Barrage on Penganga River Interstate Irrigation Project, Adilabad District of Telangana

Bio-Diversity Plan prepared for

Channaka-Korata (Rudha) Barrage on Penganga River Interstate Irrigation Project, Adilabad district of Telangana

1.0 Background of the Project

ñ Irrigation is a vital component of agricultural production in many developing countries. In 1997-99, irrigated land contributed two-fifths of crop production in developing countries, but accounted only for about one-fifth of the cultivated area. The divergence in these statistics reflects the high crop yields and multiple cropping that are achieved through irrigation. Developing countries are particularly dependent on irrigation for their productivity in agriculture sector.

ñ India is blessed with a rich and vast diversity of natural resources, water being one of them. The rainfall is scanty and undependable in many parts of our country. Sometimes the monsoon delayed considerably while sometimes they cease prematurely. This will enhance the uncertainty in the agricultural production. Since 80% of the annual rainfall is received in less than four months, multiple cropping is generally not possible. This pushes large areas of the country into drought conditions particularly in non-monsoon seasons. Hence there is a greater need for Governments to supply drinking and cultivable waters to the population uniformly throughout the year on priority basis.

ñ High production rates in agriculture are essential to the economic development and welfare of the people of the country. Agricultural productivity is primarily dependable on available irrigation infrastructural facilities of the region. Hence, the food grain production is unthinkable without proper utilization of water resources of the region.

1 Figure 1.1: Index Map showing project components and its surroundings

2.0 Methodology adopted for Flora and Fauna Assessment

A list of all macroscopic plants is prepared based on extensive field survey covering the entire project site or core area. If any species cannot be identified, photos of the plant and plant parts are taken and a field note is prepared on the plant for

2 subsequent identification.

Quantitative data on frequency, density, dominance as percent cover etc are noted based on quadrats of 10 x 10 m in case of trees, 2 x 5 m in case of shrubs and 1 x 1 m in case of herbs. Cover is usually estimated by a modified line intercept method where the area occupied by each species is estimated as percentage of total length of a line transect either intercepted or over lain or under laid along with the transect.

Data from field study is recorded in the following Table List of plant species found in the Project area Name of plant Local name or common Family species name (if any)

Frequency, density and dominance of different species of plants (separate Table for each quadrat and transect will be maintained) Name of plant species Frequency (recorded as + Density as % cover based on or œ only) number per line transects quadrat

Relative frequency (R.F), relative density (R.D), relative dominance (R.dom) and Importance value indices (IVI) of different species Name of plant species Frequency Density Dominance IVI % R.F % R.D % R.Dom

Based on the IVI values, Shannon œWiener Indices of Diversity was calculated. Shannon œ Wiener Indices of Diversity was calculated as the sum of p i value of each species multiplied by ln of p i using the following equation:

Where, p i is calculated by dividing the IVI of a species by the total IVI of all species in the sampled community.

3 2.1 Field Report on Flora in the Study Area The forests present within the 10 km radius of the projects are Arli reserved forest, Tansi reserved forest and Tipeshwar reserved forest. The forest are classified as dry deciduous forest as per Champion and Seth (1968) and the region is fall in hot arid climatic zone. The flora and fauna were studied in the given reason with respect to terrestrial, aquatic and avian aspects for forest and non-forest areas.

2.1.1. Details of flora in forest region Quadrant studies are done to know the flora present the forest area. A total of 7 quadrats of size 20 m x 20 m were laid at different locations of the forest area of the project. The details of the 7 quadrats laid and the species identified are as follows:

Quadrat 1 Classification as per S.No Name of the plant Local name Family IUCN redbook

1 Butea monosperma Moduga Fabaceae Not assessed

2 Tectona grandis Teak Verbenaceae Not assessed

3 Acacia nilotica Babool Fabaceae Not assessed

4 Azadiracta Indica Vepa Meliaceae Not assessed

5 Casia fistula Rela Caesalpinaceae Not assessed

Quadrat 2 Classification as per S.No Name of the plant Local name Family IUCN redbook

1 Butea monosperma Moduga Fabaceae Not assessed

2 Tectona grandis Teak Verbenaceae Not assessed

3 Acacia nilotica Babool Fabaceae Not assessed

4 Pongamia pinneta Ganuga Fabaceae Least concern

5 Emblica oficinalis Usiri Phyllanthaceae Not assessed

Quadrat 3 Classification as per S.No Name of the plant Local name Family IUCN redbook

4 1 Butea monosperma Moduga Fabaceae Not assessed

2 Tectona grandis Teak Verbenaceae Not assessed

3 Azadiracta Indica Vepa Meliaceae Not assessed

4 Acacia nilotica Babool Fabaceae Not assessed

5 Ficus religiosa Raavi Moraceae Not assessed

6 Pongamia pinneta Ganuga Fabaceae Least concern

7 Cassia fistula Rela Caesalpinaceae Not assessed

Quadrat 4 Classification as per S.No Name of the plant Local name Family IUCN redbook

1 Butea Monosperma Moduga Fabaceae Not assessed

2 Tectona Grandis Teak Verbenaceae Not assessed

3 Ficus religiosa Raavi Moraceae Not assessed

4 Acacia nilotica Babool Fabaceae Not assessed

5 Emblica aficinalis Usiri Phyllanthaceae Not assessed

6 Pongamia pinneta Ganuga Fabaceae Least concern

Quadrat 5 Classification as per S.No Name of the plant Local name Family IUCN redbook

1 Azadiracta Indica Vepa Meliaceae Not assessed

2 Tectona grandis Teak Verbenaceae Not assessed

3 Acacia nilotica Babool Fabaceae Not assessed

4 Butea monosperma Moduga Fabaceae Not assessed

5 Pongamia Pinneta Ganuga Fabaceae Least concern

Quadrat 6 Classification as per S.No Name of the plant Local name Family IUCN redbook

1 Butea monosperma Moduga Fabaceae Not assessed

2 Tectona grandis Teak Verbenaceae Not assessed

3 Acacia leucocephala Subabul Mimosaceae Not assessed 5 4 Ficus religiosa Raavi Moraceae Not assessed

5 Emblica Aficinalis Usiri Phyllanthaceae Not assessed

6 Casia fistula Rela Caesalpinaceae Not assessed

Quadrat 7 Classification as S.No Name of the plant Local name Family per IUCN redbook

1 Mangifera indica Mango Anacardiaceae Data deficient

2 Tectona grandis Teak Verbenaceae Not assessed

3 Pongamia pinneta Ganuga Fabaceae Least concern

4 Azadiracta Indica Vepa Meliaceae Not assessed

5 Butea monosperma Moduga Fabaceae Not assessed

6 Casia fistula Rela Caesalpinaceae Not assessed

The vegetation analysis based on the samples in the forest area of the project is placed in the following table.

Based on the analysis conducted on the available data it is noted that Tectona grandis tree is dominant in the forest area of the project. Using the formula, the Shannon Weiner index value was calculated, and it is 1.92 and the evenness of the species is 0.83. These values depict low biodiversity levels at the project site with less value of species evenness.

6 Figure.2.1: Survey of flora in the forest area

The vegetation analysis based on the samples in the forest area of the project is placed in the following table.

2.1.2. Details of flora in non-forest region

Quadrant studies are done to know the flora present the non - forest area. A total of

7 8 quadrats of size 10 m x 10 m were laid at different locations of the non-forest area of the project. The details of the 8 quadrats laid and the species identified are as follows:

Quadrat 1: Near to Korata Village

Classification as S.No Name of the plant Local name Family per IUCN redbook

1 Butea monosperma Moduga Fabaceae Not assessed

2 Tamarindus indica Chinta Fabaceae Not assessed

3 Azadirachta indica Vepa Meliaceae Not assessed

4 Acacia arabica Tumma Mimosaceae Not assessed

5 Aegle marmelous Maredu Rutaceae Not assessed

6 Tectona grandis Teku Verbenaceae Not assessed

7 Prosopis juliflora Sarcar tumma Mimosaceae Not assessed

8 Ficus religiosa Raavi Moraceae Not assessed

Quadrat 2: Near to Eviri Village Classification as S.No Name of the plant Local name Family per IUCN redbook

1 Tamarindus indica Chinta Fabaceae Not assessed

2 Ficus religiosa Raavi Moraceae Not assessed

3 Azadirachta indica Vepa Meliaceae Not assessed

4 Tectona grandis Teku Lamiaceae Not assessed

5 Butea monosperma Moduga Fabaceae Not assessed

6 Ficus racemosa Medi Moraceae Not assessed

7 Zizyphus jujube Regu Rhamnaceae Not assessed

8 Argemone mexicana Bala rakkasi Papavaraceae Not assessed

9 Cassia auriculata Tangedu Fabaceae Not assessed

Quadrat 3: Near to Chanaka Village

S.No Name of the plant Local name Family Classification as per IUCN redbook

1 Ficus bengalensis Marri Moraceae Not assessed 8 2 Tamarindus indica Chinta Fabaceae Not assessed

3 Carissa Vaaka Apocyanaceae Not assessed

4 Neriunm oleander Ganneru Apocyanaceae Not assessed

5 Ficus religiosa Raavi Moraceae Not assessed

6 Gossypium herbaceum Patti Malvaceae Not assessed

7 Casuarina equisetifolia Sarugudu Casuarinaceae Not assessed

8 Butea monosperma Moduga Fabaceae Not assessed

9 Delonex regia Turayi Fabaceae Least concern

Quadrat 4: Near to Akoli Village

S.No Name of the plant Local name Family Classification as per IUCN redbook

1 Acacia arabica Tumma Mimosaceae Not assessed

2 Prosopis juliflora Sarcar tumma Mimosaceae Not assessed

3 Ficus religiosa Raavi Moraceae Not assessed

4 Tectona grandis Teku Lamiaceae Not assessed

5 Butea monosperma Moduga Fabaceae Not assessed

6 Acacia leucocephala Subabul Fabaceae Not assessed

7 Zizyphus jujube Regu Rhamnaceae Not assessed

8 Azadirachta indica Vepa Meliaceae Not assessed

9 Cordia macleodil Botuku Boraginaceae Not assessed

Quadrat 5: Near to Rudha Village Classification as S.No Name of the plant Local name Family per IUCN redbook

1 Acacia arabica Tumma Mimosaceae Not assessed

2 Prosopis juliflora Sarcar tumma Mimosaceae Not assessed

3 Butea monosperma Moduga Fabaceae Not assessed

4 Nerium odorum Ganneru Apocyanaceae Not assessed

5 Tamarindus indica Chinta Fabaceae Not assessed

6 Azadirachta indica Vepa Meliaceae Not assessed

7 Pongamia pinnata Kanuga Fabaceae Least concern 9 8 Argemone mexicana Bala rakkasi Papavaraceae Not assessed

9 Ficus religiosa Raavi Moraceae Not assessed

10 Carica papaya Papaya Caricaceae Not assessed

Quadrat 6: Near pippalkhoti village Classification as S.No Name of the plant Local name Family per IUCN redbook

1 Tectona grandis Teku Lamiaceae Not assessed

2 Azadirachta indica Vepa Meliaceae Not assessed

3 Butea monosperma Moduga Fabaceae Not assessed

4 Acacia arabica Tumma Mimosaceae Not assessed

5 Prosopis juliflora Sarcar tumma Mimosaceae Not assessed

6 Calotropis gigantea Jilledu Asclepiadeceae Not assessed

7 Ficus religiosa Raavi Moraceae Not assessed

8 Pongamia pinnata Kanuga Fabaceae Least concern

9 Mangifera indica Mango Anacardiaceae Data defecient

10 Prosopis cineraria Jammi Fabaceae Not assessed

11 Carissa Vaaka Apocyanaceae Not assessed

Quadrat 7: Near Ghubadi village Classification as S.No Name of the plant Local name Family per IUCN redbook

1 Prosopis juliflora Sarcar tumma Mimosaceae Not assessed

2 Tectona grandis Teku Lamiaceae Not assessed

3 Butea monosperma Moduga Fabaceae Not assessed

4 Acacia leucocephala Subabul Mimosaceae Not assessed

5 Zizyphus jujube Regu Rhamnaceae Least concerned

6 Azadirachta indica Vepa Meliaceae Not assessed

Quadrat 8: Near Kharegaon village Classification as S.No Name of the plant Local name Family per IUCN redbook 10 1 Azadirachta indica Vepa Meliaceae Not assessed

2 Tectona grandis Teku Lamiaceae Not assessed

3 Butea monosperma Moduga Fabaceae Not assessed

4 Ficus racemosa Medi Moraceae Not assessed

5 Zizyphus jujube Regu Rhamnaceae Least concerned

6 Argemone mexicana Bala rakkasi Papavaraceae Not assessed

7 Cassia auriculata Tangedu Caesalpinaceae Not assessed

The vegetation analysis based on the samples in the non-forest area of the project is placed in the following table.

11 Based on the primary survey it is noted that Butea monosperma tree is dominant in the project area. Using the formula, the Shannon Weiner index value was calculated and it is 2.79 and the evenness of the species is 0.88. These values depict moderate biodiversity levels at the project site with less value of species evenness.

2.2 Survey of Fauna of the study area:

Since the animals with the exception of a few sedentary species and a few residents move from place to place either for feeding or breeding or for shelter etc, it may not be possible to prepare separate lists of fauna for core and buffer zones unless the core area is very large as in case of a reservoir. The mere absence of a species at the time of sampling does not rule out its presence. In order to overcome such problems, a list based on both primary survey and secondary data is prepared. The primary survey takes in to account both direct evidence and indirect evidence including the circumstantial evidence. All relevant scientific documents such as the scientific publications, documents and reports are a good source of information provided they are site, area and location specific. Further, they have to be recent but not decades old. In the absence of such data and information, reports of eye witness accounts and information from local non-governmental organizations shall also be considered. Due attention should be paid to rare or endangered or endemic or threatened (REET) species. In order to find out whether a species comes under any of the REET categories, references are made to IUCN Red Data, Indian Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972 and its amendments thereof, Botanical survey of India (BSI) and Zoological Survey of India (ZSI). The list of faunal species along with family names and status

12 as per IUCN and Wildlife Act are given in Table no.2.1, 2.2 & 2.3.

As per the survey done in the region and interaction done with the villagers, following animals are identified in the forest within project study area (10k radius):

Table.2.1: List of Flora species in the project region

Belongs to Classification Scientific Name which schedule S.No Local name Family as per IUCN of the animal as per Wildlife Redbook act

1 Axis axis Spotted deer Cervidae III Least concern

2 Sus scrofa Wild Boar Suidae III Least concern

3 Lepus nigricollis Hare Leporidae IV Least concern

4 Bos gaurus Indian Bison Bovidae I Vulnerable

5 Panthera tigris Tiger Felidae I Endangered

6 Pavo cristatus Pea Fowl Phasianidae I Least concern

Crocodylus 7 Crocodile Crocodylidae I Vulnerable palustris

Common 8 Corvus splendens Corvidae V Least concern crow

9 Passer domesticus Sparrow Passeridae -- Least concern

Table.2.2: Common domestic animals in the project region

Scientific Name of the Classification as per S.No Common name Family animal IUCN Redbook

1 Bubalus bubalis Buffalo Bovidae Not assessed

2 Bos taurus indicus Cow Bovidae Not assessed

3 Caprahircus aegagrus Goat Bovidae Not assessed

4 Canislupus familiaris Dog Canidae Not assessed

5 Equusafricanus asinus Donkey Equidae Not assessed

6 Equusferus caballus Horse Equidae Not assessed

7 Sus scrofa domesticus Pig Suidae Not assessed

13 Table no.2.3: AS per the secondary data, following faunal species are identified in the project region:

Schedule as Classification Scientific Name of the Local name Family per Wildlife as per IUCN animal act Redbook Mammales Axis axis Spotted deer Cervidae III Least concern

Sus scrofa Wild Boar Suidae III Least concern

Lepus nigricollis Hare Leporidae IV Least concern

Bos gaurus Indian Bison Bovidae I Vulnerable

Panthera tigris Tiger Felidae I Endangered

Cervus unicolour Sambar Cervidae III Vulnerable

Melursus ursinus Bear Ursidae II Vulnerable

Hyaena hyaena Hyenas Hyaenidae III Near threatened

Antilope cervicapra Black buck Bovidae I Near threatened

Canis aureus Jackal Canidae I Least concern

Macaca mulatta Monkey Cercopithecidae I Least concern

Boselapohus tragocamalus Blue bull Bovidae III Least concern

Felis chaus Jungle cat Felidae II Least concern

Viverricula indica Small civet Viverridae II Least concern

Herpestes auropunctatus Mongoose Herpestidae IV Not assessed

Hystrix indica Indian Hystricidae III Least concern porcupine Cuon alpines Wild dog Canidae II Endangered

Canis lupus pallipes Wolf Canidae I Not assessed

Muntiacus muntjak Indian barking Cervidae III Least concern deer Vulpes benghalensis Fox Canidae II Least concern

Reptiles

Crocodylus palustris Crocodile Crocodylidae I Vulnerable

Varanus bengalensis Monitor lizard Varanidae I Least concern

Python molurus Rock python Pythonidae I Near Threatened 14 Naja naja Indian cobra Elapidae II

Bungarus coeruleus Common krait Elapidae IV Not assessed

Vipera russelli Russels viper Viperidae IV Not assessed

Ptyas mucosus Rat snake Colubridae II Not assessed Sterna aurantia River tern Laridae -- Near threatened Haliastur indus Brahminy kite Accipitridae -- Least concern Francolinus pondicerianus Grey patridge Phasianidae -- Least concern

Anas crecca Common teal Anatidae IV Least concern Dinopium benghalense Woodpecker Picidae IV Least concern Coracias benghalensis Paala pitta Coraciidae IV Least concern Alcedo atthis Kingfisher Alcedinidae IV Least concern Hierococcyx varius Common hawk Cuculidae -- Least concern Eudynamys scolopaceus Indian koel Cuculidae -- Least concern

Psittacula krameri Parrot Psittaculidae Least concern Ottus bakkamoena Owl Strigidae IV Least concern Columba livia Indian rock pegion Columbidae IV Least concern

Spilopelia chinensis Spotted dove Columbidae IV Least concern Amaurornis phoenicurus Water hen Rallidae -- Least concern Lanius schach Longtailed shrike Laniidae -- Least concern

Pericrocotus Small minivet Campephagidae IV Least concern cinnamomeus Dicrurus macrocercus Drongo Dicruridae IV Least concern

Tephrodornis Commonwoodshrik Tephrodornithidae -- Not assessed pondicerianus e Copsychus fulicatus Indian robin Muscicapidae -- Not assessed Astrilda sp. Munia Plocidae IV Not assessed Acridotheres fuscus Jungle myna Sturnidae IV Least concern

Pycnonotus cafer Red vented bulbul Pycnonotidae IV Least concern

Turdoides caudata Common babbler Leiothrichidae IV Least concern

Cinnyris asiaticus Purple sunbird Nectariniidae IV Least concern Amandava amandava Red munia Estrildidae IV Not assessed

Upupa epops Common hoopoe Upupidae -- Not assessed

Mycteria leucocephala Painted stork Ciconiidae IV Near threatened

2.3 Study of Aquatic Flora and Fauna :

Aquatic flora and fauna of the Project area Penganga is the major water body near to the project site. During the site visit though the river area is found to be almost dry condition with very little water available. However, based on the secondary data it is noticed that during the monsoon period, the major aquatic flora found at the 15 reservoirs and water bodies includes Eichornia, Nymphia, Nelumbo etc., other benthic flora like spirogyra, Desmedium, diatoms are present in the river area. Few common aquatic fauna are given below table no. 2.4. 1 Indian spot-billed anas Anatidae Least Concern duck poecilorhyncha

2 Cormarant Phalacrocorax carbo Phalacrocoracidae Least Concern

3 Little Egret Egretta garzetta Ardeidae Least Concern

Common fish which are abundant in the project area

1 Labeo rohita Labeo rohita Cyprinidae Least Concern

2 Fringed-lipped Labeo fimbriatus Cyprinidae Least Concern peninsula carp

3 Orangefin labeo Labeo calbasu Cyprinidae Least Concern

4 Korramatta Channa Striata Channidae Least concern

5 Bocha Catla catla Cyprinidae Least concern

2.4. Impact on Flora & Fauna i. Impact on Flora:

The project involves construction of barrage, reservoir, pump house and WCS, which may adversely affect the flora and fauna at the project sites and its influence areas. The potential project impacts on the bio environment are identified and listed below.

About 300 nos. of trees will be removed because of construction of barrage. The floral species in the forest area are not disturbed because of the construction. During construction few tree species may be disturbed because of the dust generation at the site due to vehicular movement. However, the short-term impact due to felling of trees will be compensated in long term through the proposed plantation program. The local plant varieties will be identified and the same will be planted near the barrage and surrounding areas. Based on the survey it is identified that there are no endangered or threatened tree species are present in the project location, however some of the threatened floral species are present inside the Tippeshwar wildlife sanctuary and there is no im pact of the project on them as they are deep inside the forest area of the sanctuary.

Mitigation Measures

ñ Compensatory plantation of trees along the proposed services road to the

16 Main Canal and Distributaries for a tentative length of 30Kms. The trees proposed for plantation are 6000 Nos along one side of the service road, 2000nos at administrative office area, pump houses, reservoirs etc. The cost of the tree plantation is estimated to be Rs.96.0 Lakhs.

ñ Aged tree species would be exempted from removal. Necessary precautions will be taken in this regard. Any such tree species occurring in the project site will be specially notified with details.

ñ Plantation programme shall be promptly adopted to restore and further enrich the loss of vegetation.

ñ Plantation with an appropriate mix of indigenous and especially suited species shall be carried out along the corridor.

ñ Local plant varieties especially, soil bounding species will be planted near to the constructed aqueduct and also in the surroundings in order to hold the soil tightly.

ñ Local plant varieties which yield Non-Timber Forest Product (NTFPs) will be planted in the compensatory plantation to support local people. ii. Impact on Fauna:

Faunal Diversity and impact of the project

The area is a dry deciduous forestland, scrub-land, agricultural fields and human settlements. A faunal enlisting of birds & mammals with their scientific names and common names is presented based on the secondary data and in consultation with local villagers. The list of faunal species, the family they belong to and the status of the faunal species with reference to the IUCN red data book and with reference to the Wildlife act 1972 schedules were placed in table. Table depicts the abundant animals found in the study area and its adjoining area. The faunal species present in the Tippeshwar wildlife sanctuary belong to Vulnerable or near threatened species. However, the construction works of the barrage does not cause much disturbance to these deep forest animals and thus will not have any adverse impact due to the construction activity. Even after construction phase, the faunal species will not get affected and rather they may increase in their number because of the increased water and food availability.

17 After the careful study of the available records, detailed appraisals made through the three site visits by the Office of the Conservator of Forest & Field Director, Pench Tiger Reserve, Nagpur has issued a compliance of wildlife mitigation measure letter (vide no. 5A/MH/3423/17-18, Dated 03rd December 18). The members of the committee and after considering the needs of the people as well as the wildlife in the landscape, the committee made the recommendations/mitigation measures.

Mitigation Measures:

During September 2018, a constituted Expert committee from State Board of Wilf Life visited the project influence areas and after their thorough observations suggested the mitigation measures to conserve the wildlife in the area. The committee opined that —Considering the extent of the barrage activities limited to a smaller area, closed canal network in Maharashtra side, not so prolonged storage period of water within the comparatively narrow river bed and the possible gains to the habitat in the form of additional water availability to otherwise drier region, SBWL committee recommends that there is no need of any major structural mitigation measures as a crossover points or so for large carnivores along the length of the impounded backwater. However the additional water supply may create a condition, where there may be spurt in the human-wildlife conflict in various forms and impoundment may affect the lotic ecosystem. To mitigate such situation, the project authorities need to make following provisions:

ñ User agency to deposit the 2% of project cost (revised, if any by that date) to the Pench Tiger Foundation before granting final wildlife clearance, which can be used for strengthening existing anti-poaching infrastructures, monitoring, habitat management activities etc., in the areas where part of sanctuary boundary falls under the submergence and the adjoining areas.

ñ Considering the impact of impoundment on the habitat and wildlife, the committee opined that the enclaved Pitapungari village needs to be rehabilitated from the present location. The user agency should bear the cost of the family rehabilitation package of the village and the state government of Maharashtra to provide the other costs.

ñ The agency will fund a long term monitoring & study project, which will

18 study the impacts of this 23 km long linear reservoir on the dynamics of wildlife and the human- wildlife conflict in the region.

ñ While considering all further projects like Lower Penganga project, the present activities should also be taken into consideration at spatial scale so that free movements of wildlife between Penganga sanctuary and Tipeshwar sanctuary are not affected.

ñ Since monsoon is the period of breeding of fish, agency shall ensure free movements of the fish fauna by incorporating structures like fish ladders. Expert advice from agency like MAFSU, Nagpur may be obtained.

ñ By recommending so, the committee however does not subscribe to or supports any procedural inconsistency, irregularities, non-compliance or violations, if any by the agency. The agency is fully responsible for non- compliance of any of the existing statutory provisions and should adhere to the statutory compliances hereafter.

The other measures that will be taken up are as follows:

ñ Filling up of ponds will be resorted only after exhausting all other options.

ñ Filling up of ponds wherever required shall be done during the non-monsoon months.

ñ Construction of bridges and culverts shall be accomplished during the non- monsoon periods.

ñ The direct discharge of oil and chemical spills to the water bodies shall be avoided.

ñ During the construction, minimal impact is anticipated on fauna as necessary precautionary measures will be taken up during the construction activity near to the forest areas.

ñ Awareness programmes will be conducted in the command area as well as construction labours and also to the project staff in the form of

19 seminars/workshops/exhibitions with reference to the wildlife conservation.

ñ Define the construction boundary near Sanctuary peripheral area and shall be provided with hoarding/notice boards/sign boards for the restriction of movement of construction labours/local public.

ñ Construction camps shall be put 10 Kms away from the sensitive locations.

ñ The construction activity near to the reserve forests shall be taken up during day time only.

ñ Using prefabricated and special methods to reduce the time taken in the erection/construction of the intrusions.

ñ Avoiding work during nights to facilitate movement of many species, especially large mammals and carnivores.

ñ Avoiding camping of people/workers and use of domestic animals.

ñ Keeping in view, as the crest level of the sour vents of barrage is only 0.355 m above the bed level of the river and in monsoon season i.e., from July to September water will not be impounded in the barrage to allow free flow of the flood water, hence there is no hindrance in the movement fish during breeding season.

2.5 Special Mention about the Tiger ( Panthera tigris)

Kingdom : Animalia; Phylum : Chordata; Class : Mammalia; Order : Carnivores ; Family : Felidae; Genus : Panthera ; Species : tigris Common Name : Tiger

This species has been included in Schedule-I of the Indian Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972, in Appendix-I of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) and categorized as Endangered on the International Union for the Conservation of Nature's (IUCN) Red List.

Apart from implementing the suggestions from the State Board of Wild Life

20 Committee, the following mitigation measures will be followed in order to protect the Schedule œ I animal i.e. Tiger in the project influence area:

ñ With the help of local villagers the tiger movement will be updated regularly to the authorities.

ñ Boards, Hoardings and caution sign boards will be erected at places where Tiger movement is more. Budget provision is made in Environment Management Plan with regard to the same.

ñ Awareness campaigns will be conducted in the project influence areas to the public in order to create more awareness about the Tiger and the importance and how to reduce the human- tiger conflicts and also the legal status in case Tigers are killed/ harmed and it will also be intimated to the public what they have to do in case they spot a Tiger.

ñ Arrangements will be made to immediately inform the spotting of Tiger to the concerned authorities for taking necessary action.

ñ As suggested by SBWL, the 2% of the project cost will be given to Pench Tiger Foundation which will be used for monitoring Biodiversity and wildlife conservation in the project influence area including Tiger.

2.5. Implementable Budgetary Provisions Made in the EMP for implementing Biodiversity and Wildlife conservation including Tiger Conservation Plan

Description Unit Cost/Lump Sum Cost Amount (Rs. (Rs.) Lakh) Biodiversity and Wildlife conservation (including Tiger Conservation) Plan in the Project Influence Area 1. User agency will deposit 2% of project 2 % of the Project cost i.e., 800.00 cost to the Pench Tiger Foundation before 399 crores is equal to granting final wildlife clearance, which can be used for strengthening existing anti-poaching 2 x 399/100 = Nearly 8 infrastructures, monitoring, habitat Crores management activities etc., in the areas where part of sanctuary boundary falls under the submergence and the adjoining areas.

21 2. Training & Awareness a. Awareness Programmes (For all Lump sum 10.00 Project staff members) b. Competency Training Programmes Lump sum 5.00 (For Project Key personnel and PMC members) Lump sum 5.00 c. Awareness generation through organizing camps, placing hoardings, erecting signboards in the tiger movement zones around the project area 3. Monitoring of flora and fauna including Tiger and other flora and fauna a. Construction phase 2 years x 10,00,000 20.00 b. Operation phase 1 year x 5,00,000 5.00 Total Budgetary provision (Rs. Lakh) 845.00