ANALYSIS of ALTERNATIVES the Proposed Project Stretch Is a Single

Home , Anantapur district, Sakhamuru

Consultancy services for development of new nh-544f starting from its junction with nh-44 near maruru (raptadu), anantapur district at km.0.000 connecting itukalapalli, husenapuram (tadipatri), nagireddipalli, nallagatla, giddalur, kagitaalagudem (cumbum), rayayaram, FORM-1 & nuzendla, kommalapadu, kavuru, phirangipuram, medikonduru, velavarthipadu and Terms of Reference (ToR) terminating at its junction with vijaywada inner ring road near pedda parimi, guntur district at km. 385.310 in the state of andhra pradesh (total length: 385.310 km)

ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES

The proposed project stretch is a single stretch from Ananthapuramu to Amaravathi alignment. For the alignment five possible options for development are suggested. The purpose of this chapter is to identify a environmentally feasible alignment for 4/6 lane expressway between Amaravthi to Ananthapuramu. The assessment of Alternative alignment for the proposed expressway is very challenging task due to presence of Wild Life Sanctuaries, reserve forests, towns, villages, water bodies, homestead, agriculture lands, non-agriculture areas, builtup areas, Tin sheds etc. In order to choose the best alignment various alternatives were analysed using Environmental Impact Assessment Decision Support System (EIADSS). The EIADSS analysis of the same is explained in detail in successive sections.

Alternative Analysis Using EIADSS

Alternative analysis was done using Environmental Impact Assessment Decision Support System (EIADSS). The alternative analysis is mainly aimed to mitigate the adverse social & environmental impacts in the project and make technically feasible and economic & financially viable alternative.

The EIADSS system assists decision-makers to opt for Alternative Routes in Railways /Highway projects. The criteria used for comparing the project alternative routes are not limited to the impacts of the project on the physical environment such as natural resources and biological life, but also include the impacts on socio-economics, political affairs as well as financial and economics. Thus method is flexible enough to account for the user’s preferences in weighing the main categories of impacts criteria. The first step behind the conceptual basis of the EIADSS was to identify the environmental criteria that are susceptible to change due to proposed project construction or operation, and then categorize these criteria under main headings. The physical factors that were known to be responsible for changing the criteria conditions were then identified. All the possible conditions of these factors were determined and compiled in a questionnaire. The Impact criteria are mainly categorized in to five groups (viz. Natural Resource Impacts, Ecological Impacts, Socio- Economic Impacts, Political Impacts, and Financial & Economic Impacts). The weightage percentage could be finalized using Data Capturing Instrument (DCI) and for the proposed road connectivity project of this nature, the weightage percentage is as follows.

Weighted Sl. No. Environmental category/group Percentage

1 Natural Resource Impacts 15

2. Ecological impacts 30

3. Socio-Economic Impacts 15

Weighted Sl. No. Environmental category/group Percentage

4. Political Impacts 15

5. Financial & Economic Impacts 25

Total 100

Each group again is sub-divided into different environmental aspects, which will be evaluated using ‘Environment Impact Score’ instrument, which is given in Table below.

Table : Environmental Impact Score Instrument

Sl No. Description Points

1 No Occurrence 10

2 No adverse impacts 9-6

3 Negligible impact (low impact & lo w probability of occurrence) 5-1

Minor Impact (abnormal conditions which causes breach to 4 (-)1 to (-)3 statutory regulations, effect and probability of occurrence are low)

Significant Impact (the activity has an effect under normal 5 operating conditions and leading to breach of the statutory (-)4 to (-)6 regulations. Effects and probability of occurrence are moderate)

Major Impact (the activity has a major effect under regular 6 operating conditions and leading to major breach of the statutory (-)7 to (-)10 regulations. Effects and probability of occurrence are extensive)

The score of environmental aspects of each group was evaluated by using the ‘Environment Impact Score Instrument’. The expected positive and negative impacts to be relatively associated with the different factors and conditions were integrated in the EIADSS worksheets and the overall impact for the project alternative was calculated. Based on the highest marks scored, the project alternative shall be finalized. The five options for the alignment of Anantapur to Amaravathi are depicted from Figure 10.4.1 to 10.4.5.

Figure 1 – Option 1 for the alignment

Figure 2 – Option 2 for the alignment

Figure 3 – Option 3 for the alignment

Figure 4 – Option 4 for the alignment

Figure 5 – Option 5 for the alignment

10.4.2 Selection of Sustainable Alternative Route for the Project

The expressway from Ananthapuramu to Amaravati is absolutely a new proposal. To identify feasible alternative, five alternatives routes were studied for the alignment. The detailed descriptions of the alternatives identified for each alignment is discussed in the following Table.

Table : Basic Criteria Considered for Evaluating the Alternative Routes from Ananthapuramu to Amaravathi

S. No Parameter Option I Option II Option III Option IV Option V

1 Length (km) 385.310 385.15 408.4 395.9 421.4

2 Tunnel (km) 8.0 13.0 2.5 8.5 1

Length of Major 3 3.83 3.83 8.42 8.78 7.94 bridges (Km)

4 Forests (Km) 33 34 14 26 16

Barren & 5 Terrain Mostly barren Mostly Barren Barren & Agricultural Barren & Agricultural Agricultural

Anantapuramu, Anantapuramu, Anantapuramu, Anantapuramu, Anantapuramu, Kadapa, 6 Districts Kurnool, Prakasam Kurnool, Prakasam & Kadapa, Prakasam & Kadapa, Prakasam & Prakasam & Guntur & Guntur Guntur Guntur Guntur

Travel time from Amravati to 7 6hrs 6hrs 6hr 10min 6hr 6hr 30min Bangalore via Anantapur

Attracts traffic going towards Attracts traffic going Bangalore from towards Bangalore May not attract May not attract traffic May not attract traffic North east districts from North east traffic as options I as options I and II as as options I and II as the of AP, Vijayawada, districts of AP, and II as the 8 Traffic growth the alignment is more alignment is more in Guntur, Part of Vijayawada, Guntur, alignment is more in in length and travel length and travel time is Prakasam, Part of Prakasam, length and travel time is high high Khammam, Khammam, Nalgonda time is high Nalgonda and and Kurnool districts Kurnool districts

Vizag and Well connected as Well connected as Kakinada Port Travel time and Length Travel time and Travel time and Length 9 the Travel time and the Travel time and Connectivity to will be more Length will be more will be more Length are less Length are less Bangalore

Connectivity to Connectivity with Connectivity with Connectivity with 10 Kurnool and Good Good Kurnool is difficult Kurnool is difficult Kurnool is difficult Kadapa

Land acquisition 11 4,425 4,425 4,791 4,696 4,876 (ha)

No. of structures 24 24 60 10 40 (Buildings/ 12 Semi-pucca/

Tin Sheds)

No. of Trees in 39954 42668 23313 41790 39120 Right of Way 13 (Including Forest and Non-forest areas)

No. of River 80 95 108 88 14 102 /canal crossings

Total cost 15 12,897 13,519 12,998 14,225 13,039 (Crores)

Ananthapuramu to Amaravathi Alignment

Five alignment options are suggested for the greenfield corridor that runs between Ananthapuramu to Amaravathi. The alignment starts at Ananthapuramu and traverses through Tadipatri and Nallamala forest and ends at Vijayawada IRR. All five alignments passes mostly through the plain terrain and at few locations through the rolling and hilly terrain. Tunnels are proposed where the alignment passes through the hilly terrain. The land use along the five alignments is primarily agriculture and at few stretches it is forest land. The cropping pattern found along the alignments is Jowar, Cotton, Red gram, etc.

Option Route-1: The alignment of the spinal corridor starts at Marur of Ananthapuramu and traverses through Tadipatri, Giddaluru, Cumbam, Prattipadu, Sattenapalle and passing through Vijayawada Inner Ring Road (IRR) thereby passing through the districts of Anantapur, Kurnool, Prakasam and Guntur ends at Sakhamuru. The alignment traverses through Nallamala forest for about 33.00 km. The land type in the alignment is mostly barren. The alignment is going through buffer zone of Gundla brahmeswara Wildlife sanctuary. Major settlements falling close to the alignment are Anantapur, Tadipatri, Allagadda, Giddaluru, Cumbum, Markapur, Darsi, Chilakaluripet and Tadikonda.

Option Route-2: This alignment passes through the districts of Ananthapuramu, Kurnool, Prakasam and Guntur. The section starts at Marur of Ananthapuramu and ends at Sakhamuru. The alignment traverses through Nallamala forest for a length of 34 km. The land use along the alignment is mostly

Option Route-3: This alignment passes through the districts of Ananthapuramu, Kadapa, Prakasam and Guntur. It starts at Mamillapalle of Ananthapuramu and ends at Sakhamuru. The alignment traverses through Nallamala forest for a length of 14 km. The land use along the alignment is partly agricultural and partly barren. The alignment follows plain and hilly terrain. The alignment is out of Wildlife sanctuary and buffer zone. Major settlements falling in close to the alignment are Kamalapurm, Vanipenta, Payalakunta, Bestavarapeta, Kavuru, Phirangipuram, Siripuram.

Option Route-4: This alignment passes through the districts of Ananthapuramu, Kadapa, Prakasam and Guntur. It starts at Mamillapalle of Ananthapuramu and ends at Sakhamuru. The alignment traverses through Nallamala forest for a length of 26 km. The land use along the alignment is partly agricultural and partly barren. The alignment follows plain and hilly terrain. The alignment is out of Wildlife sanctuary and buffer zone. Major settlements falling in close to the alignment are Kamalapurm, Vanipenta, Kanigiri, Darsi, Kavuru, Phirangipuram, Siripuram.

Option Route-5: This alignment passes through the districts of Ananthapuramu, Kadapa, Prakasam and Guntur. It starts at Marur of Ananthapuramu and ends at Sakhamuru. The alignment traverses through Nallamala forest for a length of 16 km. The land use along the alignment is partly agricultural and partly barren. The alignment follows plain and hilly terrain. The alignment is out of Wildlife sanctuary and buffer zone. Major settlements falling in close to the alignment are Narpala, Erraguntla, Vanipenta, Porumamilla, Taticherla, Bestavarapeta, Darsi, Kommalapadu, Kavuru, Phirangipuram, Siripuram.

By considering all aspects in the five alternatives, EIADSS has been analysed for environmental prime components and their sub components. The feedback analysis using DCI for various Environmental and Project Attributes are given in Table 3, and the details data analysis is given in Table 4. The abstract obtained from the analysis is presented in Table 5. From the Table 5, the natural resources impacts, ecological impacts, socio-economic impacts, political impacts, and economic & financial impacts are discussed for each alternative.

Table 3: Feedback Analysis using DCI for various Environmental and Project Attributes

S. Impact on Environmental Maxi. Opt-1 Opt-2 Opt-3 Opt-4 Opt-5 No. Attributes score Natural resources impacts Natural resources utilization 10 -2 -2 -3 -3 -3 (optimum conservation) Soil erosion and fertility 10 -2 -2 -3 -2 -3 1 Soil pollution 10 -1 -1 -2 -2 -2 Surface water quality and 10 -3 -3 -4 -3 -4 quantity Ground water level, quality and 10 -2 -2 -3 -3 -3 quantity

S. Impact on Environmental Maxi. Opt-1 Opt-2 Opt-3 Opt-4 Opt-5 No. Attributes score Air pollution 10 -1 -1 -3 -3 -3 Geo -graphical & 10 4 4 3 3 3 Topographical features Ecological Impacts Flora 10 -8 -5 -7 -7 -7 Fauna 10 -8 -5 -7 -7 -7 Aquatic life 10 5 5 5 5 5 Deforestation 10 -5 -4 -6 -6 -6 2 Traffic congestion and Accidents 10 7 7 5 5 5 mitigation Public Health 10 7 7 5 5 5 Sites of special importance (Archaeological sites & Historical 10 4 3 4 4 4 protected monuments) Socio-Economic Impacts Resettlement & Rehabilitation 10 -2 -7 -8 -8 -8 Land use & Land pattern 10 4 4 5 4 5 3 Job opportunities(short & long 10 9 8 8 8 8 term) Land price. 10 9 8 7 7 7 Change of life style pattern 10 9 8 8 8 8 Political Impacts Infrastructure development 10 9 9 8 8 8 (region wise) 4 Reaction from locals 10 6 5 5 5 5 Interests of the public 10 8 6 6 6 6 Political leaders support 10 9 6 6 6 6 Political rift / legal snags 10 8 6 6 6 6 Financial & Economic Impacts 5 Cost of the project 10 5 3 3 3 3 Regional business activity 10 8 8 9 9 9

Table 4: Detailed Analysis of Alternatives using EIADSS

Weighted % Impact on Environmental S. No. (Set by the Option -1 Option -2 Option -3 Attributes user) % Wtd % % Wtd % % Wtd %

scored points scored points scored points 1 Natural resources impacts

Weighted % Impact on Environmental S. No. (Set by the Option -1 Option -2 Option -3 Attributes user) % Wtd % % Wtd % % Wtd %

scored points scored points scored points Natural resources utilization (optimum -20.00 -20.00 -30.00 conservation) Soil erosion and fertility -20.00 -20.00 -30.00 Soil pollution -10.00 -10.00 -20.00 Surface water quality and -30.00 -30.00 -40.00 quantity Ground water level, -20.00 -20.00 -30.00 quality and quantity Air pollution -10.00 -10.00 -30.00 Geo -graphical & 40.00 40.00 30.00 Topographical features Average percentage 15 -10.00 -150.00 -10.00 -150.00 -21.43 -321.43 Ecological Impacts Flora -80.00 -50.00 -70.00 Fauna -80.00 -50.00 -70.0 0 Aquatic life (Wet lands) 50.00 50.00 50.00 Deforestation -50.00 -40.00 -60.00 Traffic congestion and 70.00 70.00 50.00 2 Accidents mitigation Public Health 70.00 70.00 50.00 Sites of special importance (Archaeological sites & 40.00 30.00 40.00 Historical protected monuments) Average percentage 30 2.86 85.71 11.43 342.86 -1.43 -42.86 Socio -Economic Impacts Resettlement & -20.00 -70.00 -80.00 Rehabilitation Land use & Land pattern 40.00 40.00 50.00 Job opportunities(short & 3 90.00 80.00 80.00 long term) Land price. 90.00 80.00 70.00 Change of life style 90.00 80.00 80.00 pattern Average percentage 15 58.00 870.00 42.00 630.00 40.00 600.00

Weighted % Impact on Environmental S. No. (Set by the Option -1 Option -2 Option -3 Attributes user) % Wtd % % Wtd % % Wtd %

scored points scored points scored points Political Impacts Infrastructure development (region 90.00 90.00 80.00 wise) Reaction from locals 60.00 50.00 50.00 4 Interests of the public 80.00 60.00 60.00 Political leaders support 90.00 60.00 60.00 Political rift/legal snags 80.00 60.00 60.00 Average perce ntage 15 80.00 1200.00 64.00 960.00 62.00 930.00 Financial & Economic Impacts Cost of the project 50.00 30.00 30.00 5 Regional roadside 80.00 80.00 90.00 business activity Average percentage 25 65.00 1625.00 55.00 1375.00 60.00 1500. 00 Cumulative Weighted Percentages 36.31 31.58 26.66

Weighted % Impact on Environmental S. No. (Set by the Option -4 Option -5 Attributes user) % Wtd % % Wtd %

scored points scored points Natural resources impacts Natural resources utilization (optimum -30.00 -30.00 conservation) Soil erosion and fertility -20.00 -30.00 Soil pollution -20.00 -20.00 Surface water quality and 1 -30.00 -40.00 quantity Ground water level, quality -30.00 -30.00 and quantity Air po llution -30.00 -30.00 Geo -graphical & 30.00 30.00 Topographical features Average percentage 15 -18.57 -278.57 -21.43 -321.45 2 Ecological Impacts

Weighted % Impact on Environmental S. No. (Set by the Option -4 Option -5 Attributes user) % Wtd % % Wtd %

scored points scored points Flora -70.00 -70.00 Fauna -70.00 -70.00 Aquatic life (Wet lands) 50.00 50.00 Deforestation -60.00 -60.00 Traffic congestion and 50.00 50.00 Accidents mitigation Public Health 50.00 50.00 Sites of special importance (Archaeological sites & 40.00 40.00 Historical protected monuments) Average percentage 30 -1.43 -42.86 -21.43 -642.90 Socio -Economic Impacts Resettlement & -80.00 -80.00 Rehabilitation Land use & Land pattern 40.00 50.00 3 Job opportunities(short & 80.00 80.00 long term) Land price. 70.00 70.00 Change of life style pattern 80.00 80.00 Average percentage 15 38.00 570.00 40.00 600.00 Political Impacts Infrastructure 80.00 80.00 development (region wise) Reaction from locals 50.00 50.00 4 Interests of the public 60.00 60.00 Political leaders suppor t 60.00 60.00 Political rift/legal snags 60.00 60.00 Average percentage 15 62.00 930.00 62.00 930.00 Financial & Economic Impacts Cost of the project 30.00 30.00 5 Regional roadside business 90.00 90.00 activity Average percentag e 25 60.00 1500.00 60.00 1500.00 Cumulative Weighted Percentages 26.79 20.66

In Option Route–1, the maximum positive weighted component observed for economic & financial impact is 1625, and for ecological impacts is 85.71 whereas minimum weighted component observed for natural resources impacts is (-)150. The socio-economic and political impacts weighted components assessed to be 870 and 1200 respectively. The cumulative weighted percentage is worked out to be 36.31. Hence, this alternative is found to be good when compared to other alternative routes.

In Option Route–2, the maximum positive weighted component observed for economic & financial impact is 1375 and for ecological impacts is 342.86 whereas minimum weighted component observed for natural resources impacts is (-)150.00. The socio-economic and political impacts weighted components assessed to be 630 and 9600 respectively. The cumulative weighted percentage is worked out to be 31.58. Hence, this alternative is found to be behind the first option.

In Option Route–3, the maximum positive weighted component observed for economic & financial impact is 1500, whereas minimum weighted component observed for ecological impacts are -42.86 and natural resources impacts are (-)321.43. The socio-economic and political impacts weighted components assessed to be 600 and 930 respectively. The cumulative weighted percentage is worked out to be 26.66. Hence, this alternative is found to be a bit poor when compared to other alternative routes and stands at fourth position.

In Option Route–4, the maximum positive weighted component observed for economic & financial impact is 1500, whereas minimum weighted component observed for ecological impacts are -42.86 and natural resources impacts are (-)278.57. The socio-economic and political impacts weighted components assessed to be 570 and 930 respectively. The cumulative weighted percentage is worked out to be 26.79. Hence, this alternative is found to be a bit poor when compared to other alternative routes and stands at third position.

In Option Route–5, the maximum positive weighted component observed for economic & financial impact is 1500, whereas minimum weighted component observed for ecological impacts are -642.90 and natural resources impacts are (-)321.48. The socio-economic and political impacts weighted components assessed to be 600 and 930 respectively. The cumulative weighted percentage is worked out to be 20.66. Hence, this alternative is found to be very poor when compared to other option routes and stands at fifth position.

It is concluded that the weighted percentages for the five alternative routes (1 to 5) estimated as 36.31, 31.58, 26.66, 26.79 and 20.66 respectively. The maximum weighted percentage indicates the best alternative route and the minimum weighted percentage indicates the poor alternative route. So, it is concluded that the maximum weighted percentage obtained to Alternative-1 viz. 36.31% is recommended for this project.

Table 5: Abstract Statement of Evaluating Feasible Alternative Route for Ananthapuramu to Amaravathi

S.NO. Impact on Importance Opt -1 Opt -2 Opt -3 Opt -4 Opt -5

Environmental weighs (Set Attributes by the user) Weighted Weighted component Weighted component Weighted component Weighted component Weighted component 1 Natural resources 15 -10.00 -150.00 -10.00 -150.00 -21.43 -321.43 -18.57 -278.57 -21.43 -321.45 impacts 2 Ecological Impacts 30 2.86 85.71 11.43 342.86 -1.43 -42.86 -1.43 -42.86 -21.43 -642.90 3 Socio -Economic 15 58.00 870.00 42.00 630.00 40.00 600.00 38.00 570.00 40.00 600.00 Impacts 4 Political Impacts 15 80.00 1200.00 64.00 960.00 62.00 930.00 62.00 930.00 62.00 930.00 5 Financial & 25 65.00 1625.00 55.00 1375.00 60.00 1500.00 60.00 1500.00 60.00 1500.00 Economic Impacts Weighted 100 36.31 31.58 26.66 26.79 20.66 Percentages

Conclusion: In view of the above benefits, Alternative-1 is suggested as the best route which will have social & environmental acceptability, technically viability, and economic & financial feasibility for this project.

Final Conclusion: After evaluating five options for the alignmnet using EIADSS, it is recommended to adopt the option -1 for Ananthapuramu to Amaravathi Expreesway. This option if chosen for development will have minimum environmental impacts compared with other four. Figure showing the suggested alternative for alignment is given in below Figure.6.

Figure 6: Location map showing the suggested alignment for the total project stretch.