls monitoring check post to be stretch is feasible. Monitoring of effect between APRBD (APRBD) period

* Drainage away from curbside provided at suitable location speed to be made possible by and APFD to be made and APFD

structures support from staff of APFD. and reference to beprovided

17

Environmental Conditions Stipulated _ Actions Proposed/Completed Clarification and Comments Cross-references to Agency Proposedby the MOEF { by the APRBD to fulfill the Needed from the APRBD and Actions Defined in Responsible Time

. MOEF conditions Added to File Other Documents. Frame

Provide Off-Road Parking Facilities 10 Need a plan for identifying Design details to be provided Specific requirement APRBD ConstructionAt Intervals Along The Roads, In location and a standard design. in Contract periodOrder To Discourage Parking On Ensure no stops in 24 km Specifications-needHighway section running through the exact cross-reference

reserved forest area

Monitoring Committee 11 Immediate action required toconstitute the monitoringcommittee

Monitoring Committee to be set up to (i) Prepare TOR for conduct of Let Project Coordinating Monitoring reports to E.in.C Projectensure adherence to the conditions annual evaluations of EMP Committee's Project be compiled for (APRBD) duration andstipulated by MOEF and RAP implementation for Implementation Unit do the reference and perusal 2 year

each year of construction and monthly compliance monitoring period after2 operating years. project

operational

Notes:1. MOEF indicated that they reserve the right to impose further conditions if they deem it necessary2. MOEF is looking for better communication and better-tum around time from AP R&BD3. MOEF needs to see evidence that the decision to exclude the roads they have listed has taken place.4. Actions related to work-camp operations and management are not clearly spelled out in the Terms and Conditions ( T&C), even though there exists

the Indian Road Congress General Conditions Clause 111 Precautions for Safeguarding the Environment, as well as basic clauses in the T&C dealingwith labour requirements-These do not adequately discuss the need to manage waste properly

5. An EMP matrix should spell this out and be cross referenced to the Contract Specs, EMP , T&C and any other docs, which provide guidance on theimplementation of mitigative measures.

18

6 CONSULTATION AND CONCLUSIONS

6.1 Wrap-up Meeting SummaryA wrap-up meeting for the field visit was held on April 27' 1998 to discuss the various

findings of the WII-CEC team and to agree on a course of action for the APRBD. The meeting washeld in the office of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (PCCF), Andhra Pradesh ForestDepartment (APFD).

The following were present:Mr. S.D. Mukherjee, IFS Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, APFDMr. Murahari Reddy, Engineer-in-Chief, APRBDMr. T. Ramakrishna, IFS, Chief Conservator of Forests (Wildlife), APFDMd. Sultan Moiuddin, IFS, Chief Conservator of Forests (Administration) APMr. Sunil Kumar, IFS, Conservator of Forests, Telegu Ganga Project, APFDMr. S.K. Mukherjee, WII ConsultantDr. V.B. Mathur, WII ConsultantDr. Asha Rajvanshi, WII ConsultantMr. Mahendra Reddy, Environmental Officer, APRBDMr. Vara Prasad, ACF, APFD

The following are the key conclusions reached:

Mr. Murahari Reddy explained that the Ministry of Environment of Forests (MOEF), Govt.of India, New Delhi had already accorded environmental clearance to the APRBD roadproject proposals, subject to certain environmental conditions to be followed by the projectauthorities. He endorsed that the APRBD was committed to adopt appropriateenvironmental safeguards. The same would be incorporated in the APRBD contractdocuments and would be implemented during the construction and maintenance phases ofthe Project. He affirmed that in response to the MOEF's observations, the APRBD hadalready excluded the following sections from its consideration (i) Kumoor-Atmakur-Gunturroad, (ii) Atmakur-Nandyal road, (iii) Madanapally-Chandragiri and (iv) Lakshettipet-Gudihatnur road. He also indicated that no report or communication was needed with theMOEF at this time, since this was not specified in their letters of March and September1997 but the APRBD, through their enviromnental officer Mr. Mahendra Reddy, wouldkeep on file all documentation related to the actions taken to address the conditions.

WMr. S.K. Mukherjee briefed the meeting about the salient findings and actions of the WII-CEC team during the April 24-26, 1998 site visit.

(i) a map (1:50,000 scale) showing the location of the NGT road vis-a-vis the boundariesof reserved forests and GBM Sanctuary was prepared. It is evident from this map thata distance of at least 50 kmn separates the aligmnent of the NGT road from the nearestboundary of the Rajiv Gandhi Tiger Reserve (RGTR). The alignment also does not skirtthe GBM Sanctuary boundary, except in forest compartments 532, 487 and 693.

(ii) It was observed during the field visit that between the NGT road section passingthrough the Chelama Forest Range of the Nandyal Forest Division and the old railwaymeter-gauge track adjoining the boundary of the GBM Sanctuary, a new lineardevelopment in the form of a broad gauge track along with a railway station (NewChelama) was established in the reserved forests in 1996.

(iii) From the reconnaissance of the NGT Project area, it could be established that theconservation values of the forest areas falling within the Rajiv Gandhi Tiger Reserve,GBM Sanctuary, and Nandyal and Giddalur Forest Divisions are comparable, althoughno detailed floral-faunal surveys have been conducted by the Forest Department orscientific organizations.

19

The WII-CEC team summarized its observations and comments (Table 1) on the conditionsstipulated by the MOEF for improved environmental management planning of the APRBDState Highway Project sites. Discussions took place on the various environmentalconditions stipulated by the MOEF and the actions proposed to be undertaken by theAPRBD & APFD to fulfill the requirements of the MOEF were agreed to and recorded.

(i) It was affirmed in the meeting that since no forest land was being acquired bythe APRBD for widening of the existing NGT road, clearance under theForest Conservation Act, 1980 is not warranted.

(ii) The PCCF informed that the District Forest Committees would look after allmatters connected with the felling of trees falling within the existing Right ofWay (RoW), wherever necessary.

(iii) The WIU consultants stressed the need to review the choice of species foravenue planting which was appended in the project documents, and it wasagreed that this list would be reviewed in consultation with the PCCF, APForest Dept.

(iv) On the MOEF's condition No. 6.0 (Table 1), pertaining to the transfer of theAtmakur-Kumool road from the APRBD to the APFD it was pointed out bythe PCCF that such a transfer was not warranted as the necessary expertise tomaintain and repair this road section, involving a Ghat section, wasadequately available with the APRBD. The authorities of the Rajiv GandhiTiger Project would continue to provide the necessary coordination for theregulation of traffic on this road segment.

(v) On the MOEF's condition No. 7.0 (Table 1), regarding provisions forvehicles, communication and weapons to the anti-poaching squad of theAPFD it was stated by the PCCF & CCF (WL) that since the NGT roadproject does not include any part of the RGTR area and only marginallyskirts the GBM Sanctuary area, no action was required to be taken up on thiscondition.

(vi) Engineer-in-Chief, APRBD informed that a monitoring committee,independent of the Project Coordination Committee (PCC) has beenconstituted. Mr. Sunil Kumar, CF(TGP) as the representative of the APFDand the Environmental Officer, APRBD is designated the convener of thiscommittee.

(i) It was agreed that the APRBD & APFD would provide the WII-CECconsultants the necessary documentation and cross references relating to thecompliance of enviromnental conditions stipulated by the MOEF.

6.2 ConclusionsThis report is an outcome of the efforts to analyze environmental issues in general, and wildlife issuesin particular, associated with the NGT road. The report also addresses the generic and specificconcerns of the MOEF related to the Andhra Pradesh road project, validates earlier findings of initialenvironmental analysis conducted by Kirloskar Consultants, and recommends environmentalsafeguards specific to the NGT road.

In general, the WII-CEC team found that the NGT road upgrade as proposed by the APRBD, whencoupled with the mitigative measures proposed in Section 4 and Table I of this report, would result inessentially no negative effects. None of the road improvement activities proposed for the NGT road's

20

forested (sensitive) section, nor the road's operation, suggest that there will be any significant impacton tigers, leopards or their prey. The aligmnent, width, and appearance of the road section throughthe forested section will not change, thus there will not be a change (from existing conditions) in theinteraction of the road with the wildlife as a result of the upgrade6. If implemented, the mitigativeactions proposed would greatly reduce the net environmental losses over the existing situation, and ineffect improve the ability of the Park staff to control illegal activities and to manage local naturalresources.

The following are the salient findings of the reconnaissance survey:

(i) The NGT road does not traverse through any national park or sanctuary. The nearestboundary of the GBM Sanctuary is 2 km from the NGT road, except near Compartmentsno. 532 and 693 of Chelama and Kambham Ranges of the above Sanctuary andCompartment no. 681 of the Uyyalavada Reserved Forest outside the GBM Sanctuary.

(ii) The alignment of the NGT road does not overlap with the boundaries of the Rajiv GandhiTiger Reserve or any other reserve in Andhra Pradesh.

(iii) The proposed road surface improvement activities along the NGT road will be confinedto within the spatial limits of the existing right-of-way of the road. Therefore theseactivities can only have modest impacts, for which appropriate mitigative measures havebeen suggested (see Section 4).

(iv) Anecdotal statistics on large animal road kills along the NGT road, collected from localresidents, suggested low numbers (4-5/year). Such numbers suggest that this issue is aminor concern. Although well substantiated data on incidences of road kills and poachingin this road section are lacking, suitable measures have been proposed in Section 4 tomitigate these impacts effectively.

(v) Although the impacts of earth work, water impoundment and clearing of vegetationassociated with this road project are not likely to assume greater significance than thoseof the broad gauge railway line project (which has recently been completed), necessarymeasures to mitigate the construction phase impacts have been suggested in Table 1.These impacts, particularly in the 24-km long forest and Ghat section will be negligible.

The conditions imposed by the MOEF for environmental clearance of the project have beenextensively dealt with through a consultative process involving all agencies responsible for theimplementation, management and monitoring of the project and the site environment (See AnnexureIm). The consultative process has been useful in resolving the following key issues linked to theconditions specified by the MOEF vide their letters (Annexure I).

(a) Clearance under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 is not warranted since no forest landis to be acquired.

(b) Transfer of the Atnakur-Kurnool road from the APRBD to the APFD is also notwarranted considering that better expertise for handling road repair and maintenancework is available within the APRBD.

(c) It is not obligatory on the part of project authorities (APRBD) to strengthen the anti-poaching squad of the APFD since the project does not include any part of the Rajiv

6 Growth in traffic volume on the road is expected to arise from factors such as general population growth, as opposed to theroad upgrade itself. See Section 4.4 of the Kirloskar Techno-economic Feasibility Report for traffic projections and furtherdiscussion.

21

Gandhi Tiger Reserve or the GBM Sanctuary, nor has the APFD sought any assistancefrom the APRBD on this matter.

(d) The APFD will assist the APRBD in the implementation of safeguards outlined in Section4 and Table 1 to mitigate impacts on wildlife values and promote wildlife conservation.

The step-by-step actions have been outlined in Table 1. These actions address the issues andconcems expressed by the MOEF and are comprehensive enough to be a useful tool in thedevelopment of the Environmental Action Plan by the APRBD. The END is a prerequisite to WorldBank loan approval.

The success of the mitigative measures hinges on the establishment of a good communication linkbetween the APRBD and the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Andhra Pradesh Department ofForestry. To that end, the APRBD's environmental officer should be supported by the APRBD incarrying out all actions related to monitoring and consultation with any agencies. He should also begiven responsibility to alert and train the contractor in the implementation of measures presented herein this document as well as in the EMP contained in the revised Techno-Economic Feasibility Reportto be prepared by Kirloskar Consultants.

22

7 REFERENCES

Adams, L.W. and Geis, A.D. 1983. Effects of roads on small mammals. Journal of Applied Ecology 20: 403-15

Andhra Pradesh Forest Department, Nandyal Forest Division, Nandyal. 1997. Tiger/Panther Census Report

Andhra Pradesh Roads and Buildings Department. 1997. Environmental Management Plan of Andhra Pradesh

State Highways Project- Version 1.1.

Andhra Pradesh Roads and Buildings Department. 1995. Policy for Resettlement and Rehabilitation ofDisplaced and Affected Persons of AP State Highways Project, Environmental Management Plan -Version 3.1.

Bennett, A.F. 1990. Habitat corridors and the conservation of small mnamnals in a fragmented forestenvironment. Landscape Ecology 4: 109-22.

Kirloskar Consultants Ltd. 1997. Techno-Economic Feasibility Study of Nandyal-Giddalur-Thokapalli Road,Volumes I & 2. Secunderabad.

Ministry of Environrment and Forests, Govt. of India. 1994. The Environmental Impact Assessment Notification,(as amended on 4-5-94). New Delhi.

Ministry of Enviromnent and Forests, Govt. of India. 1972. The Indian Wildlife (Protection) Act. New Delhi.3 0 pp.

Notification of the Gundla Brahmeswaram Wildlife (G.B.M.) Sanctuary Range: Nandyal Division, Nandyal.Undated.

Robinson, J. 1971. Highways and Our Environment. McGraw-Hill: New York.

Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation (Australia) Ltd. 1996. Environmental Analysis Report for AndhraPradesh State Highways Project. Prepared under supervision of Environmental Service Pvt. Ltd.

Supplemental Report on Environment Aspects of Andhra Pradesh State Highways Project (1997). A ReportPrepared for the meeting of the Expert Committee for Infrastructural Development and MiscellaneousProjects, APRBD.

Technical Specifications for Tender Documents, Andhra Pradesh State Highways Project Contract No. APSH 3(Under World Bank Loan Assistance).

World Wildlife Fund, Andhra Pradesh. Undated. A Rapid Assessment of the Impacts of the Proposed Wideningof the Guntur-Kurnool Road on the Nagarjunasagar-Srisailam Tiger Reserve.

23

I

PLATES

I II I .

°. . - u r w

U,n ] 1 ; }' '<'2 :

;~~~~~~~

I II I ..

I'late 2 Road alignment through the forest stretch,

A'~~~~'

> / 3 0 0 0 ; 0 ' 9 0 0 < " i >: ~~~~p E. -* -?,,

~~~~~~~~~- ,< a,-'

-~~~~~~~~~ ' 't>~ '~ '' -,

I

Plate 3 Indirect and direct evidence of wild animals in the reserved forests

\~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 7(_' 1-- .K'

i _ -- ,

_ *2' -N X - 2\~~- N

F. l R s v -Xf /. . , Pi~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~N

A- ;-N,, :~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I II -

Plate 4 New rail track through the Chelama Reserved Forest and its associated ecological impacts

-4" d~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4

-- 7~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I

_~~~ -

I-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~, C

I

Plate 5 Existing structures permitting crossing by wildlife along the NGT rioad and the new rail line

-77

t Mu", ""Vq ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '. -ix>~ ... .............

. , _: . . .~~~

I

ANNEXURE I

Copies of Original Letters from the MOEF

I

TzW.gram PARYAVARAN,NEW DELHI

Telophont

Telex: (bi-fingua'1): W-66155 DOE INFAX 4360678

GOVERNMENT:OF INDIAMINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT & FORESTS

.N.fi,,. PARYAVARAN'BHAWAN;.CGO COMPLEX

- -s<LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110003

N o.J- 21012/12/ 96-A. IU: N March 5, 1997

0 -A

Memorandum

Subbject :Environrenta!D ar&nce foranstrengthening- o'8 Ardhrs. Pradesh St'te

!~~~~~H. gAEhwayB re_. .- '^.;.--; ( ({t 1t, ~~~~~ ~~j,R5 Z ''5.,

The undersigned is dtIected to refer to r your letters

letter dated 10th Januau .t 1997 ad thhe >Pincipal ChiefjCDnservator of Forests Go61!ernment of Andhra Prades . 's1i7ttor iaLecl 10.9.96 rgigarding environmental clearance tothe above-mentioonedF prouje.t.

2. The pro -ect regardiwidening ar-d- strendhening ofAndhra radesh State -Ligr.iwas has been examnine:.. and t.^isMinistry hereby acco. ds -e-hir onmental' sub'Jectto st-ict c-m.zliarce of-t-emrs and cond itoris'mentionedbelow :- 1 -

i) TI.e Dortion oulJoulX drtn e* 4Atnaii~i~ instead;,the Kurno R Nandyal portion would

be utilised, wnich-is*a.l;prt of Na ationaJ.; iOhvay andthe project wouldi ^60 rxse ali the pOrt1!onS -frOMNandyal to Gidalo,X g idaloor4ThQkepaJ. and Thokapallito Guntur. The'po' tn betweec Atmankur-Nandyal wouldtnus not be takenr.up'as a part of this Vrvject. Further,Vidanpan1aLZ _ c i =kaghf

: l 6

RECEa I VE FR0 -e 5 1 2: 2 i PRGake : ep ls

RECEIIJE FROIl 03-(5 12:21 PAGE: C1

I

-2-

, ii) The portion throu3h the Kawalgame Sanctuary w;-hich i'smarked as portion 2A ifn the H.enort should not be i n cludedin the project at-aZ y Stage.

iii) The oroject authorities should obtain -necessary clearanceunder Forest (C o;n) Act, 1980 -for' forest landinvolved in the Drijec:

i v) Appropriate measures r e' ilbe undertakewwhile undertakingdigging activities t; Ld degradat-i-o''0,'of;'.fwater aualJity.

v) Trees should not without"bibV) ~ ~ ~ ~ e'e~ Wtothtaning specificapproval of the coij,iU t authority.. Suficient numberof trees of suitablei d'- cies should be planted along theroad side. 'i> sfj'

vi) Borrow-pits and other.igs .ars created durin.g the roadconstruct, on should'ibt&evl,iriorer2y levelled and treated.

|vii) A d;etailed rehabilatiin plan for the-project ousteesmust be submitted m-fjE 1inistry it-ai., ''three mnonths.

vi - i )Adeq.,at e provi sion : 4 O n f rastructu ilaties e.g.,water supply, fuel, s4.'tation, etc ,it be ensuredfor 1abourers durin"'!irtstruction:-o4tiz order toavoid3 daLmage to the,i,rsnmen

e .J ay-asLies sn.u_oui be tiied in s;ome of tle.tv:ns Zrwnfich provision has-i, been made :'in' the -pr oject.' Thiswould be deter:nined.byt-a sub-cor,aittee which will maxea site visit. Pendin ylonstr.ucti.vn -'-of. bypasses around -t.,e towns, -the existi wr_ute witw, ich towns wouldnot se ta.fen .:p for wi&eiring, streig'f-, etc.,uncZ--ar t,e pro .act

x) *:^_4Acuate ftna.-nc, al pr_tvisiofrs m.uts o.de in t.lte r 2i-ctto im-ale-ment the af7,rsai` safezu Pds. , . -

; -~ ;,-- 1 :

xi) This 14iniz-ary or. a(yjthr cosetent .atkority maysts pulate ary othe;.G9nti ens ¢^r n.v 4 anionenT_1 safenguards,subbsequently If deemiedt 'nec cssary, whica sihould becoormlied with.

xii) Fu'l surport s.aould be extended to ti.e Cf'f cers Zf )nis f-.',iniszr;y's Dve-ionl -C-fice at Dan-lore by. the nrofoct:

proponents during':Irisb.ection of the project for monitoriz;j-purposes by furnishing full details and action plansincluding action taken reports in respect of mitigativemeea8ures and other.. environmental protection activities.

RECEIVE F-,-." . . . .2

. , .z r- -; -

RECE I jE FR011 e3-ei5 12.2~ J RlE: .02

I

-~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ --

xiii) The Miinistry ruservvS the rightz:.-,tr,voke this clearance,if any of the conditions stipulated are not cormlied'withto thle satisfaction of the 4linistry.

xi v) The Ylinistry may. stipulate further: conditions, afterthe site-visit of', the Sub-cormmittee on the Wasis of its

--Y-ecor=mendations and, uch conditions -witf: be binding.

3. The above mentioned. sti-rulation. wf, . 4enforced, amon&others, under the Water;1 (k4v&ention and. Co3it0 of Follution)Act, 1974, the Air (Prevorion and Cont>;-Pollution) Act,1981, the Environment (Prection) Act.'k98&,;the HazardousChemicals (Manufacture, tge and Imptf;):I2es, 1989,. theEIA Notification of JanuaFy, 1994 and its amendments cf !4ay,1994 and the Fubl' c Lia'biity Insurance Act, 1991 and theRules made thereunder.J 1-t< i-

Shri V.M'. Reddy,Engineer In-Cief 11(Ad.miristration & EAP) ,Government of Andhra pradesh_Erramm~anzil, .HDERPALAD5OOO&2.

ECTE I F ,i E.3R :' l-

I 1 ' X

& , 4-2i012 / 1/ 1I

Government of India,Ministry of Environment and Forests

~ ^ £hiof {,~ ~-N~ Paryeavran Bhavan,

g/>^ rt -, CGO Complex,

t \ > 7 ~~~~~~~~~~Lodi Road,New Delhi-110 003.

.. ) TV Sepiemrer 18ih ,1997

.4be wsronmenTai Clearance for widenino and strengthening

ct Andhra Pradesh ttele Highways -reg.

The above menticned proposal was accorded environmentalclearance v'ide Ministry of Environment and Fcrest OM of even

number dated 5ih March, 1997. Subseauen:ly site visit was made

by the sub-comniltee during the June 10-14, 1997. Based on the

r-ecommendaljon of the suI-committee as accepted by the ExpertComm;i1tee the foliowing additicnal condiiions are stipuialed;

(i) Exist ng eaenue trees fal2inc a long the routes shouldbe prrctectied. "No lree cutting" shaJl be canied out.However in case a str ay +ree tl Is on t h- paved area or

within six meter of thte centre line, Ihe projectauthorIt ies shaeJ obtain pr-ior approvel of the dulyconstituted Lomit llee for this purpose.

tii) All existing trees and newly planted trees should be

numbered. No tree cut ting should be allowed on roadspassing ttrough reserve forest or through sanctuaries.

ii) -Exiensi ve avenue plantaIion need lo be carried out to

mitigate the efer-ct of increase of rat fic on air

pollution. The lirst row of the p]ania Hon shcui be at

a distance of 8 m.. from cen1tr-e line and depending uponthe avaiIabiliiy of land at least ithree rows need 10 bepianied. Gro\es of %00-400 trees should be planted 3O-

'!C ksns apart io proUsde rest ar-eas for- The travellers.

Cost ot such planiation would be met out oi proiectcost

Borrcw sites for earth, quarry sites for roadconst ric't i on materials and dump sites must be

identit3ed keeping in view

(a) no exacava tion or durnprinc on private property is

carried out without wrJilen consent of the owner:

I

(b. no exaca\talion or oupim:no shall be e. o swed onwelJonds lorest c ecs or other ecolocicallyvaluable or sensitive locations:

(c) the exacavation worlk shoula be done inconsul tt eion w ith soi . conservat ion and watersheddevelopment agencies working in the area;

td) construclion spoil including bitumi-nous materialand other hazardous material musl not be allowedto contaminate water courses End the dump sitesfor such materials must be secured so that theyshould not leach inio the ground water;

(X) A detailed EIA report should be prepared and submittedLo MOEF- and necessary environmental clearance should beobtained before construction is started on Cuddapalh-Ranigunta route. Based on this sludy, any additionelconditions. if telt necessary shall be stipul I t ed andit wilJ be b'-j dina on the pro2ect authori t ies

lvi) The teas.JbiIity study for the portion of the roadbetween Giddalur to Nandyal which passes throuch theghat section should be compleled within - months sothat tle necessary environmental safeguards can bebuilt into during impJementation of the project. lhisstudy should a so include environmentla v iidlifeanal ys i s.

(vii) lhe project authorities shall stop improvement andwidening of Atmakur section of the road passinc throughthe Nagariunasagar-Srisailam Tiger Reserve/GBMsanctuary and take appropriate steps to transfer thecharge o1 this road section to the Di-rector. Project

giier

(viii) 7he anti-poaching capability of the wildlife staff inihe Reserve Forest and the liger Reserve area should bestrengthened. The protection staff should be equippedwiliI vehicles, wireless and weapons. The Jist ot suchitems shall be drawn up in consultation with DirectorProject liger, Chief Wild Life Warden and PCCF AndhraPradesh and funds for the same provided out of theproject funids.

(ix) ihe project aulhorities should prepare a conlingencyplan to combat with accidents so thal the victims of

I I ' )

.3

accidents can be provided i-nmediate medical help. Someessential equipment, buildings and other facilities maybe required for the purpose and need to be budgeted'from within the projecl:

(x) No aliqnment chance should be made within the \ illaaelimits and appropriate measures taken to restrictspeed. The need for reset t l ement should be reduced tcbare minimum. Finished road level in the vi I lagesshould generally be lower than the plinth level of theroed side buildings. The project aulhorities shouldensure proper drainage in village sections.

(xi) Provisions should be made for creation/construction oftruck bays lateral/perpendicular to the road so thatthese vehicles are not encouraged to be parked on thehighway itself. Suitable lands should be earmarked onthese lateral sections to provide for basic needs foriruckers.

(xii) The Stale Government should set up a broad basedcommittee involving environment experts. project staffend other interested groups to ensure that therecommendations and conditions stipulated by MOEF a restrictly fol lowed and adhered to. This Committeeshould be independent of the projertconstruction/supervision staff.

(xiii) The Ministry shall reserve the right to imposeadditional conditions in future if felt necessary inthe interest of environmental protection.

2. All other conditions contained in this Ministry OfficeMemorandum of even number dated 5th March 199 7 remaainsunchanged.

Ci<2vt db /ViicihYc&- PT&Acok~ (Dr. R.K. uri)E-r-Yc(- 1f. v ZL Deput y Director-i'ToE PA\riD-- S0DOC'C

Copy tc:

1. 11he Clhairman 7 Andthra Pradesh Pollution Control Board, 6-6-115/124 Kavadigudat Secunderabad-O00003.

2. The Chief Conservator of Forests: Regional Office, Southern

I I :; -1

.r- Regi on, Kendri ya Sedan4, 41h J oor, EGF 'Aingss 7 h a ai rRoad, II BlIck. Koramangala, SEncalore-J4.

A 1. The Chief Wildlife Warden C-cvernment of Andhra PradeshHyderabad.

4. The Senior Acviser(H), MOEF. New Delhi.

b. The DIG(FC), MOEF, New De]lhi

6. T1he Guard file.

7 > a

(Dr. P.I .- uriDepulty Direclor

xi

I I I

ANNEXURE H

Work Programme of WII-CEC Consultants

I

Annex Table 1 Work Programme of WII - CEC Consultants

Date Places * Persons/officials Objective Consultants involvedvisited contacted

21.04.98 Travel from Dehra Dun to Delhi

22.04.98 Delhi Officials of the, Update on Dr. Asha Rajvanshi

Impact Assessment enviromnental issues

Division, MOEF and environmental

clearance of the Project.

Dr. V.B. Mathur

Director, Discuss the implications

Project Tiger, of the Project on

Govt. of India Nagarjunasagar-

Srisailam Tiger Reserve

(Rajiv Gandhi Tiger

Sanctuary)

23.04.98 Hyderabad Engineer-in-Chief Discuss issues Mr. Geza Teleki

(forenoon) and Environmental connected with the road Dr. V.B. Mathur

Officer, APRBD upgrading project Dr. Asha Rajvanshi

(aftemoon) Officials of the AP Discuss the road Mr. Geza Teleki

Forest Dept. upgrading project in the Dr. V.B. Mathur

context of its Dr. Asha Rajvanshi

implications on PAs

and RFs

24.04.98 Field visit Representatives of Facilitation of the Mr. Geza Teleki

to project APRBD and reconnaissance of the Dr. V.B. Mathur

area Divisional Forest project area and Dr. Asha Rajvanshi

Officer and the Staff compilation of relevant

of AP Forest Dept. information on the

project activities and

regional ecology

25.04.98 Field visit continued Mr. Geza Teleki

Dr. V.B. Mathur

Dr. Asha Rajvanshi

26.04.98 Field visit continued Shri S.K. Mukherjee

(forenoon) Dr. V.B. Mathur

Dr. Asha Rajvanshi

I .1�v

I I I I

ANNEXURE m

List of People Met During WII-CEC Trip to NGT Road Project Site

. . # . I :4

LIST OF PEOPLE MET DING WI - CEC CONSULTANTS' TRIP TO NANYAL -

GIDDALUR - THOKAPALLI (NGT) ROAD PROJECT SITE

Name of organisations/ Address with phone and fax Objective/Purpose ofpersons numbers meeting

Ministry of Environment and Forest

Dr. R. Anandkumar, Director,lA Paryavaran Bhawan, Update on issues related toDivision, MOEF, CGO Complex,Lodhi Road, environmental clearance of

New Delhi, NGT Road Project in AndhraPhone: 011-4364592 Pradesh.Fax: 011-4360678

Dr.S.K. Aggarwal, Paryavaran Bhawan, Gather additional informationAdditional Director, (Infrastructure), CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, on observations of the siteMOEF New Delhi appraisal committee's visit of

Phone:4360861 project area.Fax: 4362551

Andhra Pradesh Buildings & RoadDepartment, (APRBD)

Shri. Murahari Reddy, Engineer-in- Andhra Pradesh Roads & Buildings Understand the project briefChief, Department,Eram Manzil, Hyderabad (AP) and gain insight into efforts

Phone: 040 -3391155 & already made for3323536 (0) 292342 ( R) improvements in existingFAX :3393197 envirornmental management

planning.

Shri. Ramahia, Executive Engineer Andhra Pradesh Roads & Buildings Enhance understanding of the(R&B) Department, nature of developments being

Nandyal, proposed on the forested andnon forested sections of theexisting NGT Road.

Shri. G. Ram Reddy, Andhra Pradesh Roads & Buildings Assistance in overcomingDeputy Executive Engineer, Department, information gaps about the

Nandyal, project design andimplementation during the visitto the project road.

Shri. Mahendra Reddy, Andhra Pradesh Roads & Buildings Facilitation of WII-CEC visitEnvironmental Officer (APRBD), Department, to project location and

Eram Manzil, Hyderabad.(AP) provision of supplementaryinformation to assist WII and

Phone: 040 -3391155 CEC Consultants in the reviewof the EMP

Kirloskar Consultants Ltd.Shri. V.C.N. Mukund, Kirloskar Consultants Limited, Discussions on theConsultant 10-3-f1/lEntrenchment Road, observations of MOEF on the

East Marredapally, EMP prepared by theSecunderabad -500 026 consultants and the suggestedPhone:040-773 1000 changes in the light ofFax :7731000 observations of MOEF.

Andhra Pradesh Forest Dept.Shri S.D. Mukherjee, Andhra Pradesh Forest Dept. Seek views of State ForestPrincipal Chief Conservator of Aranya Bhavan, Saifabad. Department on the implicationsForests. Hyderabad (AP) 500004. of Project on forest and

Phone: 235488 (0) wildlife values

I p,

4

Name of organisations/ Address with phone and fax Objective/Purpose ofpersons numbers meeting

Fax: 237889Shri T. Ramakrishna Andhra Pradesh Forest Dept. Obtain relevant documentationChief Conservator of Forests Aranya Bhavan, Saifabad, and spatial information on

Hyderabad (AP) 500004. parks and sanctuaries locatedPhone: 040-232668; 230561 (0) in the vicinity of NGT Road7763312 (R) and seek logistic support forFax: 040-237889 undertaking field visit

Shri Vinav Kumar, D.F.O Andhra Pradesh Forest Dept. Obtain information on ecologyNandyal Forest Division of GBM Sanctuary and otherNandyal (A.P). RF areas in the Forest Division

to assess project relatedPhone: (0) 08514-42463 impacts on wildlife values and

(R) 08814-42202 discuss management issues thatneed to be addressed throughthe EMP of NGT Road.

Shri Vara Prasad, ACF Andhra Pradesh Forest Dept. Seek assistance in retrievingAranya Bhawan, Saifabad, information from relevantHyderabad. departmental and divisional

records of AP ForestDepartment.

Shri Waheed. Asstt. Director Office of the Director, -do-Project Tiger,Achampet (AP)

Shri B.M. Chanikya Raju, Andhra Pradesh Forest Dept. Assistance and support duringForest Range Officer Chelama Range the reconnaissance survey of

Nandyal Forest Division, the GBM Sanctuary and theNandyal RFs within the road corridor

Shri R.C.P. Kumar Nandyal Forest Division, -do-F.S.O Train Party Nandyal

Shri S. Madar Saheb Nandyal Forest Division, -do-Nandyal

Shri Dhana Raj Nandyal Forest Division, -do-Forest Guard,Train Party Nandyal

Shri Ramudu Pedda Kambalur Beat -do-Forest Guard, Train Party Nandyal Forest Division

Nandyal

Shn P. Ahmad Khan Kota Konda Beat -do-Nandyal Forest DivisionNandyal

Shri K. Anandam Donga Bavi Beat -do-Forest Guard Nandyal Forest Division

, a, * a * I a

Date Places * Persons/officials Objective Consultants involvedvisited contacted

(afternoon) Return to Officials of APRBD Discussions on Mr. Geza Teleki

Hyderabad observations made in the Shri S.K. Mukheijee

after field field and arrive at Dr. V.B. Mathur

visits consensus for Dr. Asha Rajvanshi

developing an action

plan to address the

observations made by

MOEF and to also

incorporate any

mitigative options

suggested by consulting

team after site visit

27.04.98 APRBD Wrap-up meeting Ensure implementation Shri S.K. Mukherjee

(forenoon) and APFD with officials of of actions proposed, Dr. V.B. Mathur

APRBD and AP assign responsibilities to Dr. Asha Rajvanshi

Forest Dept. respective agencies to tie

all loose ends through

mutual agreement and

cooperation

(afternoon) Return from field trip to Delhi

28.04.98 Travel from Delhi to Dehra Dun.