Karnataka Forest Department

Internal Evaluation Report of 2007-08 Works

Copy Right Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (HOFF) Aranya Bhavan, 18th Cross, Malleshwaram Bangalore – 560003, Phone: 080 23343770 Web: http://www.aranya.gov.in

April, 2014 PREFACE

Karnataka Forest Department was one of the earliest departments to adopt internal evaluation as a mechanism for improving the quality of works. The idea was floated as early as 1972. But it took some time to formalise and the first report was submitted to the state government in 1986. Since then, the department has been periodically conducting internal evaluations, discussing the findings internally and attempting to bring in reforms to improve the effectiveness of the development programs. This report is fifth in the series of internal evaluations. There was some delay in finalizing the report. But it is gratifying to note that it has been brought out quite well. The content and presentation are very appealing and easy to understand. I hope that all the officers concerned will go through the report and benefit from the evaluation study.

Over the years, development programs have been expanding and diversifying in numerous ways. Even the methodology for evaluation has been evolving fast and many professional organizations are emerging. The state government has recognized evaluation as an important tool for policy and program review. A new evaluation policy was brought out by the state government in 2011. According to this policy, independent external evaluation of all development programs and policies is mandatory. It will be immensely useful to the department to usher in new professionals from diverse fields to induce fresh thinking and innovative ways of looking at conservation and expansion of the forest resources which have become so vital on account of climate change. I look forward for an ealry strategic change in the evaluation approach.

G. V. Sugur IFS Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Head of Forest Force) Karnataka Forest Department

i

FOREWORD AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Action to evaluate 2007-08 works was launched on time in May, 2011. However the progress of works remained slow as the department went through a major but informal restructuring by upgrading the posts of conservators in the circles to that of chief conservators. It resulted in change of guard in many circles. Fresh efforts had to begin from scratch every time such a change happened. It was difficult for the officers in head office to persuade the new incumbents to prioritize the evaluation work because reports from other circles have already arrived. The new evaluation team leaders grudgingly accepted the additional responsibility, organised and supervised the evaluation work and submitted their reports over a period of 15 months starting from December 2012 to March 2014. There was not much change in the evaluation methods and protocols. In a way this facilitated the completion of evaluation work. Not only the evaluation team leaders but even the incumbent officers at head office changed a number of times and the progress was hampered. It took nearly three years to finalise this evaluation report.

I had to accept the pleasant duty of finalizing the evaluation report for 2007-08 at the end of March 2014. By then a rough draft was available. We felt the need to rewrite it to make it more meaningful and easy to understand. We redrafted it very quickly in about a month’s time. The report has a few gaps in the data and information because the field teams did not furnish the same. Since finalization of report was already delayed and some of the officers who did the field work were also transferred, we decided to go ahead with the available information. The gaps are retained deliberately so that in the next evaluation report they can be made up. Even ignoring the gaps, there is a lot of information available in the report. Officers who are interested to bring in improvements will find the report quite useful.

The evaluation wing in the head office has done its duty. It is now for the circle CCFs and divisional officers to find time and see what the shortcomings were, how to retrieve the situation and improve the effectiveness of public programs in future. They have to file an action taken report with the PCCF. The APCCFs who are acting as the nodal officers of the circle are expected to review the action taken reports submitted and confirm the closure of issues to PCCF. I hope everyone benefits from such an exercise.

The report could not have been brought out without the help and support of PCCF (HoFF). We thank him immensely for all the support. We also thank the 12 circle CCFs and their sub-teams of DCFs and ACFs for their hard work; officers and staff of all divisions who supported the evaluation work; and Sri Ashok B Basarkod, CCF Evaluations, Ms M. S. Chaitra and Ms U. J. Pavithra, both probationary RFOs and the staff of CCF Evaluation who put in their hard work for compiling and publishing this report in the shortest possible time.

K. N. Murthy IFS APCCF (EWPRT) 21st April, 2014

ii

Table of Contents

Chapter Title Page no

1 Summary of Findings 1

2 Bangalore 15

3 Belgaum 36

4 Bellary 56

5 Chamarajanagar 68

6 Chickamagalur 78

7 Dharwad 90

8 Gulberga 103

9 Hassan 126

10 Kanara 132

11 Kodagu 149

12 Mangalore 160

13 Mysore 176

14 Shimoga 195

15 FDPT Mysore 208

Annexures

I. Guidelines 220

II. List of Teams 227

III. Evaluation Formats 229

IV. Chronology of Field Reports Submissions 241

iii

1. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

1. Background

This is an internal evaluation report on the developmental activities implemented by the Karnataka Forest Department during the financial year 2007-08. Afforestation was the major development activity of the department in addition to protection and conservation of natural forests. Evaluation work is taken up after the regular maintenance of the plantation ceases. Plantations are normally maintained for three years. Evaluations are therefore initiated in the fourth or fifth year to know the outcome of the development work. Karnataka Forest department has a legacy of evaluating its development works internally since 1986. The main focus of evaluations is the survival rate and performance of plantations because that constitutes the bulk of development expenditure of the department. Internal evaluation of all plan and non-plan works for the three year period 2004-07 was completed in June 2009. The process for evaluating the works of 2007-08 began in May 2011. To start with, a set of revised guidelines and data collection formats were issued. Copy of the guidelines and templates of data collection formats are furnished in Annexure I and II. It was followed by constitution of internal evaluation teams headed by the Chief Conservators of the circles as per the list in Annexure III. Essentially the circle level teams were exchanged for doing the evaluation work. The teams were also briefed appropriately before the evaluation work began. Because the evaluation work was in addition to the routine duties and responsibilities, the teams took quite some time to complete the assignments and submit their reports. First field report was received in December, 2012 and the last one was received in March, 2014. A chronology of the receipt of field reports is furnished in Annexure IV.

2. Methodology adopted for the evaluation

The Evaluation Wing secured complete list of works from each one of the territorial, social forestry and wildlife divisions in the state for the year 2007-08. A team of officers selected about 10% of development works randomly for evaluation. For plantations the sampling intensity was 2% of the selected plantations. For others, the entire work forms the unit of evaluation. The selected list was conveyed to the evaluation team leaders and also to the divisional officers who were expected to keep the records ready and also mark the locations for laying sample plots inside the plantations as per the guidelines circulated. The evaluation team leaders were given the liberty to constitute sub-teams to inspect the works

1 division-wise. This was necessary as there were as many as 4 to 10 divisions in each forest circle and team leaders alone can’t accomplish the entire evaluation task. The team leaders were certainly expected to oversee the evaluation process, cross check/test check the evaluation results, compile the report and submit the same to the head office. There were large numbers of works spread throughout the state. Evaluation work was hampered by routine transfers and other urgent engagements of team and sub-team members. Hence there was much delay in undertaking evaluation work and also in submitting circle-wise reports.

3. Coverage of the evaluation report

This evaluation report covers development works undertaken under 39 plan and non- plan schemes of 2007-08 in all the thirteen territorial forest circles and the Project Tiger Circle, Mysore (total of 14 circles). There are 40 territorial forest divisions, 30 social forestry divisions and 11 wildlife divisions in the state. Plantation work was the main activity in the territorial and social forestry circles. Protection and conservancy works were the main stay in wildlife divisions and circle. Other works included an assortment of civil works related to roads and buildings of the department, soil moisture conservation works, fire protection work etc., which were common in all the forest divisions. In this report all the works are categorised into three broad groups namely (a) Departmental plantation activities; (b) public distribution of seedlings; and (c) other works. This report covers the evaluation work completed in all territorial forest divisions except Koppal, all social forestry divisions except Hassan and all wildlife divisions except Badra Tiger Reserve. The total sampling size for the state as a whole is adequate to generalize the evaluation finding to the state level. Findings may therefore be read as applicable to the state in general.

4. Improvements made to the evaluation report

The template being followed hitherto for presenting the final evaluation report is further refined and improved. All circles and divisions are arranged in alphabetical order in this report. Under each division, evaluation results are presented in three parts – first on the performance of departmental plantations, second on the performance of seedlings distributed to the public and finally on the quality of other conservation and development works. This common format is used throughout the report. Each category is discussed in separate section in the circle level chapters that follow this summary chapter. Field reports do not cover part two and three in a fairly good number of cases. Since much time was lost already, this report has been compiled with available information.

2

Second important change is about calculating the survival rates in the departmental plantations. Success rates of individual plantations are highly variable depending upon the local conditions. Earlier evaluation reports arrived at the survival rates by averaging the sample results after stratification of plantations by size. This is not correct as some small but well protected plantations may have high survival rates and bigger sized plantations may have somewhat less. In this report, weighted average survival rates of all the departmental plantations sampled have used as the indicator for grading the performance. This presents a more balanced picture of the actual achievement at the divisional level. Performances of the departmental plantation are then graded based on the following index of survival rates:

Plantation Plantation survival (%) rating < 20 Failed 21-40 Poor 41-60 Average 61-80 Good >80 Very good

However no changes are made to the evaluation assessments of the seedlings distributed to the public and also in assessing the quality of other works.

5. Over view of evaluation results

Detailed analysis of departmental plantations deserves greater attention because of the higher magnitude of expenditure on them. This is reflected from the field reports and sampling which included visits to 534 plantations throughout the state spread over 7696 ha. As per the data received from the evaluation teams, the department raised 61863 ha of plantations during 2007-08 in 4586 locations. Territorial wing raised 87 % of these plantations by area. The remaining 13% was raised mostly by social forestry wing. The overall survival rate in departmental plantations was 63% in the territorial wing, 51% in social forestry wing. Grading of plantations based on survival rates among the territorial and social forestry wings at the aggregate (state) level is given in table 1.1a below:

Table 1.1a: Performance of departmental plantations based on weighted average survival Wing Very good Good Average Poor Failure Territorial 26 37 17 12 8 Social 14 22 22 23 19 Forestry

3

Among the schemes, Metro and REFL has the highest weighted average survival of 97% each and the lowest is 0.25 % in Demonstration Plots scheme.

With respect to public distribution of seedlings, the evaluation information was very sketchy. Only 22 out of 40 territorial divisions and 8 out of 30 social forestry divisions provided some information on the beneficiaries to the evaluation teams. The teams visited 224 farmers throughout the state who availed seedlings and planted them on their farm lands. Average survival rate of seedlings was found to be 67% in respect of territorial divisions and 58% in respect of social forestry divisions. Average survival of seedlings distributed to farmers is 62.5% for the department as a whole. It is extremely difficult to say how effective this program was because the full list of beneficiaries was not available from any division in the state to the evaluation teams. Secondly, sample size was quite low – hardly one or two cases in about 50% of the divisions surveyed. The sample may not be representative and therefore the results may not be very reliable.

With respect to other works, the evaluation teams visited 548 items in 25 territorial divisions and seven wildlife divisions. Reports indicate that 78% of works were of good quality and 10% were of satisfactory quality. Results should be taken with caution as the sampling was highly skewed in favour of FDPT, Mysore which accounts for 54%. Within the broad range of works, ecotourism and building maintenance dominate the sample.

6. Summary of the performance of departmental plantations

Distribution of departmental plantations across the circles is quite uneven. Extent of departmental plantation area in each circle, sampling intensity by the number of plantations visited for evaluation, weighted average survival by territorial, social forestry and wildlife divisions is furnished circle-wise in table 1.1b below.

Table1.1b Weighted average survival in the departmental plantations circle-wise Weighted Weighted Sampling Weighted Total Area of the Average Average No of intensity Average Sl extent of sampled survival survival Circle plantations by no of survival no plantation plantations in in sampled works in SF (Ha) (Ha) territorial Wildlife evaluated divisions divisions divisions 1 Bangalore 3510 45 646 31 70 57 2 Belgaum 8797 84 962 7 53 25 3 Bellary 4675 40 786 18 66 53 4 Ch’nagar 1513 11 248 13 54 61 5 Ch’magalur 2112 24 240 9 66 61 6 Dharwad 3892 38 499 NA 73 51 7 Gulbarga 5141 73 586 16 57 35

4

8 Hassan 4730 22 397 NA 73 38 9 Kanara 14366 67 1678 10 61 50 10 Kodagu 786 10 313 33 59 92 13 11 Mysore 3300 54 395 15 71 74 12 Mangalore 3740 27 515 17 59 35 13 Shimoga 5230 39 658 18 61 23 33 State Average 63 51 29

Performance of plantations is highly variable not only across the circles but also across divisions and wings within the circle. It is difficult to draw any definite inference at the circle level by averaging the performance of different divisions. Hence performance is better assessed at the division level only. However, based on the commonality between different territorial and social forestry wings, Mangalore Circle is rated as the best among all the circles. It is attributable partly to climatic factors and partly to the efforts of the divisions.

Survival percentage of seedlings scheme-wise is given in table 1.1c for 39 major schemes in descending order. Flexibility of the scheme has implications for better survival of seedlings. Metro and REFL scheme has best survival of plantations and the Demonstration Plots scheme has the lowest survival rates. Plantation performance of all territorial divisions for the year 2007-08 is given in Table 1.1d along with their state level ranking based on the weighted average survival of seedlings using the criteria given in section 4 above. Haliyal forest division ranks as number 1 as it has the highest (97%) survival rates among all the territorial divisions in the state. Bijapura ranks lowest (24%). Bangalore Urban and Yadagir divisions rank second lowest with 39% survival. Similar details for all the social forestry divisions are given in table1.1e. Kolar Social Forestry Division ranks as the best with 78% survival and Chitradurga the lowest with 11%. Raichur is the second lowest with a weighted average survival of 14%.

7. Summary of evaluation results on public distribution of seedlings

Practically most of the forest divisions are engaged in production and distribution of seedlings to public for planting. Unfortunately evaluation information for only 30 odd divisions is available and half of them have only 1-3 farmers as the samples as discussed in section 5 above. Details of sampling data are given in table 1.2. The average survival rate for territorial divisions is 67% and that of social forestry divisions was 58%. The state level average for the seedling survival on farm lands was 62.5%. However, the reliability of this statistic is low because of purposive selection of the samples.

5

Table 1.1c: Circle-wise and scheme-wise summary of survival of seedlings in 2007-08 plantations Percentage survival rate of seedlings Name of the scheme Ch C State wt B’ore B’gaum Bellary D’wad G’barga Hassan Kanara Kodagu M’lore Mysore Shimoga Rank nagar magalur average 1 03-Other plantation 80 83 81.25 7 2 11th Forest Protection and 45 44.53 Compensatory Afforestation 29 th 3 12 Finance/TFC 68 87 54 54 85 50 89 80 78 57 49 81 69.1 13 4 CREFL 44 43.9 30 5 Casurina Plantation 80 80 9 6 Compensatory Afforestation 40 80 51 80 67 82 66.74 15 7 COP/CP 37 61 95 41 58.59 23 8 CRF 60 60 21 9 CSS Central 31 13 21.99 38 10 CSS Mangrove Conservation 70 70 and Management 12 11 CSS-NAP(FDA) 78 46 64 83 85 81 40 68 64 15 51 61.45 20 12 DDF 93 62 70 85 90 73 78 86 86 83 80.58 8 13 Demonstration Plots 0.25 0.25 39 14 DPAP 62 62 19 15 Forest Protection Regeneration and Cultural 78 68 15 53.56 Operation 139 Major Works 26 16 GP Fund 66 62.25 18 17 GUA 59 60 69 59 12 18 42.21 31 18 KFDF 30 43 52 84 65 45.63 28 19 KRDCL 60 60 22 20 KSF 62 30 45.86 27 6

Sl Ch C FDPT Scheme B’lore B’gaum Bellary D’wad G’barga Hassan Kanara Kodagu M’lore Mysore Shimoga Rank no nagar Magalur Mysore 21 KSFMBC/JBIC 62 47 45 51 61 60 47 50 66 64 75 52 57 56.78 24 22 KSHIP 51 80 65.35 16 23 Mangrove 85 84.81 development plan 5 24 Markandeya project 37 37 33 25 Metro 97 96.86 2 26 MGNREGA 13 32 22.42 37 27 NOVOD 55 55.33 25 28 RCP-B9MW 73 72.81 10 29 REFL 97 97 1 30 RSVY 40 39.8 32 31 Scarcity 90 90 3 32 SCP 0 20 72 30.70 36 33 SFDF 03 Plantation 88 87.5 4 34 SGRY(ZP/TP/GP) 55 32 75 65 61 65 67 31 76 66.87 14 35 Social Forestry 71 70.45 11 36 Town Planting 84 84 6 37 TSP 0 72 36 35 38 VFDF 43 86 64.8 17 39 WDGP 0 72 36.22 34

7

Table 1.1d: Grading of 2007-08 plantations by performance in territorial wing Total works Sample Performance grade Weighted Sl. Territorial average Circle No of Area No of Area Very Rank No. division Good Average Poor Failure survival plantation (Ha) plantation (Ha) good % Bangalore 1 13 425 3 60 - 34 33 - 33 46 35 1 Bangalore Rural Bangalore 2 23 274 7 54 57 14 - - 29 39 38 Urban 3 Chickaballapur 33 953 6 135 17 33 33 17 - 65 18 4 Kolar 23 653 5 140 80 20 - - - 85 2 5 Ramangar 20 518 4 81 50 50 - - - 81 5 2 Belgaum 6 Bagalkot 53 1654 7 191 72 14 14 - 58 25 7 Belgaum 113 2881 13 350 15 46 31 8 - 62 22 8 Bijapur 38 634 6 96 - 16 17 17 50 24 39 9 Gataprabha 50 1174 8 122 25 38 25 12 - 69 13 3 Bellary 10 Bellary 31 876 6 115 17 84 - - - 76 9 11 Chitradurga 61 2080 18 490 11 44 28 11 6 56 28 12 Davanagere 46 1220 6 135 17 50 33 - - 65 17 13 Koppal Evaluation was not taken up in this division 4 Ch’nagr 14 Kollegal 54 1120 7 145 - 29 43 14 14 54 40 5 Ch’magalore 15 Chickmagalore 26 778 5 86 40 20 - 40 - 56 29 16 Koppa 67 1138 9 132 33 56 - 11 - 76 27 6 Dharwad 17 Dharwad 35 831 5 101 60 40 - - - 83 8 18 Gadag 45 1273 7 161 29 57 14 - - 74 4 19 Haveri 49 1352 6 172 80 - 20 - 61 10

8

Sl No of Area No of Area Very Circle Division Good Average Poor Failure Wt Avg Rank no plantation (Ha) plantation (Ha) good 7 Gulbarga 20 Bidar 44 770 7 78 14 86 - - - 73 11 21 Gulbarga 48 1129 6 101 33 67 - - - 80 6 22 Raichur 29 402 5 54 - 80 - 20 42 36 23 Yadagir 42 1240 4 85 25 - 50 25 39 37 8 Hassan 24 Hassan 116 2456 6 160 50 33 17 - - 84 3 25 Tumkur 69 1781 10 187 30 10 40 10 10 62 21 9 Kanara 26 Haliyal 69 2665 9 430 22 78 - - - 97 1 27 Honnavar 118 3132 14 345 36 21 29 14 - 62 20 28 Karwar 128 2440 15 316 20 13 20 40 7 53 30 29 Sirsi 147 2870 15 319 - 20 47 27 6 50 32 30 Yellapur 123 3086 9 243 44 22 - 34 61 23 10 Kodagu 31 Kodagu - - 6 160 17 17 33 17 16 52 31 32 Virajpet 19 670 3 100 34 33 - 33 - 66 16 11 Mangalore 33 Kundapur 85 1613 12 164 17 58 17 - 8 66 15 34 Mangalore 107 1218 18 156 - - - - 77 7 12 Mysore 35 Hunsur 34 1749 7 177 29 14 14 - 43 48 33 36 Mandya 41 1142 7 163 43 14 - 29 14 57 26 37 Mysore 14 536 4 105 25 - 25 25 25 46 34 13 Shimoga 38 Bhadravati 32 1027 7 165 14 72 14 - - 69 12 39 Sagar 97 2098 10 225 50 - 20 10 20 64 19 40 Shimoga 74 1841 11 206 55 27 9 - 9 68 14 2216 53699 313 6705 25.9* 36.6* 16.7* 11.9* 8.8* 62.7* *State average for territorial divisions

9

Table 1.1e: Grading of 2007-08 plantations by performance in social forestry wing Total works Sample Performance grade Weighted Sl average Circle S F division No of Area No of Area Very Rank no Good Average Poor Failure survival plantation (Ha) plantation (Ha) good % 1 Bangalore 1 Bangalore Rural 25 46 4 13 - - 25 25 50 36 22 2 Bangalore Urban 22 185 5 33 - 40 40 20 - 63 8 3 Chickballapur 28 110 4 32 25 25 25 25 - 61 9 4 Kolar 35 277 4 41 75 25 - - - 78 1 5 Ramangara 16 36 3 7 - 34 33 33 - 48 20 2 Belguam 6 Bagalkot 605 1305 26 125 7 7 50 29 7 50 17 7 Belgaum 372 930 19 55 5 6 26 26 37 23 24 8 Bijapur 55 219 5 25 - - 20 20 60 22 26 3 Bellary 9 Bellary 12 27 2 4 - 50 50 - - 65 6 10 Chitradurga 10 149 3 15 - - - 67 33 11 28 11 Davanagere 46 194 4 23 - - 25 50 25 59 12 12 Koppal 12 128 1 4 - 100 - - - 75 3 4 Ch’nagr 13 Ch’nagr 10 28 4 8 - 50 25 25 - 61 10 5 Ch’magalore 14 Ch’magalore 164 196 10 22 10 30 10 - 50 61 11

10

Sl No of Area No of Area Very Wt avg SF divions Good Average Poor Failure Rank no Circle plantation (Ha) plantation (Ha) good survival 6 Dharwad 15 Dharwad 39 219 7 20 14 29 14 43 - 49 19 16 Gadag 22 25 2 4 - - 100 - - 52 16 17 Haveri 54 174 5 25 - 40 - 40 20 57 13 7 Gulbarga 18 Bidar 53 179 6 26 - - 33 33 34 37 21 19 Gulbarga 281 1195 25 133 16 24 28 16 16 55 15 20 Raichur 83 750 17 55 - - 6 22 72 14 27 21 Yadgir 78 548 9 55 - 22 33 45 34 23 8 Hassan 22 Hassan ------23 Tumkur 56 382 6 30 50 - 17 33 - 57 14 9 Kanara 24 Karwar 51 173 5 25 - - 40 60 - 50 18 10 Kodagu 25 Kodagu 12 16 1 3 100 ------11 Mangalore 26 Mangalore 144 392 16 48 50 31 6 - 13 72 5 27 Udupi 37 77 8 28 50 25 - 12.5 12.5 75 4 12 Mysore 28 Mandya 34 160 8 40 12 13 25 50 - 64 7 29 Mysore - - 1 80 - 100 - - - 78 2 13 Shimoga 30 Shimoga 14 44 11 12 - - 18 18 64 23 25 2370 8164 221 991 14.3* 21.7* 22* 23.5* 18.5* 51.07* * State average for social forestry divisions

11

Table 1.2: Performance assessment of seedlings distributed to the public/farmers Sl Territorial No of Survival No of Survival Circle SF Division no Division samples percentage samples percentage 1 Bangalore 1. Kolar 12 72 2. Ramnagara 48 64 2 Belgaum 3. Belgaum 1 60 1. Belgaum 1 5 3 C’ nagar 2. C’ nagar 9 51 4 C’magalur 4. C’magalur 8 81 3. C’magalur 11 58 5. Koppa 10 86 5 Dharwad 6. Dharwad 1 100 7. Gadag 2 85 4. Gadag 1 81 8. Haveri 2 27 5. Haveri 2 48 6 Gulbarga 9. Bidar 5 64 10. Gulbarga 1 75 11. Raichur 16 32 7 Kanara 12. Haliyal 1 60 13. Honnavar 1 78 14. Yellapur 1 28 8 Kodagu 15. Mdikeri 11 89 16. Virajpet 3 94 9 Mangalore 17. Kundapura 1 100 6. Udipi 1 90 18. Mangalore 4 29 7. Mangalore 30 78 10 Mysore 19. Hunsur 4 75 8. Mysore 32 54 11 Shimoga 20. Bhadravathi 1 78 21. Sagara 3 95 22. Shimoga 1 60 Total 137 1472 Total 87 465 Territorial Avg 137 67 Social forestry Avg 58

State Average = 62.5 Note: Success rates should be taken cautiously if sample size is less than 5

Evaluation teams have identified some critical factors for the success of farm and agroforestry. Principal among them are hassle free supply of good quality seedlings to the farmers close to villages in time and good extension support on technical matters. This is a sector in which there is much hope and opportunity for the future for production of goods and services and also to ameliorate the climate change.

12

8. Summary of other works evaluated

List of forest divisions where the other works were evaluated and the results obtained is furnished in table 1.3. Here again most territorial divisions and wildlife divisions execute a good number of works. But evaluation was limited only to a subset. Reports indicate that 77.37% of works were of good quality, 10.58% were of satisfactory quality. About 12.04% of the works could not be verified because they were ephemeral in nature (e.g. fire lines, boundary surveys, road maintenance works etc of 2007 -08). About 7 works were destroyed due to hooliganism in Bandipura during a public protest against tiger attack on local people. Only one work in Mandya social forestry division (not included hers) was found to be substandard quality.

Table 1.3: Evaluation results of other works Not Not Sl No of Satis- Territorial No of Satis- Circle WL division Good verifiabl Good verifiabl no works factory division works factory e e 1 B’lore 1. Cb’pura 3 3 2. Kolar 4 4 3. R’nagar 4 4 2 B’gaum 4. B’guam 8 8 5. Bijapur 12 12 3 Ch’nagar 1. Cauvery 17 17 6. Kollegal 14 6 8 2. BRT 12 7 4 1 4 C’magalur 7. C’magalur 24 8 16 8. Koppa 14 8 6 5 Dharwad 9. Dharwad 1 1 10. Gadag 3 3 6 Gulbarga 11. Bidar 3 1 2 12. Gulbarga 3 3 13. Raichur 4 4 7 Kanara 14. Haliyal 20 18 2 15. Honnavar 3 3 16. yellapur 10 10 8 Kodagu 3. Madikeri 14 14 17. Madikeri 13 7 6 18. Virajpet 12 12 9 Mangalore 4. Karkala 12 12 19. Kundapura 15 12 3 20. Mangalore 13 13 10 Mysore 5. Mysore 28 28 21. Hunsur 19 1 10 8 22. Mandya 12 1 10 1 23. Mysore 5 5 11 Shimoga 24. Sagar 24 24 25. Shimoga 8 2 4 2 FDPT 12 6. Nagarhole 49 40 9 Mysore 7. Bandipura 165 144 21 Total 297 262 4 31 Total 251 162 54 35 State Average: No of works evaluated 548; Good = 422 (77.37%); Satisfactory = 58 (10.58); Not found = 66 (12.04%)

13

9. Conclusions

A few evaluation teams have made some general suggestions/recommendations. They have been incorporated in the respective chapters. Of course, there are not many of them. Poor record maintenance and lack of attention to effective protection of assets created as well as lack of attention to peoples’ participation is clearly evident in most of the circles. Details are available in the division-wise summary tables in the respective circle chapters. The size of plantations in social forestry divisions is very small in a great majority of cases and that seems to be one of the reasons for low survival rates. A different strategy, primarily shifting the focus to farm forestry may be a better option than making huge efforts on a sprinkle of very small patches of plantations with very little support staff.

The purpose of this internal evaluation exercise is to assess the outcomes of efforts made in 2007-08 by the department. There are serious constraints and problems in accomplishing this objective through internal evaluations whose credibility is quite limited. A detailed examination of the original evaluation records show that neither the divisions nor the evaluation teams have taken the task seriously. Ideally, evaluations should be taken up through external evaluators and without much time lag between the period of work and that of the evaluation study. This will help in the course correction of developmental programs and activities. A few impact studies several years after the works were completed will help in fine tuning the policies and strategies. A new approach for evaluations is called for if it has to serve as an effective tool for evidence based policy and practice. The department is well advised to pursue this line.

-o0o-

14

2. BANGALORE CIRCLE

Circle summary

Bangalore Circle consists of ten divisions namely (1) Bangalore Rural (SF) Division (2) Bangalore Urban (SF) Division (3) Chikkaballapura (SF) Division (4) Kolar (SF) Division (5) Ramanagar (SF) Division (6) Bangalore Rural (T) Division (7) Bangalore Urban (T) Division (8) Chikkaballapura (T) Division (9) Kolar (T) Division (10) Ramanagar (T) Division and (11) Bannerghatta National Park Division. During 2007-08 Bangalore Circle has raised 224 plantations over an area of 3510.3 ha out of which the evaluation committee selected 46 plantations over an area of 645.55 ha under 16 schemes. The sampling intensity was 28.25% by area and 30.76 % by works. The overall survival percentage of the territorial divisions was 70.14 and overall survival percentage of the social forestry division is 56.87. Division wise performance is given below:

1. Bangalore Rural (SF) Division

A. Performance of departmental plantations: During 2007-08, the division raised 25 plantations spread over an area of 46 ha of which four plantations over 13 ha were selected for evaluation under four different schemes KSFMBC, TSP, SCP and SGRY (ZP). The sampling intensity was 28.26% by area and 16% by the number of works. List of plantations used for sampling is given in the table 2.1a below.

Table 2.1.a: List of plantations selected for evaluation of Bangalore Rural (SF) Division Sl. Location/ Name of the Year Range Hobli Village Extent No Sy No scheme 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 Doddaballapur Tubagere Gandarajapur 105 9 ha KSFMBC 2 Doddaballapur Madhure Simpadipura Patta 0.5 ha SCP Narayanaswamy S/o 3 Doddaballapur Kasaba Patta 0.5 ha TSP

2007-08 chikkamunishamappa 4 Doddaballappur Sompura Nidavanda to Hegguda cross Roadside 3 ha SGRY(ZP)

Observations of the evaluation team are given plantation-wise in table 2.1b below:

Table 2.1b: Summary of evaluation of individual plantations in Bangalore Rural (SF) Division Plantati Spac- Status Sl. Main species Plantation Whether Micro Plnt Year Village Extent on ing of No planted type maintained plan journal model adopted VFC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Acacia and 1 Gandarajapur 9 ha mixed local * Yes Yes No * * * species 2 2007-08 Simpadipura 0.5 Plantation could not be located by the staff

15

Narayanaswamy Acacia and 3 S/o chikka 0.5 mixed local * * * * * * * munishamappa species Nidavanda to Mixed local Partially 4 3 * Yes Yes Yes * * Hegguda cross species written * Information was not available

Qualitative aspects of the plantations are given in table 2.1c below:

Table 2.1c: Qualitative aspects of individual plantations of Bangalore Rural (SF) Division Selection of Estimated Sl. Extent Selection of Choice of Protection General Year Village plantation Survival % total No site Species aspects condition model survival 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 Gandarajapur 9 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 43.00 387 Average 2 Simpadipura 0.5 ha Plantation could not be located by the staff Narayanaswamy 3 S/o chikka 0.5 ha * * * * 0 0 Failure

2007-08 Munishamappa Nidavanda to 4 3 ha Proper proper Proper Proper 27.16 81.48 Poor Hegguda cross Weighted average of seedling survival = 36.04% * Information was not available

The survival rates in the evaluated plantations vary from 0 to 43%. Out of these plantations one was average, one was poor and one was a failure which constitutes to 25%, 25% and 25% respectively of the total evaluated plantation area of 13 ha. The plantations were raised on farmer’s field and on road sides. The plantation raised in farmer’s field was failure, and in one case (25%) the plantation could not be located by the staff.

B. Public distribution of seedlings: Information was not available.

C. Other works: Information was not available.

2. Bangalore Urban (SF) Division

A. Performance of departmental plantations: During 2007-08 the division raised 22 plantations spread over 184.63 ha of which five plantations over 32.88 ha were selected for evaluation under SGRY scheme. The sampling intensity was 17.81% by area and 22.73 by the number of works. List of plantations used for sampling is given in the table 2.1a below.

16

Table 2.2a: List of plantations selected for evaluation in Bangalore Urban (SF) Division Sl. Location/ Name of the Year Range Hobli Village Extent No Sy.No scheme 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 Kaggalipura Bidadi Lagumenahalli * 13.88 ha SGRY (TP) 2 Yelehanka Yelehanka Singanayakanahalli * 5 ha SGRY (ZP) 3 Yelehanka Dasanapura Aluru * 4 ha SGRY (TP) 4 Yelehanka Yelehanka Singanayakanahalli * 5 ha SGRY (ZP)

5 2007-08 Kaggalipura Kengeri Kumbalagodu 13 5 ha SGRY (ZP) * Information was not available

All the plantations were raised on the tank foreshores. Observations of the evaluation team are given plantation-wise in table 2.2b below:

Table 2.2.b: Summary of evaluation of individual plantations of Bangalore Urban (SF) Division Main Sl. Range/ Plantation Plantation Spac- WhetherMain Status Micro Plnt Year Extent species No Village model type ing tained of VFC plan journal Planted 1 2 3 4 8 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 Kaggalipura Honge, Partially 1 13.88 ha * Pit 5x5m Yes No * /Lagumenahalli Bidiru written Bidiru, Yelehanka/ Partially 2 5 ha Torematti, * Pit 5x5m Yes No * Singanayakanahalli written Honge Yelehanka/ Partially 3 4 ha Honge * Pit 5x5m Yes No * Aluru written

2007-08 Bidiru, Yelehanka/ Partially 4 5 ha Torematti, * Pit 5x5m Yes No * Singanayakanahalli written Honge Honge, Kaggalipura/ 5 5 ha Bidiru, * Pits 5x5m * No * * Kumbalagodu Torematti * Information was not available

Qualitative aspects of the plantations are given in the table below 2.2c below:

Table 2.2c: Qualitative aspects of individual plantations in Bangalore Urban (SF) Division Selection of Sl. Range/ Selection of Choice of Protection Survival Estimated General Year Extent plantation No Village site species aspects % total survival condition model 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Kaggalipura 1 13.88 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 75 1041 Good /Lagumenahalli Yelehanka/ 2 Singanayakana 5 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 60 300 Average Halli Yelehanka/ 3 4 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 10 40 Failure Aluru 2007-08 Yelehanka/ 4 Singanayakana 5 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 75 375 Good Halli Kaggalipura/ 5 5 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 60 300 Average Kumbalagodu Weighted average of seedling survival = 62.53%

17

The survival of five evaluated plantations varies from 10 to 75%. Out of these plantations two were good, two were average and one was failure which constitutes to 40%, 40% and 20% respectively of the total evaluated plantation area of 32.88 ha in the tank foreshore areas.

B. Public distribution of seedlings: The Information was not available.

C. Other works: Only one work was evaluated and the details are given in table 2.2d below:

Table 2.2d: Details of other works evaluated in Bangalore Urban (SF) Division Sl Range/ Name of the General Year Village Scheme No Hobli work condition 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Construction Yelhanka 1 2007-08 Singanaiknahalli of Watch man SGRY (ZP) Good SF shed

3. Chickaballapur (SF) Division

A. Performance of departmental plantations: During 2007-08 the division raised 28 plantations spread over 110.5 ha of which three plantations over 20 ha were selected for evaluation under two schemes namely KSFMBC and WGDP. The sampling intensity was 18.10% by area and 10.71 by the number of works. List of plantations used for sampling is given in the table 2.3a below.

Table 2.3a: List of plantations selected for evaluation inChickaballapur (SF) Division Sl. Location/ Name of the Year Range Hobli Village Extent No Sy.No Scheme 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 Shiddlaghatta Dibburahalli Laginayakanahalli 715 10 ha SGRY(ZP) 2 Chikkaballapur Mandikal Hosahalli TFS * 5 ha SGRY Hampasandra School 3 08 Gowribidanur Hosur 1.5 ha KSFMBC 2007- School premises premises Balareddyhalli 4 Chintamani Munganahalli 95 15 ha SGRY (ZP) TFS * Information was not available

Observations of the evaluation team are given plantation-wise in table 2.3b below:

Table 2.3b: Summary of evaluation of individual plantations of Chickaballapur (SF) Division Main Sl. Range/ Plantation Plantation Whether Status Micro Year Extent species Spacing Plnt journal No Village model type maintained of VFC plan planted 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Sidlaghatta/

1 Laginayakana 10 ha Honge Pit 5X5m Yes No No Not written * halli TFS

2007-08 Chikkaballapur 2 5 ha Honge Pit 4x4m Yes No No Not written /Hosahalli *

18

Honge, Gowribidanur cherry, 3 1.50 ha Yes Pit 5X5m Yes No No Not written Hampasandra Nerale, Bevu Partially 4 Balareddyhalli 15 ha Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No written * Information was not available

Qualitative aspects of the plantations are given in the table 2.3c below:

Table 2.3c: Qualitative aspects of individual plantations of Chickaballapur (SF) Division Selection Extent Choice Estimated Sl. Range/ Selection of Protection Survival General Year ( Ha of total No Village of site plantation aspects % condition /Km) species survival model 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Sidlaghatta/ 10.00 1 Laginayaka Proper Proper Proper Proper 23.61 Poor ha 236 nahalli TFS Chikkaballapur/ 5.00 2 Proper Proper Proper Proper 53.70 Average Hosahalli ha 269 Gowribidanur 1.50 3 2007-08 Proper Proper Proper Proper 80.00 120 Good Hampasandra ha Very 4 Balareddyhalli 15 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 85.80 1287 Good Weighted average of seedling survival = 60.68%

The survival rate of evaluated plantations varies from 23.61 to 85.80%. Out of these plantations one was very good, one was good, one was average and one was poor which constitutes to 25% each of the total evaluated plantation area of 31.5 ha.

B. Public distribution of seedlings: The Information was not available.

C. Other works: The Information was not available.

4. Kolar (SF) Division

A. Performance of departmental plantations: During 2007-08, Kolar (SF) Division raised 35 plantations spread over an extent of 277.14 ha of which four plantations over 41.25 ha are being selected for evaluation under three different schemes namely KSFMBC, DPAP (H) and SGRY (TP). The sampling intensity was 14.88% by area and 11.43% by the number of works. List of plantations used for sampling is given in the table 2.4a below.

19

Table 2.4a: List of plantations selected for evaluation in Kolar (SF) Division Sl. Location/ Name of the Year Range Hobli Village Extent No Sy. No scheme 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 Kolar Kolar Chilapanahalli * 10.00 ha SGRY (TP) 2 Bangarpet Kasabha Madamangala * 6.25 ha DPAP (H) 3 Mulabagal Tayalur Madivala TFS 48 20.00 ha SGRY 4 2007-08 Malur Tekal Agara TFS 91 5.00 ha SGRY (TP) * Information was not available

Observations of the evaluation team are given plantation-wise in table 2.4b below.

Table 2.4b: Summary of evaluation of individual plantations of Kolar (SF) Division Main Sl. Range/ Plantation Plantation Spacing Whether Status Micro Plnt Year Extent species No Village model type adopted maintained of VFC plan journal planted 1 2 3 4 8 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 Kolar/ No Partially 1 10 ha Honge Yes Pits 5x5m Yes * Chilapanahalli VFC written Bangarpet/ Eucalyptus/ No Partially 2 6.25 ha Yes Pits 2.5x2.0m Yes * Madamangala Acacia VFC written Mulabagal/ No Partially

3 2007-08 20 ha Nilgiri Yes Pits 2.5x2.5m Yes * Madivala TFS VFC writer Malur/Agara No Partially 4 5 ha Acacia Yes Pits 2.5x2.5m Yes * TFS VFC writer * Information was not available

Qualitative aspects of the individual plantations are given in the table 2.4c below.

Table 2.4c: Qualitative aspects of individual plantations of Kolar (SF) Division

Selection of Choice Sl. Range/ Selection Protection Survival Estimated General Year Extent Plantation of No Village of site aspects % total condition model Species survival

Kolar/ 1 10 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 75 750 Good Chilapanahalli Bangarpet/ 2 6 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 62 Good Madamangala 388 Mulabagal/

3 2007-08 20 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 80 1600 Good Madivala TFS Malur/Agara 4 5 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 93 465 Very Good TFS Weighted average seedling survival = 77.64%

The survival of four evaluated plantations varies from 62 to 93%. Out of these plantations one was very good and three were good which constitutes to 25% and 75% of the total evaluated plantation in 41.25 ha.

20

B. Public distribution of seedlings: The Information was not available. C. Other works: The Information was not available.

5. Ramangara (SF) Division

A. Performance of departmental plantations: During 2007-08, the division raised 16 plantations spread over 36 ha of which three plantations over 7 ha were selected for evaluation under two schemes namely KSFMBC and SGRY (ZP). The sampling intensity was 19.44% by area and 18.75 by the number of works. List of plantations used for sampling is given in the table 2.5a below.

Table 2.5a: List of plantations selected for evaluation in Ramanagar (SF) Division Sl. Location/ Name of the Year Range Hobli Village Extent No Sy.No scheme 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 Ramanagara Kailancha Shivanahalli Road side 3 km SGRY (ZP) Makali- 2 Channapatna Malur * 1 ha KSFMBC Chakkere 3 2007-08 Magadi Soluru Kormangala Road side 3 km SGRY (ZP) * Information was not available

Observations of the evaluation team are given plantation-wise in table 2.5b.

Table 2.5b: Summary of evaluation of individual plantations of Ramanagar (SF) Division Plantati Main Whether Status Sl. Ye Range/ Plantati Spac- Micro Plnt Extent on species maintain of No ar Village on type ing plan journal model planted ed VFC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Ramnagara/ Partially 1 3 km Yes Pit 10 m Yes Yes * * Shivanahalli written Aarli, Channapatn 8 Jambo Not 2 a/ Makali- 1 ha Yes Pit Yes No No X8m nerale, written

2007-08 Chakkere Bevu Magadi/ Partially 3 3 km * Pit 10m Yes Yes * * Kormangala written * Information was not available

21

Qualitative aspects of the individual plantations are given in the table2.5c below:

Table 2.5c: Qualitative aspects of individual plantations of Ramanagar (SF) Division

Extent Selection of Choice Sl. Range/ Selection Protection Survival Estimated General Year (Ha/ plantation of No Village of site aspects % total condition Km) model Species survival 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Ramanagar 1 3 km Proper Proper Proper Not proper 25 75 Poor /Shivanahalli Channpatna/ 2 Makali- 1 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 80 80 Good

2007-08 Chakkere 3 Kormangala 3 km Proper Proper Proper Proper 60 180 Average Weighted average of seedling survival = 47.86%

The survival of three evaluated plantations varies from 25 to 80%. The plantations were raised on roadside as well as block plantations. The roadside plantations are promising but non-maintenance is poor. VFCs are not effective. Micro-plans have expired and due to be revised. Where protection is good, natural regeneration is coming up. Out of these plantations one was good, one was average and one was poor which constitutes to 33.33% each of all the evaluated plantations in 7 ha.

B. Public distribution of seedlings: The division has distributed 9.442 lakh seedlings to farmers and others in three ranges. But details were not made available. Hence no evaluation could be done.

C. Other works: The Information was not available.

6. Bangalore Rural (T) Division

A. Performance of departmental plantations: During 2007-08 the division raised 13 plantations over an extent of 425 ha of which three plantations over an area of 60 ha were selected for evaluation under two different schemes namely KSFMBC and KFDF. The sampling intensity was 14.12% by area and 23.07% by the number of works. List of plantations used for sampling is given in the table 2.6a below:

Table 2.6a: List of plantations selected for evaluation in Bangalore Rural (T) Division Sl. Location/ Name of the Year Range Hobli Village Extent No Sy. No scheme 1 Doddaballpur Sasalu Jalagere 15 25 ha KSFMBC-5 2 Hosakote Sulibele Muthasandra 79 15 ha KFDF

3 2007-08 Nelamangala Sompura Narayanapura 135 20 ha KSFMBC-4 Observations of the evaluation team are given plantation-wise in table 2.6b below:

22

Table 2.6b: Summary of evaluation of individual plantations for Bangalore Rural (T) Division Sl. Pit/ Species Mainten Status Plnt. Year Village Extent Model Spacing Micro plan No Trench Planted ance of VFC journal 0.75X0.7 Partially 1 Jalagere 25 ha Yes Yes Yes Yes yes Not revised 5m written Partially 2 Muthasandra 15 ha * Yes 5X5m Yes Yes Yes Not revised written 2007-08 Partially 3 Narayanapura 20 ha Yes Yes * Yes Yes Yes Not revised written * Information was not available

Qualitative aspects of the individual plantations are given below in the table2.6c below:

Table 2.6c: Qualitative aspects of individual plantations in Bangalore Rural (T) Division

Selection of Sl. Selection Choice of Protection Survival Estimated General Year Village Extent plantation No of site Species aspects % total condition model survival 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 Jalagere 25 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 53.5 1338 Average 2 Muthasandra 15 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 0 0 Failure

3 2007-08 Narayanapura 20 ha proper Proper Proper Proper 70 1400 Good Weighted average of seedling survival = 45.63%

The survival rate in the evaluated plantations varies from 0 to 70.00%. Out of them one was good, one was average and one was failure which constitutes to 33.33% each of the total evaluated plantation area of 60 ha.

B. Public distribution of seedlings: The Information was not available. C. Other works: The Information was not available.

7. Bangalore Urban (T) Division

A. Performance of departmental plantations: During 2007-08, the division raised 23 plantations spread over 274 ha of which seven plantations over 54 ha were selected for evaluation under three different schemes namely KSFMBC, Metro and COP. The sampling intensity was 19.71% by area and 30.43% by the number of works. List of plantations used for sampling is given in the table 2.7a below.

Table 2.7a: List of plantations selected for evaluation inBangalore Urban (T) Division Sl. Location/ Name of the Year Range Hobli Village Extent No Sy No scheme Pramod layout, 1 Rajajinagar Yeshwanthpura Roadside 5 km Metro Pantharapalya Balaji

2 2007-08 Yelahanka Yelahanka Kogilu 3 km Metro enclave

23

layout Kasturinagara BDA 3 Ulsoor * layout1 Ramamurthy BDA layout 5 km Metro nagar 4 Kaggalipura Uttarahalli B.M.Kaval 65 25 ha KSFMBC Kammagondanahalli 5 Bangalore * Avenue 5 km Metro HVV layout 6 Anekal * Bootanahalli 6 km COP Avenue 7 K.R.Puram Bidarahalli Shubha yoga L/O Block-I 5 km Metro plantation * Information was not available

Observations of the evaluation team are given plantation-wise in table 2.7b below:

Table 2.7b: Summary of evaluation of individual plantations of Bangalore Urban (T) Division Main Sl. Range/ Plantation Plantation Whether Status of Micro Plnt Year Extent species Spacing No Village model type maintained VFC plan journal planted Rajajinagar/ Mixed Partially 1 Pramod layout, 5 km Yes Pits 10X10 m avenue Yes No VFC * written Pantharapalya trees Mixed Yelahanka/ Partially 2 3 km Yes Pits 5X5m avenue Yes No VFC * Kogilu written trees Yelahanka-Ulsoor/ Kasturinagara Mixed Partially 3 BDA layout1 5 km Yes Pits 10X10 m avenue Yes * * written Ramamurthy trees 2007-08 nagar Honge, Kagglipura/ Mango, 4 25 ha Yes Pits 10X10 m Yes * * Not written B.M.Kaval Bamboo, Hunse etc Bangalore/ Mixed Partially 5 Kammagondanaha 5 km Yes Pits 10X10 m avenue Yes No VFC * written lli HVV layout trees Anekal/ Miscellan Partially 6 6 km Yes Pits 5x5m Yes No VFC * Bootanahalli eous written K.R. Puram/ Partially 7 Shubha yoga L/O 5 km Yes Pits 10X10 m Yes Yes No VFC * written Block-I * Information was not available

24

Qualitative aspects of the individual plantations are given below in the table 2.7c below:

Table 2.7c: Qualitative aspects of individual plantations of Bangalore Urban (T) Division Selection Protecti Estimated Sl. Range/ Selection of Choice of Survival General Year Extent on total No Village of site plantation species % condition aspects survival model 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Rajajinagar 1 /Pramod layout, 5 km Proper Proper Proper Proper 100 500 Very Good Pantharapalya Yelahanka/ 2 3 km Proper Proper Proper Proper 78 378 Good Kogilu Yelahanka-Ulsoor / Kasturinagara 3 BDA layout1 5 km Proper Proper Proper Proper 90 450 Very Good Ramamurthy nagar Kagglipura

4 2007-08 25 ha Proper Proper Proper * 0 0 Failure /B.M.Kaval Bangalore / 5 Kammagondanah 5 km Proper Proper proper Proper 90 450 Very Good alli HVV layout Anekal / 6 6 km Proper Proper proper Proper 0 0 Failure Bootanahalli K.R. Puram/ / 7 Shubha yoga L/O 5 km Proper Proper Proper Proper 90 450 Very Good Block-I Weighted average of seedling survival = 38.59% * Information was not available

The survival of seven evaluated plantations varies from 0 to 100%. Out of these plantations four were very good, one was good and two were failures which constitutes to 57.14%, 14.27% and 28.57 % of the total evaluated plantation area of 54 ha. B. Public distribution of seedlings: The Information was not available. C. Other works: The Information was not available.

8. Chickaballapur (T) Division

A. Performance of departmental plantations: During 2007-08, the division raised 33 plantations spread over 953.03 ha of which six plantations over 135 ha are were selected for evaluation under five different schemes namely KSFMBC, NOVAD, FDA, DDF and 12th Finance. The sampling intensity was 14.16% by area and 18.18% by the number of works. List of plantations used for sampling is given in the table 2.8a below.

25

Table 2.8a: List of plantations selected for evaluation in Chickkballapur (T) Division Sl. Location/ Year Range Hobli Village Extent Scheme No Sy No 1 Chikkaballapur Kasaba Haristhala 38 20 ha NOVAD 2 Chintamani Ambajidurga Ullapanahalli 81 25 ha KSFMBC 3 Bagepalli Pathapalya Paipalya 157 25 ha FDA 4 Gowribidanur Thondebavi Bevinahalli 34 25 ha DDF

142, 197, th 5 2007-08 Shidlaghatta Kasaba Pollicheralu 15 ha 12 FIN 77 KSFMBC- 6 Gudibande Belavahalli Goddavalahalli 17 25 ha 04

Observations of the evaluation team are given plantation-wise in table 2.8b below:

Table 2.8b: Summary of evaluation of individual plantations for Chickballapur (T) Division Extent Plantati Spac- Whether Sl. Range/ Main species Plantation Status Micro Plnt Year (Ha/ on Ing maintaine No. Village planted type of VFC plan journal Km) model adopted d Chikkaballapur Pits 4.5x4.5 Partial 1 20.00 Simaruba * Yes No No /Haristhala m written Hunse, Jumb Chintamani/ nerale, Pits Not Not 2 25.00 ha 05 10X10m Yes No Ullapanahalli Nerale, Nelli, active written Halasu Not Bagepalli/ Eucalyptus Pits Not 3 25.00 ha * 3X3m Yes function No Paipalya Trench written ing Eucalyptus sp. Gudibande/ Acacia,

4 2007-08 25.00 ha 04 Trench 5x5 m Yes No No * Goddavala halli Eucalyptus clonal, Syzigium Eucalyptus Shidlaghatta/ 12th Pits Not 5 15.00 ha sp. 4x4m Yes * No Pollicheralu Finance Trench written Honge, Bevu Eucalyptus Gowribidanur/ Comandulens Partial 6 25.00 ha DDF Trench 5x5m Yes Yes Yes Bevinahalli is written

* Information was not available

Qualitative aspects of the individual plantations are given below in the table 2.8c below.

Table 2.8c: Summary of qualitative aspects of individual plantations for Chickballapur (T) Division Extent Selection of Sl. Range/ Selection Choice of Protection Survival General Year (Ha/ Plantation Estimated No Village of site Species aspects % condition Km) model total survival 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Chikkaballapur 1 20 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 55.33 1107 Average /Haristhala Chintamani 2 25 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 73.33 1833 Good /Ullapanahalli 2007-08 Bagepalli/ 3 25 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 75 Good Paipalya 1875

26

Gowribidanur/ 4 25 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 93 2325 Very Good Bevinahalli Sidlaghatta/ 5 15 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 53.92 Average Pollicheralu 809 Gudibande/ 6 25 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 34.01 Poor Goddavalahalli 850 Weighted average of seedling survival = 65.17%

The survival of the six evaluated plantations varies from 34 to 93%. Out of these plantations one was very good, two were good, two were average and one was poor which constitutes to 16.66%, 33.33%, 33.33% and 16.66 % of the total evaluated plantation area of 135 ha.

B. Public distribution of seedlings: The evaluation team claimed that they randomly evaluated 29,500 seedlings distributed to 25 farmers but information on survival percentage was not provided. It has to be assumed that evaluation has not been done.

Table 2.8d: Public distribution of seedlings evaluated in Chickballapur (T) Division No. of Sl Name of the Species Survival Year Hobli Village seedlings No farmer planted % planted 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Kannamukkala 1 Pantharpalya Devarajpalli 2000 Eucalyptus * Venkatappa Kannamukkala 2 Pantharpalya Devarajpalli 6000 Eucalyptus * Venkatappa A.K. 3 Mittemaru Chinnaobaiahpalli 6000 Eucalyptus * Venkatarayappa AshwathappaS/o 4 Mittemaru Kanagamakalapalli 5000 Eucalyptus * Nanjapppa Narayana S/o 5. Pantharpalya Devarajpalli 6000 Eucalyptus * Venkatappa B.N. 6 Mittemari Kanampalli Venkatarayappa 3500 Eucalyptus * S/o B. Nanjappa B.N. 7 Gulur Chenchurayanapalli Venkatarayappa 1000 Eucalyptus *

2007-08 S/o B. Nanjappa U. Maddanna S/o 8 Mittemari Merupalli 5000 Eucalyptus * Hanumathappa Thotappa S/o 9 Pantharpalya Devarajpalli 5000 Eucalyptus * Venkataramanna Adeppa S/o 10 Pantharpalya Devarajpalli 5000 Eucalyptus * Ramanna Dodda 11 Mittemari Kanagmakalapalli Narasimhaiah 3500 Eucalyptus * S/Byanna

12 Kasaba Shankavaram Narayanappa 1500 Eucalyptus *

13 Pantharpalya Devarajpalli Ramanjanappa 2000 Eucalyptus *

27

14 Pantharpalya Devarajpalli Ramanjanappa 2000 Eucalyptus *

15 Kasaba Gurala Dinne Venkatamma 2000 Eucalyptus *

16 Kasaba Yallampalli Ramakrishnappa 3000 Eucalyptus *

17 Kasaba Penumale Chickanarasappa 3000 Eucalyptus *

18 Kasaba Guraladinne Subbanna 5000 Eucalyptus *

19 Kasaba Guruladinne Nadipi Yarramma 6000 Eucalyptus *

20 * Papinayakanahalli Chowdappa 2000 Eucalyptus *

K.C. 21 Mittemari Merupalli 1500 Eucalyptus * Ashwathappa

22 Mittemari Merupalli Narayanaswamy 3000 Eucalyptus *

K.V. 23 Mittemari Kanagamakalapalli 2000 Eucalyptus * Narayanappa

24 Mittemari Kanagamakalapalli Ramachandra 1000 Eucalyptus * 2007-08 25 Mittemari Kanagamakalapalli Nanjundappa 4000 Eucalyptus *

* Information was not available

C. Other works: The team was supposed to visit four nala bund works. They actually visited three and found them to be good. Details of works are given in table 2.8e.

Table 2.8e: List of other works evaluated in Chickballapur (T) Division Sl. Range/ General Year Village Name of the work Scheme No Hobli condition 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Chintamani 1 Ullappanahalli Nalabund KSFMBC Good Ambajidurga Gowribidanur 2 Bevinahalli Nalabund DDF Good Thondebhavi

th

3 2007-08 Sidlaghatta Palicherlu Nalabund 12 Fin * Gudibande 4 Chinchnahalli Nalabund KSFMBC Good Chinchnahalli * Information was not available

9. Kolar (T) Division

A. Performance of departmental plantations: During 2007-08, the division raised 23 plantations spread over 635 ha of which five plantations over 140 ha were selected for evaluation under three schemes namely KSFMBC, FDA-NAP and 12th Finance. The sampling intensity was 22.04% by area and 21.74% by the number of works. List of plantations used for sampling is given in the table 2.9a below.

28

Table 2.9a: List of plantations selected for evaluation in Kolar (T) Division Sl. Location/ Name of the Year Range Hobli Village Extent No Sy No scheme 1 Malur Boodikote Palamadagu 20.21 50 ha FDA-NAP Vammasandra 2 Mulbagal Duggasandra 9 25 ha KSFMBC (Gokunte SF) 3 Banarapet Kamasandra Bhuvanahally 64 25 ha KSFMBC 4 2007-08 Srinivasapura Kasaba Alambagiri 29.18 25 ha KSFMBC 5 Kolar Vakkleri Kuntenahalli 54 15 ha 12th finance

Observations of the evaluation team are given plantation-wise in table 2.9b below.

Table 2.9b: Summary of evaluation of individual plantations in Kolar (T) Division Extent Main Sl. Range/ Plantation Plantation Spac- Whether Status Micro Plnt Year (Ha/ species No Village model type ing maintained of VFC plan journal Km) planted Malur/ Honge, Bamboo 1 50 ha Yes Pits 10x10m Yes Yes Yes * Palamadagu Nelli Mulbagal/ Eucalyptus Pit 2 Vammasandra 25 ha Honge, Ala, Yes 10x10m Yes Yes Yes * Trench (Gokunte) Seemaruba Bagarpet/ Jammunerele, 3 25 ha 05 Pits 10x10m Yes Yes No Partial Bhuvanahally Hunse, Honge 2007-08 Srinivasapura/ Hunse, 4 25 ha 05 Pits 10x10m Yes Yes No Partial Alambagiri Jambunerale Kolar, Honge, Fully 5 15 ha Yes Yes Yes Yes No VFC * Kuntenahalli Eucalyptus written * Information was not available

Qualitative aspects of the individual plantations are given below in the table2.9c below:

Table 2.9c: Qualitative aspects of the individual plantations of Kolar (T) Division

Selection of Sl. Extent Selection of Choice of Protection Survival Estimated General Year Range/ Village Plantation No ( Ha/Km) site Species aspects % total condition model survival Malur/ 1 50 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 81 4050 Very Good Palamadagu Vammasandra 2 25 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 86 2150 Very Good (Gokunte ) Bangarpet/ 3 25 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 77 1925 Good Bhuvanahally 2007-08 Srinivasapur/ 4 25 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 100 2500 Very Good Alambagiri Kolar/ 5 15 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 81 1215 Very Good Kuntenahalli Weighted average of seedling survival = 84.57%

The survival of the five evaluated plantations varies from 77 to 100%. Out of these plantations, four were very good, and one was good which constitutes to 80.00% and 20.00 % of the total evaluated plantation area of 135 ha.

29

B. Public distribution of seedlings: The team randomly evaluated 41,200 seedlings distributed to 20 farmers. Survival was found to be very good in four cases, good in four cases, average in four cases and information was not provided in eight cases. Table 2.9d gives the details:

Table 2.9d: Public distribution of seedlings evaluated in Kolar (T) Division No of Sl Survival General Year Hobli Village Name of the Farmer seedlings Species planted No % condition planted 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 * Mallasandra Krishnappa 2000 Eucalyptus * * 2 * Mallasandra K..Ramesh 2000 Eucalyptus * * 3 * Mallasandra Chinnappaiah 2000 Eucalyptus * * 4 * Mallasandra Padmavathamma 2000 Eucalyptus * * 5. * Mallasandra Munivenkatappa 2000 Eucalyptus * * 6 Kasaba Mallasandra Kantappa 2000 Eucalyptus * * Nataraja 7 Kasaba Thimmapur 3000 Eucalyptus * * S/o Chinnaiah Naidu 8 Kasaba Pakarhalli Chandraiah 2000 Eucalyptus * * 9 Kasaba Kesarahalli Rangappa 1000 Eucalyptus 70 Good 10 Kasaba Araleri A.B.Rajendra 1500 Eucalyptus 86 Very Good 11 Kasaba Hongenahalli Lakshmanagowda 1500 Eucalyptus 95 Very Good 12 Kasaba Kesaranahalli Rangappa 2000 Eucalyptus 70 Good 13 Kasaba Pakarahalli Chandraiah 2000 Eucalyptus 60 Average

2007-08 Nagaraja S/o Chinnaiah 14 Kasaba Thimmapur 3000 Eucalyptus 72 Good Naidu 15 Kasaba Hongenahalli Lakshmanngowda 1500 Eucalyptus 95 Very Good Naryanamma W/o 16 Avani Banahalli 3000 Eucalyptus 50 Average Hanumaiah Shanthamma W/o 17 Avani Banahalli 1000 Eucalyptus 50 Average Hanumanthappa H.Venkateshappa S/o 18 Avani Banahalli 700 Eucalyptus 80 Good Hanumanthappa Venkateshappa S/o 19 Huttor Medithambinahalli 2000 Eucalyptus 85 Very Good Krishnappa Muniswamy S/o 20 Kasaba Sigenahalli 5000 Eucalyptus 50 Average Muniramappa * Information was not available Average survival = 71.92%

C. Other works: The evaluation team visited 4 other works, particularly desilting and nala bund works and found them to be satisfactory. List of works inspected are given in table 2.9e below:

30

Table 2.9e: List of other works evaluated in Kolar (T) Division

Sl. Name of Year Range Hobli Village Scheme General No the work condition 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Desilting 1 Malur Boodikote Pathramgola FDA-NAP Satisfactory (Gokunte) 2 Mulbagal Avani Kashipura Nalabund 12th Finance Satisfactory

3 2007-08 Srinivaspur Kasaba Kathibeesanahalli Desilting KSFMBC Satisfactory 4 Kolar Vakkaleri Thirumlakoppa Nalabund KSFMBC Satisfactory

10. Ramanagar (T) Division

A. Performance of departmental plantations: During 2007-08 the division raised 20 plantations spread over 518 ha of which four plantations over 81 ha were selected for evaluation under four schemes namely KSFMBC, JBIC, KFDF and Compensatory afforestation. The sampling intensity was 15.64% by area and 20.0 %by the number of works. List of plantations used for sampling is given in the table 2.10a below.

Table 2.10a: List of plantations selected for evaluation in Ramanagar (T) Division Location/ Sl. No Year Range Hobli Village Extent Name of the scheme Sy. No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 Ramanagar Bidadi Bennahalli 1 25 ha JBIC 2 Channapatna V.Pura Singarajipura 1 25 ha KSFMBC-4 3 Kanakapura Maralavadi Dodduru 1 26 ha KFDF 4 2007-08 Sathanur Sathanur Sahaslapura 1 5 ha COM.AFF

Observations of the evaluation team are given plantation-wise in table 2.10b below.

Table 2.10b: Summary of evaluation of individual plantations of Ramanagar (T) Division Extent Main Whether Sl. Range/ Plantatio Plantatio Spac- Status of Micro Plnt Year (Ha/ Species maintaine No Village n model n type ing VFC plan journal Km) planted d 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Ramanagar Nerale, Partially 1 25 ha Yes Yes 10m Yes Yes No Bennahalli Halasu, written 10X10 Channapatna/ Pit Written 2 25 ha Yes Yes m Yes Yes Yes Singarajipura +Trench upto date 4X4m Honge,

2007-08 Kanakapura/ Partially 3 26 ha Nilgiri, Yes Trench 4X4m Yes No VFC * Dodduru written Acacia Sathnur/ Honge, Partially 4 5 ha Yes Yes 4X4m Yes No VFC * Shaslapura Acacia written * Information was not available

31

Qualitative aspects of the individual plantations are given below in the table2.10c.

Table 2.10c: Qualitative aspects of individual plantations for Ramanagar (T) Division

Extent Selection of Sl. Range/ Selection Choice of Protectio Survival Estimated General Year (Ha/ Plantation No Village of site Species n aspects % total condition Km) model survival Ramanagar/ 1 25.00 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 92 Very good Bennahalli 2300 Channapatna/ 2 25.00 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 92 Very good Singarajipura 2300 Kanakapura/

3 2007-08 26.00 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 60 Good Dodduru 1560 Sathanur/ 4 5.00 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 40 200 Good Sahaslapura Weighted average of seedling survival = 80.51%

The survival of the four evaluated plantations varies from 40 to 92%. Out of these plantations two were very good, and two were good which constitutes to 50% each of the total evaluated plantation of 81 ha.

B. Public distribution of seedlings: The team randomly evaluated 53,505 seedlings distributed to 50 farmers. Survival was found to be very good in nine cases, good in 19 cases, average in 12 cases, poor in six cases, two ended up in failures. Information was not provided in two cases. Table 2.10d gives the details.

Table 2.10d: Public distribution of seedlings evaluated in Ramanagar (T) Division No of Sl Species Survival Year Hobli Village Name of the farmer seedlings General No planted % planted condition 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Jayarathna Teak, 1 Kasaba Kalli Hosur 620 60 Average W/o Gundappa Silver oak Teak, 2 Kasaba Kalli Hosur Venkateshaiah 520 65 Good Silver oak Vishakantaiah Teak, 3 Kasaba Kalli Hosur 520 45 Average S/o Puttegowda Silver oak Puttasiddegowda 4 Kasaba Kalli Hosur 250 Teak, Silver oak 80 Good S/o Late Byrappa Puttasiddegowda 5. Kasaba Kalli Hosur 250 Teak, Silver oak 75 Good S/o Late Byrappa 2007-08 Nilagiri, Teak, 6 Kasaba Kalli Hosur Appajigowda 2650 30 Poor Silveroak Jayaram S/o 7 Kasaba Kelague 300 Teak 80 Good Thimmgowda K.M .Raju. S/o 8 Kasaba Kelague 100 Teak 80 Good Nanjaiah Kempaiah S/o K.T 9 Kasaba Kelague 250 Nilagiri 80 Good Puttaiah

32

H. Veeraiah S/o Nilagiri, Acacia, 10 Kootagal Doddagangvali 2800 85 Very Good Honnalagaiah Teak & Misc. D.V.Veerappa S/o Acacia, Teak 11 Kootagal Doddagangvali 3000 75 Good Veerappa &Misc. T.Nagaraju S/o 12 Kootagal Kootagal 900 Teak Silver oak 70 Good Thimmaiah Beeraiah 13 Kailancha Veebhuthikere 750 Teak Silver oak 98 Very Good S/o Kumara hegde Venkataramaiah 14 Kailancha Anjanapura 750 Nilagiri, Teak 10 Failure S/o Seenappa Revanna S/o Nilagiri, Teak 15 Kailancha Anjanapura 1650 28 Poor Doddaiah Hebbevu etc Devamma 16 Kasaba Mayagodnahalli 1750 Teak, Nilagiri 90 Very Good W/o L.Puttaiah Devamma 17 Kasaba Mayagodnahalli 1850 Teak Honge 90 Very Good W/o L.Puttaiah Dasegowdana 18 Kailancha Harisha 3000 Melia Dubia 87 Very Good doddi Dendrocalamus & 19 Bidadi Gangarajana halli Venkataramanappa 500 65 Good Bambusa sp.

20 Kasaba Harisandra Shantappa 3000 Silver oak 83 Very Good

Eregowda S/o 21 Kasaba Kelageri 200 Silver oak 70 Good Chikkeregowda Nagaraj 22 Kasaba Nagawara S/o.Shambulinge 250 Teak Silver oak 50 Average gowda Devaraj 23 Kasaba Nagawara 200 Teak 45 Average S/o Thimmaiah Basavarajegowda 24 Kasaba Nagawar S/o. Shambulinge 300 Teak, Silver oak 50 Average gowda Chickenpaiah 25 Kasaba Nagawar 400 Teak, Silver oak 40 Poor S/o Boraiah B.N.Siddaiah 26 Kasaba Nagawar 400 Teak, Silver oak 45 Average S/o Chikkaboregowda Chicknanjaiah 27 Kasaba Dashwara 100 Teak, Silver oak 80 Good S/o Doddakallaiah Krishnappa 28 Kasaba Dashawara 150 Teak, Silveroak 60 Average S/oBasavegowda D.N. Lingaiah 29 Kasaba Dashawara 600 Teak, Silveroak 80 Good S/o Niangaiah Nagaraju 30 Kasaba Chickandoddi S/o 400 Teak, Silver oak 60 Average Shambulingegowda Shivaraju Hebbevu, Halasu, 31 Malur Gowdagere 2000 40 Poor S/o L.Basavegowda Hunse,

2007-08 Doddonu gowda 32 Makur Byrapatna 100 Teak 75 Good S/o Venkategowda Krishnaiah 33 Makur Byrapatna 300 Teak, Silver oak 60 Average S/o Dasaiah Chandrashekar Teak, Silver oak 34 Malur Malurpatna 345 70 Good S/o Muniraju Nilagiri Nageshwar Teak, Silver oak 35 Malur Malurpatna 500 * * S/o Ramchandra Hebbevu

33

Virupakshipur Teak, Silver oak 36 Nelamakana halli Doddathayamma 1000 * * a Nilgiri Virupakshipur P.Ankegowda Teak, Silver oak 37 Nelamakana halli 2400 60 Average a S/o Lingegowda Nilgiri Virupakshipur Ankegowda Teak, Silveroak 38 Nelamakana halli 1500 80 Good a S/o Chikmalegowda Nilgiri Virupakshipur Teak, Silveroak 39 Hanchipura Shivaram , Maligowda 4400 90 Very Good a Nilgiri Virupakshipur Ankegowda Teak, Silveroak 40 Hanchipura 3300 90 Very Good a S/o Ankegouda Nilgiri

Virupakshipur 41 K.G. Mahadi Suresh 800 Teak, Silveroak 95 Very Good a Virupakshipur 42 K.G. Mahadi Ramachandregowda 300 Nilagiri 60 Average a Vasantha 43 Kasaba Honganoor 400 Hebbevu 80 Good D/o Nagu Satish Teak ,Neem, Average 44 Kasaba Tattakere 1000 60 S/o. Thammaiah Nelli, Hunse

45 Uyyamballi Arakoppa Shivasharanu 100 Teak Silver oak 25 Poor

46 Uyyamballi Arakoppa Maaregowda 150 Teak Silver oak 30 Poor

47 Uyyamballi Arakoppa Narayanagowda 800 Teak Silver oak 10 Failure

48 Uyyamballi Arakoppa Chikkarangegowda 400 Teak Silver oak 80 Good

49 Maralavadi Baravasi Shivanna 200 Teak 80 Good

50 Maralavadi Baravasi Chikkarangegowda 600 Teak 80 Good

Average survival = 64.22% * Information was not available

C. Other works: Four works were evaluated. The quality of SMC and building works are generally satisfactory.

Table. List of other works evaluated in Ramanagara (T) division Sl. Location/ Name of Year Range Hobli Village Scheme Remarks No Sy.No. the work 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 Ramanagar Kailoncha Handigundi COP 1of Handigundi RF SMC Satisfactory Land & Office 2 Ramanagar Kasaba Ramnagara Town Satisfactory Building construction Chikkammanagudda Desilting of

3 2007-08 Channapatna Kasaba Powlidoddi KSFMBC Satisfactory SF tank 4 Kanakapura Kasaba Rachaiahnadoddi KSFMBC Banthamari Gully cheks Satisfactory

34

11. Bannerghatta National Park

A. Performance of departmental plantations: During 2007-08, the division raised one plantation of 50 ha under COP scheme. It was evaluated and found to be good. The sampling intensity was 100% by area and also by the number of works. Details of plantations used for sampling is given in the table 2.11a below.

Table 2.11a: Details of plantation selected for evaluation in Bannerghatta National Park Sl. Name of the Year Range Hobli Village Sy.no Extent No scheme 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Bannerghattta 1 2007-08 Jigani Bhootanahalli 64 50 ha COP WL

Observations of the evaluation team about the plantation are given in table 2.11b below:

Table 2.11b: Observations on the plantation of Bannerghatta National Park Extent Sl. Main species Plantation Plantation Whether Status Micro Plnt Year Village (Ha/ Spacing No planted model type maintained of VFC plan journal Km) 1 2 3 4 8 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 Partially 1 2007-08 Bhootanhalli 50 ha Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No VFC * written * Information was not available

Qualitative aspects of the individual plantations are given below in the table2.11c.

Table 2.11c: Qualitative aspects of the plantation evaluated in Bannerghatta National Park Selection Choice Sl. Selection of Protection Survival General Year Village Extent of No of site Plantation aspects % condition Species model 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2007-08 Bhootanahalli 50 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 74.31 Good Weighted average of seedling survival = 74.31%

B. Public distribution of seedlings: Information was not available. C. Other works: Information was not available.

-o0o-

35

3. BELGAUM CIRCLE

Circle summary

Belgaum Circle consists of seven divisions namely (1) Bagalkot (SF) Division (2) Belgaum (SF) Division (3) Bijapur (SF) Division (4) Bagalkot (T) Division (5) Belgaum (T) Division (6) Bijapur (T) Division and (7) Ghataprabha (T) Division, Gokak. During 2007-08, Belgaum circle raised 1286 plantations spread over 8797.13 ha. Out of this, the evaluation committee selected 84 plantations over 962.01 ha under 15 schemes. The sampling intensity was 6.53 by works and 10.94 % by an area. The weighted average of survival percentage of social forestry divisions was 24.6 and that of territorial divisions was 53.26. Division-wise performance is given below:

1. Bagalkot (SF) Division

A. Performance of departmental plantations: During 2007-08 Bagalkot Division raised 605 plantations. Plantation size was described in terms of number of PB seedlings because most plantations were done in places like Schools, Grave yards, Roadsides, Temples, Janata Colony, SC/ST Colony etc. They were however converted into hectares using a standard norm of 10X10 mt escapement generally. Where the spacing was mentioned, area was calculated based on that. Based on this calculation, plantations were done over 1305.29 ha out of which 26 plantations over an estimated area of 124.45 ha were selected for evaluation under two schemes SGRY and KSFMBC. However, the evaluation team was only shown 16 plantations at the time of evaluations. Because of this, the sampling intensity was reduced to only 4.30 % by the number of works and 9.53% by area. List of plantations selected for evaluation is given in the table 3.1a below:

Table 3.1a: List of plantations selected for evaluation in Bagalkot (SF) Division Sl. Location/ Name of Year Range Hobli Village Area No Sy.No the scheme 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Katagere Janata 1 Badami Guledgudda Katagere Colony, Mane munde, 500Pbs SGRY(ZP)

School Premises 2 Hunagund Hunagund Belagal Belagal Village 260 Pbs SGRY(ZP)

3 2007-08 Mudhol * * Baragi Kishori Road 300 Pbs SGRY(ZP) Konamma Temple 4 Bagalkot Bagalkot Bhagavati 500 Pbs SGRY(TP) Bhagavati

36

5 Bilagi Bilagi Rolli Rolli graveyard 4.25 ha SGRY (TP) Linganur To 6 Jamakhandi Jamakhandi Linganur 950 Pbs SGRY (TP) Jamakhandi Road High School Hallur 7 Bagalkot * Bairamatti 700 Pbs * Road Bairamatti Dambur Maruti 8 Bagalkot Bagalkote * 600 Pbs SGRY (GP) Dambur Jalihal Cross 9 Badami Badami Bellur 950 Pbs SGRY (GP) Danakashiruru Road Janata Colony 10 Badami Badami Halkurki 3.5 ha SGRY (GP) Halkurki-350 Sullikere Colony, 11 Badami Guledgudda Sullikere School Ground, Kere 750 Pbs SGRY(GP) angala Prabhulingeshwara 12 Jamakhandi * Chimmad 495 Pbs SGRY(GP) Temple Gandhinagar Shivapur 13 Jamakhandi * Hunnur 500 Pbs SGRY(GP) colony SC/ST Plot & Janata 14 Jamakhandi * Jagadal 650 Pbs SGRY (GP) Plot Hindu Smashan 15 Jamakhandi * Siddapura 300 Pbs SGRY(GP) Siddapur Karisiddeshwara 16 Jamakhandi * Konnur 300 Pbs SGRY(GP) Temple & School Ramdas Maharaj 17 Jamakhandi * Navalagi Ashram & Hindu 300 Pbs SGRY(GP) Grave Yard Kannada Boys School, 18 Jamakhandi * Shoorapali 345 Pbs SGRY(GP) Teachers vasati gruha 19 Mudhol * * SC/ST Colony 400 Pbs SGRY(GP) Grameena Mukya 20 Mudhol * * Raste Lakkavara 470 Pbs SGRY(GP) Temple Road 21 Mudhol * Uttur Village Joint Road 300 Pbs SGRY(GP) Huchchappayyana 22 Bilagi Anagavadi Anagavadi 300 Pbs SGRY(GP) Math 23 Hungund Anagavadi * Gudur Muradi Road 800 Pbs SGRY(GP) 24 Hungund * * Grave yard and Road 700 Pbs SGRY(GP) Smt. Kasthuribai, KSFMBC- 25 Jamakhandi Savalagi Hirepadasalagi 2ha Katral M-8a Vishwa Bharathi High 26 Bagalkot Bagalkot * 1ha KSFMBC School Pbs: Poly bagged seedlings * Information was not available

37

Sixteen plantations visited by the evaluation team and their observations are given

plantation-wise in table 3.1b below:

Table 3.1b: Summary of evaluation of individual plantations of Bagalkot (SF) Division Status Sl. Range/ Main species Plantation Plantatio Spac- Whether Micro Year Area of Plnt journal No Village planted model n type ing maintained plan VFC 1 2 3 4 5 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Badami Teak and other 10 Partially 1 500Pbs Yes Pit Yes * Yes Katagere local species X10m Written Hunagund Mixed local 2 260 Pbs * * * * * * * Belagal species Bevu, Mudhol 3 300 Pbs Hulagala, Road Side * * Yes * * *

hunase Bagalkot 10X10 Not 4 500 Pbs * * Pit No * * Bhagavati m Available Bilagi 10X10 Written Up 5 4.25 ha Bevu Yes Pit Yes * * Rolli m to date Bevu, Arali, Jamakhandi Basari, 10X10 6 950 Pbs Yes Pit Yes * * * Linganur Basavanapada, m Honge, Raintree Bagalakot 7 700 Pbs * * * * * * * * Bairamatti 8 Bagalakot 600 Pbs * * * * * * * * Badami Mixed local 9 950 Pbs Yes Pit 5X5 m Yes * * * Bellur species Badami Mixed local Partially 10 Halkurki 3.5 ha Yes Pit 5X5 m Yes * Yes species Written

2007-08 Badami Teak & Partially 11 Sullikere 750 Pbs Mixed local Yes Pit 5X5 m Yes * * Written species Jamakhandi Mixed local 10X10 Partially 12 495 Pbs Yes Pit Yes * * Chimmad species m Written Badam, Bevu, Jamakhandi 10X10 13 500 Pbs Silver oak, Yes Pit * * * * Hunnur m Honge Jamakhandi Mixed local 10X10 14 650 Pbs Yes Pit * * * Not Written Jagadal species m Jamakhandi Honge, Bevu, 10X10 15 300 Pbs Yes Pit * * * Not Written Siddapur Arali m Jamakhandi Mixed local 10X10 16 300 Pbs Yes Pit * * * Not Written Konnur species m Jamakhandi Mixed local 10X10 17 300 Pbs Yes Pit * * * Not Written Navalagi species m Jamakhandi Mixed local 10X10 18 345 Pbs Yes Pit * * * * Shoorapali species m Mudhol 19 400 Pbs * * * * * * * * - Mudhol 20 470 Pbs * * * * * * * * -

38

Mudhol 21 300 Pbs * Road Side Pit * * * * * Uttur Bilagi Mixed local 22 300 Pbs Yes Pit * * * * Normal Anagavadi species Hungund 23 800 Pbs * Road Side * * * * * * Anagavadi Hungund 24 700 Pbs * * * * Yes * * *

Jamakhandi 25 Hirepadasalag 2ha * Yes Pit * Yes * * Normal i Bagalkot 26 1ha * Yes * * * * * *

Pbs: Poly bag seedlings * Information was not available

Qualitative aspects of the plantations evaluated are given in table 3.1c below:

Table 3.1c: Qualitative aspects of individual plantations of Bagalkot (SF) Division Selection of Sl. Range/ Selection Choice of Protection Survival Estimated General Year Area Plantation No Village of site Species aspects % total survival condition model 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Badami 1 500Pbs Proper Proper Proper Proper 70 350 Good Katagere Hunagund Plantation not 2 260 Pbs * * * * * * Belagal shown by staff Mudhol 3 300 Pbs Proper * Proper Improper 0 0 Poor

Bagalkot 4 500 Pbs Proper Proper Not Seen Improper 0 0 Failure Bhagavati Bilagi 5 4.25 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 80 340 Good Rolli Jamakhandi 6 950 Pbs Proper Proper Proper Proper 38 361 Average Linganur Bagalakot Plantation not 7 700 Pbs * * * * * * Bairamatti shown by staff Bagalakot Plantation not 8 600 Pbs * * * * * * - shown by RFO Badami

9 2007-08 950 Pbs Proper Proper Proper Proper 40 380 Average Bellur Badami 10 Halkurki 3.5 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 40 120 Average

Badami 11 Sullikere 750 Pbs Proper Proper Proper Proper 60 450 Average

Jamakhandi 12 495 Pbs Proper Proper Proper Proper 59 292 Average Chimmad Jamakhandi 13 500 Pbs Proper Proper Proper Proper 90 450 Very Good Hunnur Jamakhandi 14 650 Pbs Proper Proper Proper Proper 39 254 Poor Jagadal Jamakhandi 15 300 Pbs Proper Proper Proper Proper 38 114 Poor Siddapur

39

Jamakhandi 16 300 Pbs Proper Proper Proper - 41 123 Average Konnur Jamakhandi 17 300 Pbs Proper Proper Proper Proper 58 174 Average Navalagi Jamakhandi 18 345 Pbs Proper Proper Proper Proper 30 104 Poor Shoorapali Mudhol Plantation not 19 400 Pbs * * * * * * shown by RFO Mudhol Plantation not 20 470 Pbs * * * * * * shown by staff Mudhol Plantation not 21 300 Pbs Improper Improper Improper Improper * * Uttur shown by staff Bilagi Plantation not 22 300 Pbs Proper Proper Proper Proper * * Anagavadi shown by staff Hungund Plantation not 23 800 Pbs * * * * * * Anagavadi shown by staff Hungund Plantation not 24 700 Pbs * * * * * * shown by staff Jamakhandi 25 2ha Proper Proper Proper * 22 44 Poor Hirepadasalagi Bagalkot Plantation not 26 1ha * Improper * Improper * * shown by staff Weighted average percentage of survival = 50.36 * Information was not available

About 12 plantations could not be located by RFOs and field staff concerned. They could not be evaluated. Of the 14 plantation evaluated, one (7.14%) was failure, four (28.57%) was poor, 7 (50%) was average, one (7.14%) was good and one (7.14%) was very good. About 12 plantations could not be located by the RFO and his staff.

B. Public distribution of seedlings: Information was not available. C. Other works: Information was not available.

2. Belgaum (SF) Division

A. Performance of departmental plantations: During 2007-08 the division raised 372 plantations spread over 929.57 ha of which 19 plantations over 54.61 ha were selected for evaluation under two schemes MNREGS and SGRY. The sampling intensity was 5.11% by area and 5.87% by works. The details of plantations are shown below.

40

Table 3.2a: List of plantations selected for evaluation in Belgaum (SF) Division Sl. Location/ Name of Year Range Hobli Village Area No Sy.No the scheme 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 6 1 Saundatti (SF) Murgudi Hosur Hosur G.P area 1.17 ha SGRY (GP) 2 Saundatti (SF) Yaragatti Sattigeri Hosur G..P area 2.05 ha SGRY (TP) 3 Gokak (SF) Arabhavi Hunashval P.Y Hunashval P.Y 3.47 ha NREGA 4 Gokak(SF) Arabhavi Kalloli GP Kalloli GP 8.29 ha NREGA 5 Gokak(SF) Arabhavi Arabhavi Arabhavi GP 5.50 ha NREGA 6 Gokak (SF) Gokak Gujanal Gujanal GP 6.59 ha NREGA 7 Gokak (SF) Koujalgi Udagatti Udagatti 2.98 ha NREGA 8 Gokak (SF) Gokak Tavag Tavag(G.P) 6.40 ha NREGA Chandur to Yaddurwadi 9 Chikodi (SF) Sadalaga Chandur 0.82 km NREGA Road side 2007-08 Pattanakudi Devastan 10 Chikodi (SF) Nippani Pattanakudi 2.58 km NREGA Janata Colony Road Mangur Pri-School, 11 Chikodi (SF) Nippani Mangur 0.39 km NREGA Hospital & Road Side Nej Kadashiddeswar 12 Chikodi (SF) Sadalga Nej 0.80km NREGA Gudi Manakapur Hospital & 13 Chikodi (SF) Sadalga Manakapur 0.85 km NREGA School Kajagaudantti to 14 Chikodi(SF) Nagaramunalli Wadral Balumamagudi Road 0.45 km NREGA Side Barwad to Manger Road 15 Chikodi(SF) Sadalaga Barwad 0.46 km NREGA Side

16 Raibag (SF) Raibag Nandikurali Nandikurali Graveyard 1.00 ha SGRY(GP) 17 Raibag(SF) Raibag Bhiradi Bhiradi to Halalla Road 1.75 km SGRY(GP) Primary School & 18 Raibag(SF) Kudachi Alakanur 1.10 ha SGRY(GP) Swami tota Maddi Sidrayan Temple 19 Raibag(SF) Kudachi Mugalakhod 7.96 ha SGRY(GP) Mugalakhod

Observations of the evaluation team are given plantation-wise in table 3.2b below:

Table 3.2b: Summary of evaluation of individual plantations of Belgaum (SF) Division Main Status Sl. Range/ Plantation Plantation Whether Micro Plnt Year Area Spacing species of No Village model type maintained plan journal planted VFC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Saundatti, Mixed local 1 1.17 ha * Pit 8X8m * * * Written Hosur species Saundatti , Mixed local 2 2.05 ha * Pit 8X8m * No No Written Sattigeri species Gokak , Mixed local Written Up 3 3.47 ha Yes Pit 10X10m Yes No NA Hunashval.P.Y species, to dated Gokak(SF), Badam, Written up 4 8.29 ha Yes Pit 10X10m Yes NA NA

2007-08 Kalloli GP Honge, to date Badam, Written up 5 Gokak ,Arabhavi 5.50 ha Yes Pit 10X10m Ashoka, Yes NA NA to date Gulmohar Gokak, Written up 6 6.59 ha Yes Pit 10X10m Badam Yes NA No Gujanal to date

41

Gokak, Honge , Bevu Written up 7 2.98 ha Yes Pit 10X10m NA NA NA Udagatti Gulmohar to date Gokak, Mixed local Written up 8 6.40 ha Yes Pit 10X10m Yes NA NA Tavag species to date Chikodi, Honge, Arale Not 9 0.82 km Yes Pit 10X10m No No No Chandur Tapasi Written Chikodi, Honge, Arale Not 10 2.58 km Yes Pit 10X10m No No No Pattanakudi Tapasi Written Chikodi, Honge, Arale Not 11 0.39 km Yes Pit 10X10m No No No Mangur Tapasi Written Chikodi, Honge, Arale Not 12 0.80 km Yes Pit 10X10m No No No Nej Tapasi Written Chikodi, Honge, Arale Not 13 0.85 km Yes Pit 10X10m No No No Manakapur Tapasi Written Chikodi, Honge, Arale Not 14 0.45 km Yes Pit 10X10m No No No Wadral Tapasi Written Chikodi, Honge, Arale Not 15 0.46 km Yes Pit 10X10m No No No Barwad Tapasi Written Raibag, Honge, 16 1.00ha Yes Pit 10X10m Yes Yes Yes Written Nandikurali Tapasi, Bevu Raibag, Tapasi,

17 2007-08 1.75 km Yes Pit 10X10m Yes Yes Yes Written Bhiradi Honge, Bevu Honge, 18 Raibag, Alakanur 1.10ha Yes Pit 10X10m Yes Yes Yes Written Tapasi, Bevu Raibag, Sankeswar, 19 7.96ha Yes Pit 10X10m Yes No No Written Mugalakhod Bevu, Tapasi * Information was not available

Qualitative aspects of the plantations are given in table 3.2c below:

Table 3.2c: Qualitative aspects of individual plantations of Belgaum (SF) Division Selection of Total Sl. Range/ Area Selection Choice of Protection Survival General Year Plantation estimated No Village (Ha/Km) of site Species aspects % condition model survival 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Saundatti , 1 1.17 ha Proper * Proper Proper 90.0 105 Good Hosur Saundatti , 2 2.05 ha Improper Improper Improper Improper 21.0 43 Poor Sattigeri Gokak , 3 3.47 ha Proper Proper Proper Improper 12.39 43 Poor Hunashval.P.Y Gokak(SF), 4 8.29 ha Proper Proper Proper Improper 3.37 28 Poor Kalloli GP Gokak , 5 5.50 ha Proper Proper Proper Improper 4.18 23 Poor Arabhavi Gokak,

6 2007-08 6.59 ha Proper Proper Proper Improper 4.55 30 Poor Gujanal Gokak, 7 2.98 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 0.0 0 Nil Udagatti Gokak, 8 6.40 ha Proper Proper Proper Improper 30.0 192 Poor Tavag Chikodi, 9 0.82 km Proper Proper Proper Improper 12.27 10 Poor Chandur Chikodi, 10 2.58 km Proper Proper Proper Improper 44.66 115 Good Pattanakudi

42

Chikodi, 11 0.39 km Proper Proper Proper Improper 57.69 23 Average Mangur Chikodi, 12 0.80 km Proper Proper Proper Improper 30.0 24 Average Nej Chikodi, 13 0.85 km Proper Proper Proper Improper 22.80 19 Poor Manakapur Chikodi, 14 0.45 km Proper Proper Proper Improper 05.61 3 failure Wadral Chikodi, 15 0.46 km Proper Proper Proper Improper 38.04 18 Average Barwad Raibag, 16 1.00 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 71.4 71 Good Nandikurali Raibag, 17 1.75 km Proper Proper Proper Proper 50.0 88 Good Bhiradi 18 Raibag, Alakanur 1.10 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 41.12 45 Good Raibag, 19 7.96 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 47.82 381 Good Mugalakhod Weighted average of seedling survival= 23.07 * Information was not available

The survival percentage in the 19 evaluated plantations varies from 0 to 90. Out of these plantations, one was very good, one was good, five were average, five were poor and seven were failure which constitute to 5.26%, 5.26%, 26.32%, 26.32% and 36.84% respectively of total evaluated area of 54.61 ha. The plantations raised do not have good protection. The main constraint is irregular flow of funds from zilla panchayats. Since the forestry works are seasonal in nature regular flow of funds may be ensured.

B. Public distribution of seedlings: Only one farmer was surveyed and seedlings performance was evaluated. Table 3.2d summarizes the results:

Table 3.2d: Public distribution of seedlings evaluated in Belgaum (SF) Division No. of Main Sl. Name of the Survival General Year Range Hobli Village seedlings species No. farmer % condition planted planted 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2007-08 * Badami Badami Basunaik 350 * 5 Failure * Information was not available

C. Other works: Information was not available.

3. Bijapur (SF) Division

A. Performance of departmental plantations: During 2007-08 the division raised 55 plantations spread over 219 ha of which five plantations over 25 ha were selected for evaluation under SGRY scheme. The sampling intensity is 9.09% by area and 11.42% by the number of works. Details of plantations evaluated are shown below in the table 3.3a.

43

Table 3.3.a: List of plantations selected for evaluation in Bijapur (SF) Division Sl. Location/ Name of the Year Range Hobli Village Area No Sy.No scheme 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Luchhana to Lauchhana to 1 Indi * 5 km SGRY (ZP) Mannur Mannur 2 Indi * Malagan Malagan-Gundige 5 km SGRY(TP) 3 Bijapur * Ittangihal Amushasidda 5 km SGRY(TP) Benal to Vandal

4 2007-08 B.Bagewadi * Benal 5 km SGRY(TP) Roade Muddebihal to 5 Muddebehal * Hadalageri 5 km SGRY(TP) Hadalageri Road * Information was not available

Observations of the evaluation team are given plantation-wise in table 3.3b below:

Table 3.3b: Summary of evaluation of individual plantations in Bijapur (SF) Division Area Main Status Sl. Range/ Plantation Plantation Spac- Whether Micro Plnt Year (Ha/ species of No Village model type ing maintained plan journal Km) planted VFC 1 2 3 4 8 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 Indi, Bevu, 1 5 km Yes Pit 8X8 Yes Yes Yes * Luchhana Arali Bevu, Indi, 2 5 km Arali, Yes Pit 10X1 m Yes No No * Malagan Honge Bijapur, Neem, 3 5 km Yes Pit 8X8m Yes Yes Yes *

2007-08 Ittangihal Ala, Sisso B.Bagewadi, Bevu, Written up 4 5 km Yes Pit * Yes Yes Yes Benal Hulgul to date Muddebihal, 5 5 km Bevu, Aral Yes Pit 8X8m Yes Yes Yes * Hadalageri * Information was not provided by the evaluation team.

Qualitative aspects of the plantations are given in table 3.3c below:

Table 3.3c: Qualitative aspects of individual plantations of Bijapur (SF) Division Selection of Choice Total Sl. Range/ Selection of Protection Survival General Year Area Plantation of estimated No Village site aspects % condition model Species survival 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Indi, 1 5 km Proper Proper Proper Proper 14 70 Failure Luchhana Indi, 2 5 km Proper Proper Proper Proper 62 310 Good Malagan Bijapur, 3 5 km Proper Proper Proper Proper 22 110 Poor Ittangihal 2007-08 B.Bagewadi, 4 5 km Proper Proper Proper Proper 6 30 Failure Benal Muddebehal, 5 5 km Proper Proper Proper Proper 6 30 Failure Hadalageri Weighted average of seedling survival = 22.00

44

General observations on departmental plantations: The survival percentage in the five plantations evaluated varies from 6 to 62. Out of these plantations, one was good, one was poor and three were failures. They constitute to 20%, 20%, and 60 % respectively of total evaluated area of 25 km. The overall performances of the plantations are poor.

B. Public distribution of seedlings: Details were not available.

C. Other works: Details were not available.

Bagalkot (T) Division

A. Performance of departmental plantations: During 2007-08 the division raised 53 plantations spread over 1653.55 ha of which seven plantations over 190.5ha were selected for evaluation under five schemes namely KSHIP, KSFMBC, GUA, CSS-NAP (AR) and NAP-FDA. The sampling intensity was 11.52% by area and 13.20 by number of works. The details of plantations are shown below in the table 3.4a below.

Table 3.4a: List of plantations selected for evaluation in Bagalkot (T) Division Sl. Location/ Name of the Year Range Hobli Village Area No Sy..No scheme 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 Bilagi Angawadi Sunag Sunag, 258 25 ha KSFMBC–M-02 2 Mudhol Lokapur Petlur Petlur, 112 25 ha KSFMBC-M-04 Hungund FPR & CO

3 Hunagund Aminagad * 8.5 km Kamatagi road (KSHIP) 4 Bagalkote Bagalkote Bagalkote Navanagar 5 ha GUA

2007-08 NAP- 5 Bagalkote Bagalkote Hiregulbal Hiregulbal, 47 47ha FDA(ANR) 6 Hunugund Aminagad Dhammur Dhammur, 1 40 ha NAP-FDA 7 Jamkhandi Jamkhandi Siddapur Siddapur, 73/1 40 ha CSSNAP (AR) * Information was not available

45

Observations of the evaluation team are given plantation-wise in table 3.4b below:

Table 3.4b: Summary of evaluation of individual plantations of Bagalkot (T) Division Status Sl. Range/ Plantatio Plantation Main species Whether Plnt Year Area Spacing of Micro plan No Village n model type planted maintained journal VFC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Bilagi Mixed local Written up 1 25 ha Yes Pit 2.5X2.5m Yes * * Sunga species to date Mudhol Pit & Mixed local Partially 2 25 ha Yes * Yes * * Petalur Trench species Written Bevu, Ala, Partially 3 Hunagund 8.5 km Yes Pit 10X10 m Yes * Yes Arali Written Bagalkote Mixed local Not Not Partially 4 5 ha Yes Pit 5X5 m Yes Bagalkote species applicable applicable Written

2007-08 Not Bagalkot Ala, Bevu, Partially 5 47 ha Yes Trench * Yes Maintaine Not known Huregulbal Anjan Written d Hunugund Partially 6 40 ha Yes Trench 5X5 m Kamara, Honge Yes * Yes Dhammur Written Jamkhandi Anjan, Tapasi, Partially 7 40 ha Yes Trench 4X4 m Yes Yes Yes Siddapur Nilgiri Written * Information was not available

Qualitative aspects of the plantations are given in table 3.4c below:

Table 3.4c: Qualitative aspects of individual plantations of Bagalkot (T) Division Selection Choice Total Sl. Range/ Area Selection of Protection Survival General Year of estimated No Village (Ha/Km) of site Plantation aspects % condition Species survival model 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Bilagi 1 25 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 25 625 Poor Sunga Mudhol 2 25 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 64 1600 Good Petalur 3 Hunagund 8.5 km Proper Proper Proper Proper 70 595 Good Bagalkot 4 5 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 75 375 Good Bagalkot

2007-08 Bagalkot 5 47 ha Proper Proper Proper Improper 65 3055 Good Huregulbal Hunugund 6 40 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 68 2720 Good Dhammur Jamkhandi 7 40 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 53 2120 Average Siddapur Weighted average of seedling survival = 58.21%

The survival percentage in the seven evaluated plantations varies from 25 to 75.Out of these plantations, five were good, one was average and one was poor constitutes to 71.43%, 14.28% and 14.28% respectively of total evaluated area of 190.5 ha.

B. Public distribution of seedlings: Information was not available.

46

C. Other works: Information was not available.

5. Belgaum (T) Division

A. Performance of departmental plantations: During 2007-08 the division raised 113 plantations spread over 2881 ha were raised of which 13 plantations over 349.2 ha were selected for evaluation under five schemes namely KSHIP, NSP-FDA, KSFMBC, REFL and Markandeya project. The sampling intensity was 12.12% by area and 11.50 by the number of works. Table 3.5a gives the list of selected plantations which were evaluated.

Table 3.5a: List of plantations selected for evaluation of Belgaum (T) Division Sl. Location/ Name of the Year Range Hobli Village Area No Sy. No scheme 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 Gujnal Ankalgi Musalmari Musalmari 03 50 ha NAP-FDA 2 Gujnal Ankalgi Haranakolla Haranakolla 36 50 ha NAP-FDA KSFMBC-M- 3 Kanakumbi Jamboti Amagaon 7 20 ha 04 KSFMBC-M- 4 Belgaum Vchagaon Dhamane Dhamane 44 15 ha 04 KSFMBC-M- 5 Khanapur Belgaum Betageri 80 20 ha 04 6 Khanapur Jambotti Nilavade 82 20 ha NAP-FDA 7 Nesargi Nesargi Mohare 21 & 22 25 ha REFL KSFMBC- Watra Fs 13, 8 Londa Gunji Watra 25 ha 139-MW-M- 71, 86

2007-08 02 Gawali Fs 2, KSFMBC- 9 Londa Gunji Gawali 25 ha 68, 70 139-MW-M-5 Beedi to 10 Golihalli Beedi Beedi Alnavar 19.20 km KSHIP Roadside Maskenatti F.S. FDA-NAP- 11 Golihalli Beedi Maskanatti 20 ha 29 M-AR 12 Golihalli Beedi Kirhalasi 64 20 ha FDA Markandeya 13 Kakati Kakati Kakati Kakati Fs 99 40 ha Project * Information was not available

Observations of the evaluation team are given plantation-wise in table 3.5b below:

Table 3.5b: Summary of evaluation of individual plantations of Belgaum (T) Division Main Status Sl. Range/ Plantation Plantation Spac- Whether Micro Plnt Year Area species of No Village model type ing maintained plan journal planted VFC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Nilgeri, Gujnal, 1 50 ha Hulgal, Yes Pit * Yes Good * Up to date Musalmari Tapasi

2007-08 Gujnal, Nilgeri, 2 50 ha Yes Pit 7X7m Yes Good * Up to date Haranakolla Hulgal,

47

Kanakumbi, Acacia, 3 20 ha Yes Pit * Yes Yes Yes Up to date Amagaon Nelli Local Belgaum, 4 15 ha mixed Yes Pit * Yes Good Yes Up to date Dhamane species Local Khanapur, 2.5X2.5 5 20 ha mixed Yes Pit Yes Yes Yes Up to date Betageri m species Acacia, Khanapur, 6 20 ha Bamboo, Yes Pit 7X7m Yes Yes Yes Up to date Nilavade Nandi Nesargi, 7 25 ha Acacia Yes Trench 4X4m Yes Good * Up to date Mohare Matti, Londa, Nandi, 8 25 ha Yes Pit * Yes Yes Yes Up to date Watra Kindal, Nerale Nelli, Londa, 9 25 ha Mango, No Pit * Yes Yes Yes Up to date Gawali Halasu, Golihalli, Nerale, Beedi to 19.20 10X 10 10 Tapashi, Yes Pit Yes No No Up to date Alnavar Road km m Hulgal side Golihalli, 2.5X 2.5 11 20 ha Acacia Yes Pit Yes No No Up to date Maskanatti m Local Golihalli, 12 20 ha mixed Yes Pit 7X7 m Yes Yes Yes Up to date Kirhalasi species Hulgal, Kakati, 10X10 Partially 13 40 ha Bevu, Yes Pit * * * Kakati m Written Tapsi * Information was not available

Qualitative aspects of the plantations are given in table 3.5c below:

Table 3.5c: Qualitative aspects of individual plantations of Belgaum (T) Division Selection of Total Sl. Range/ Area (Ha/ Selection Choice of Protection Survival General Year Plantation estimated No Village Km) of site Species aspects % condition model survival 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Gujnal, 1 50 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 66 3300 Good Musalmari Gujnal, 2 50 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 71 3550 Good Haranakolla Kanakumbi, 3 20 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 60.3 1206 Average Amagaon Belgaum, 4 15 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 85 1275 Very Good Dhamane 2007-08 Khanapur, 5 20 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 61.5 1230 Good Betageri Khanapur, 6 20 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 72.7 1454 Good Nilavade Nesargi, 7 25 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 97 2425 Very Good Mohare

48

Londa, 8 25 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 48.90 1222 Good Watra Londa, 9 25 ha Improper Improper Improper Improper 63.65 1591 Good Gawali Golihalli Beedi to Alnavar 10 19.20 km Proper Proper Proper Proper 52.08 1000 Average Road side Plantation Golihalli, 11 20 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 50.15 1003 Average Maskanatti Golihalli, 12 20 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 50 1000 Average Kirhalasi Kakati, 13 40 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 37 1480 Poor Kakati Weighted average of seedling survival=62.25%

The survival percent in the 13 evaluated plantations varies from 37 to 97. Out of these plantations, two were very good, six were good, four were average and one was poor which constitute to 15.38%, 46.15%, 30.77%and 7.69% respectively of the total evaluated area of 349.2 ha. Maintenance of plantation records is very poor. Acacia and teak which are strong light demanders are being planted under heavy shade.

B. Public distribution of seedlings: During 2007-08 seedlings of teak, nelli, honge, seetaphal, karibevu and bamboo are distributed in the division. The major species distributed is teak. Out of the farmers evaluated the survival is best in teak. Overall survival percentage is 60. Non-availability of seedlings near to their village in time is the major constraint. Attempts may be made to transport the seedlings to the villages so that more number of farmers can take up farm forestry.

Table 3.5d: public distribution of seedlings evaluated in Belgaum (T) Division No. of Main Sl. Range/ Name of the Survival General Year Village seedlings species No Hobli farmer % condition planted planted 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Ganesh Co-op Sampige, 1 2007-08 Kukthi Kalkamba 306 60 Average Society Badam

C. Other works: In the division during 2007-08, a total of eight other works were earmarked for evaluation. The list included gully plugging, repairs to existing quarters and construction of percolation tank and nala bund etc. The quality of works carried out is satisfactory.

49

Table 3.5d: List of other works evaluated in Belgaum (T) Division Sl. Year Range Hobli Village Name of the work Scheme Remarks No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Nala bund 1 Nagargali Bidi Suvatwadi KSFMBC Good construction KSFMBC Repairs to staff 2 Khanapur Khanapur Nandgad Building Good quarters Maintenance KSFMBC Repairs to staff 3 Khanapur Khanapur Nandgad Building Good quarters Maintenance KSFMBC Repair to staff 4 Khanapur Gunji Rumewadi Building Good quarters Maintenance Special repairs to Building

5 2007-08 Londa Gunji Londa Guard quarters no1 Good Maintenance near RFO office Special repairs to Building 6 Londa Gunji Londa Guard quarters no Good Maintenance 2 near RFO office Special repairs to Building 7 Londa Gunji Londa Guard quarters no1 Good Maintenance near RFO office Special repairs of Building 8 Londa Gunji Londa Guard quarters no2 Good Maintenance near RFO office

6. Bijapur (T) Division

A. Performance of departmental plantations: During 2007-08 the division raised 38 plantations spread over 634.11 ha of which six plantations over 96.25 ha were selected for evaluation under three schemes namely KSFMBC NAP-FDA and KRDCL. The sampling intensity was 15.17% by area and 15.78 by works. Details of plantations evaluated is given table 3.6a below: Table 3.6a: List of plantations selected for evaluation in Bijapur (T) Division Sl. Location/ Name of the Year Range Hobli Village Area No Sy.No scheme 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Mamadapur RF 1 Bijapur Mamdapur Mamadapur 15 ha KSFMBC 398 Chikkabennur 2 Indi Indi Chikkabennor 10ha KSFMBC Block 197, 198, 199 Madabhavi Block 3 Bijapur Nagathan Madabhavi Plantation 129, 116, 20 ha NAP-FDA-AR 117 2007-08 Adavihulagubal 4 Muddebihhal Nalatwad Adavihulagubal 20 ha NAP(FDA) Block 10 Kalkuriki Block, 5 Muddebihal Kolhar Kalkurki 25 ha NAP(FDA) 362, 363 6 Sindagi Sindagi * Sindagi to Bijapur 6.25 km KRDCL * Information was not available

50

Observations of the evaluation team are given plantation-wise in table 3.6b below:

Table 3.6b: Summary of evaluation of individual plantations in Bijapur (T) Division Main Status Sl. Range/ Plantation Plantation Whether Micro Year Area species Spacing of Plnt journal No Village model type maintained plan planted VFC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Mixed Bijapur, Written up to 1 15 ha local Yes Pit 20X20m Yes Yes Yes Mamadapur date species Indi, Written up to 2 10ha Neem Yes Pit 10X10m Yes No No Chikkabennor date Nilgiri, Bijapur, Written up to 3 20 ha Casoda, Yes Trench * Yes No No Madabhavi date Sissoo

2007-08 Muddebihal, Cassia Written up to 4 20 ha Yes Trench * Yes Yes Yes Adavihulagubal Karijali date Muddebihal , Cassia Written up to 5 25 ha Yes Trench 5X5m Yes Yes Yes Kalkuriki Nilgiri date Sindagi, Mixed local Written up to 6 6.25 km Yes Pit 8X8m Yes Yes Yes * species date * Information was not available

Qualitative aspects of the plantations are given in table 3.6c below:

Table 3.6.c: Qualitative aspects of individual plantations of Bijapur (T) Division Selection of Total Sl. Range/ Selection of Choice of Protection Survival General Year Area Plantation estimated No Village site Species aspects % condition model survival 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Bijapur, 1 15 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 4.00 60 Failure Mamadapur Indi, 2 10ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 74.00 740 Good Chikkabennor Bijapur, 3 20 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 12.00 240 Failure Madabhavi Muddebihal,

4 2007-08 20 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 36.00 720 Poor Adavihulagubal Muddebihal , 5 25 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 5.00 125 Failure Kalkuriki Sindagi 6 6.25 km Proper Proper Proper Proper 60.00 375 Average

Weighted average of seedling survival = 23.48%

The survival percentage in the six evaluated plantations varies from 4 to 60. Out of these plantations, one was good, one was average, one was poor and three were failure constitutes to 16.6%, 16.6%, 16.6% and 50% respectively of total evaluated area of 96.25 ha. B. Public distribution of seedlings: Information was not available. C. Other works: Information was not availabe.

51

7. Ghataprabha (T) Division, Gokak

A. Performance of departmental plantations: During 2007-08 the division raised 50 plantations spread over 1174.61 ha on degraded forest, road sides and public places of which eight plantations covering 122 ha were selected for evaluation under six schemes namely KSFMBC, KSHIP, DDF, FDA, TFC and GUA. The sampling intensity was 10.38% by area and 16.00 by the number of works. List of the plantations surveyed are shown in the table 3.7a below:

Table 3.7a: List of plantations selected for evaluation in Ghataprabha (T) Division: Gokak Sl. Location/ Year Range Hobli Village Area Name of the scheme No Sy.No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Ghatakanur 1 Ramdurga Sureban Ghatkanur 10 ha KSFMBC Model-5 69, 70 Ghatakanur, 2 Ramdurga Sureban Ghatakanur GPS 10 ha KSFMBC Model-5 Reading Yaragatti to 3 Saundatti Yaragatti Munavalli * 5 km KSHIP Road Side 4 Saundatti Saundatti Saundatti Rudrabhomi 2 ha GUA 2007-08 TFC(Major works) 5 Gokak Arabhavi Konnur 655, 656 25 ha Model-Mixed Plnt 6 Raibag Raibag Shavupark 374, 375 25 km FDA(AR) 7 Chikodi Nippani ADI 358, 359 25 ha KSFMBC*Model-02 Radderahatti 8 Athani Athani Radderahatti 20 ha DDF 526 * Information was not available

Observations of the evaluation team are given plantation-wise in table 3.7b below:

Table 3.7b: Summary of evaluation of individual plantations of Ghataprabha (T) Division: Gokak Main Plantati Whether Status Sl. Yea Range/ Plantati Spac- Micro Plant Area species on maintaine of No r Village on type ing plan journal planted model d VFC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Ramdurga, 1 10 ha Hunase Yes Pit 8X8m Yes Yes Yes Written Ghatakanur Ramdurga, 2 10 ha Hunase Yes Pit 8X8m Yes Yes Yes * Ghatakanur Saundatti, Yaragatti to Mixed

3 2007-08 5 km Yes Pit 10X10m Yes No No Written Munavalli local sps Road side Saundatti, Mixed 4 2 ha * Pit 8X8m Yes Yes Yes Written Saundatti local sps Gokak, Mixed 5 25 ha Yes Pit 5X5m Yes Yes Yes Written Konnur local sps 6 Raibag, 25 km Eucalyptu Yes Pit 8X8m Yes Yes Yes Written

52

Shavupark s Sissoo Written Chikodi, Mixed 7 25 ha Yes Pit 5X5m Yes Yes Yes up to ADI local sps, date Nilgiri, Athani, 8 20 ha Anjan, Yes Trench 5X5m Yes Yes Yes * Radderahatti Sisoo * Information was not available

Qualitative aspects of the plantations are given in table 3.7c below:

Table 3.7c: Qualitative aspects of individual plantations of Ghataprabha (T) Division: Gokak Selection Choice Total Sl. Range/ Area Selection of Protection Survival General Year of estimated No Village (Ha/Km) of site Plantation aspects % condition Species survival model 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Ramdurga, 1 10 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 66.6 666 Good Ghatakanur Ramdurga, 2 10 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 75.00 750 Good Ghatakanur Saundatti, Yaragatti to 3 5 km Proper Proper Proper Proper 30.00 150 Poor Munavalli Road side Saundatti, 4 2 ha Proper * Proper Proper 43.01 862 Average Saundatti 2007-08 Gokak, Very 5 25 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 86.98 2175 Koonnur Good Raibag, 6 25 km Proper Proper Proper Proper 41.05 1026 Average Shavupark Chikodi, Very 7 25 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 93.5 2338 ADI Good Athani, 8 20 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 62.00 1240 Good Radderahatti Weighted average survival percent = 69.10 * Information was not provided by the evaluation team.

The survival percentage in the eight evaluated plantations varies from 30 to 93.5. Out of these plantations, two were very good, three were good, two were average and one was poor which constitutes to 25%, 37.5%, 25.%and 12.5% respectively of the total 69.10 ha of plantations.

B. Public distribution of seedlings: The evaluation team has visited villages of different ranges. Out of 16 farmers evaluated four were very good, one was good, four were average, five were failure and two were poor constitutes to 25%, 12.5%, 25%, 12.5% and 31.25% respectively. The major species demanded by farmers is teak. Its survival percentage is up to 85 where there is good irrigation facility. Survival is less in areas where it is dependent only on rainfall. Success of other species is also good but less in comparison with teak.

53

Table 3.7d: Public distribution of seedlings evaluated in Ghataprabha (T) Division: Gokak No. of Sl Main species Survival General Year Range Hobli Village Name of the Farmer seedlings No planted % condition planted 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 * Chandaragi Bhagojikoppa Mallappabali 80 Teak 60.00 Average Mallappa Ramappa 2 * Chandaragi Bhagojikoppa 200 Teak 48.00 Average Totagi Basavaraj Ramesh 3 * Chandaragi Bhagojikoppa 200 Teak 45.00 Average Totagi Vishvanath Prakash 4 * Arabhavi Mudalagi 55 Teak 12.72 Failure Sheelavant SSRPU College 5 * Arabhavi Mudalagi 55 Teak 12.72 Failure Mudalagi Shri Kallappa 6 * Arabhavi Mudalagi 73 Teak 56.00 Average Shivamurti,Sollapur Shri Chandrashekhar 7 * Koujalagi Tigadi 100 Teak 8.00 Failure Ajjappa Wader Teak, Badam 8 * Koujalagi Kulagod Shri M.M.Angadi 162 77.16 Good Karibevu

2007-08 Shri Uday B Teak, Ashok, 9 * Koujalagi Bagaranal 111 30.63 Poor Karajagimath Karibevu Ashoka 10 * Gokak Gokak Riddhi-Siddhi Factory 165 20.06 Failure Spathodea 11 * Gokak Maldinni Sri Vasnth G Kamat 500 Teak 08.00 Failure Sri Prashant Tukaram 12 * Gokak Hirenandi 500 Teak 40.00 Poor Kagal Sri Prashant Siddappa 13 * Gokak Mamadapur 100 Teak 95.00 Very good Beerannavar Sri Prashant Siddappa 14 * Gokak Mamadapur 100 Teak 95.00 Very good Beerannavar 15 * Nippani Nippani * 600 Teak 90.00 Very good Krishna Sugar 16 * Athani Sankonatti 535 Teak 85.00 Very good Factory * Information was not provided by the evaluation team

C. Other works: In the division during 2007-08, 24 other works were carried out out of which 12 works have been evaluated. These works were related mainly to soil and moisture conservation works like excavation of percolation tank/trenches, gully checks works carried out are satisfactory.

Table 7.3e: List of other works evaluated in Ghataprabha (T) Division: Gokak Sl Year Range Hobli Village Name of the work Scheme Remarks No

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Const. of Gully 1 Ramdurga Sureban Ghatakannur KSFMBC Good Checks Const. of Gully 2 Ramdurga Sureban Ghatakannur KSFMBC Good Checks

2007-08 Const. of Gully 3 Ramdurga Sureban Ghatakannur KSFMBC Good Checks 4 Ramdurga Katakol Bichobal Percolation Trencher KSFMBC-5 Good

54

Const. of Gully 5 Ramdurga Sureban Ghatakannur KSFMBC Good Checks Const. of Gully 6 Soundatti Munavalli Karalkatti FDA (AR) Good Checks Const. of Gully 7 Soundatti Murgod Sogal FDA (ANR) Good Checks Excavation TFC Major 8 Gokak Arabhavi * percolation of Good Works trenches 9 Chinchodi Nippani Aadi Gully Checks KSFMBC Good Excavation of 10 Chinchodi Nippani Aadi KSFMBC Good percolation trenches Construction of RFO 147 Land & 11 Athani Athani Athani Good Office Building Building

Construction of 12 Athani Athani Athani KFDF (OP) Good Percolation tank * Information was not available

-o0o-

55

4. BELLARY CIRCLE

Circle summary Bellary Circle consists of eight forest divisions namely (1) Bellary (SF) Division (2) Chitradurga (SF) Division (3) Davangere (SF) Division (4) Koppal (SF) Division (5) Bellary (T) Division (6) Chitradurga (T) Division (7) Davanagere (T) Division and (8) Koppal (T) Division. During 2007-08, Bellary circle raised 188 plantations over an area of 4674.84.34 ha. Out of this, the evaluation committee selected 40 plantations spread over an area of 786ha under 14 schemes. The sampling intensity was 16.81% by area and 18.43% by the number of works. The weighted average of survival percentage of territorial divisions was 65.84 and that of social forestry divisions was 52.64. Bellary circle has not submitted details of distribution of seedlings and information about other works. Hence they could not be evaluated. Division-wise results of the plantations evaluation are reported below:

1. Bellary (SF) Division

A. Performance of departmental plantations: During 2007-08, Bellary (SF) Division raised 12 plantations spread over 27 ha. Out of this, two plantations of 4 ha under KSFMBC scheme were evaluated. The sampling intensity was 14.81% by area and 16.66% by the number of works. List of plantations used for sampling is given in table 4.1a below:

Table 4.1a: List of plantations selected for evaluation in Bellary (SF) Division Sl. Range/ Location/ Name of the Year Hobli Village Extent No Taluk Sy No Scheme 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2007- Hospet * Hampi * 2 ha KSFMBC 2 08 Hospet * Hampi * 2 ha KSFMBC * Information was not available.

Observations of the evaluation team are given plantation-wise in table 4.1b below.

Table 4.1b: Summary of evaluation of individual plantations of Bellary (SF) Division Range/ Main Status Sl. Plantation Plantatio Spacing Whether Micro Year Village Extent Species Of Plnt Journal No Model n type adopted maintained plan planted VFC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Hospet, Honge, 1 2 ha * Pit 7x7m * * * Maintained Hampi Badami Hospet, Honge, 2 2 ha * Pit 7x7m * * * Maintained 2007-08 Hampi Badami * Information was not available.

56

Qualitative aspects of the plantations are given in table 41c below:

Table 4.1c: Qualitative aspects of individual plantations of Bellary (SF) Division Selection Range/ Choice Estimated Sl. Extent Selection of Protection Survival General Year Village of total No (Ha/Km) of site Plantation aspects % condition Species survival model 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Hospet, 1 2 ha * * * * 70.00 140 Good Hampi Hospet,

2 2007-08 2 ha * * * * 60.00 120 Average Hampi Weighted average of seedling survival = 65% * Information was not available.

Survival rate in the two evaluated plantations varies from 60 to 70%. Out of these plantations, one was good and one was average. B. Public distribution of seedlings: Information was not available. C. Other works: Information was not available.

2. Chitradurga (SF) Division

A. Performance of departmental plantations: During 2007-08, Chitradurga (SF) Division raised ten plantations over an area of 149 ha. Out of which three plantations were evaluated over an area of 15 ha under two different schemes KSFMBC and RSVY. The sampling intensity was 10.06% by area and 30% by the number of works. List of plantations surveyed is given in table 4.2a below:

Table 4.2a: List of plantations selected for evaluation in Chitradurga (SF) Division Sl. Location/ Name of the Year Range/ Taluk Hobli Village Extent No Sy No Scheme 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 Hiriyur SF * Arasingudi * 2 ha KSFMBC Doddaganala 2 Chitradurga * * 10 ha KSFMBC Hosatti 3 2007-08 Molakulmur * Mogalalli R/S 3 ha RSVY * Information was not available.

57

Observations of the evaluation team are given plantation-wise in table 4.2b below:

Table 4.2b: Summary of evaluation of individual plantations of Chitradurga (SF) Division Main Status Sl. Range/ Village Plantat Plantation Spacing Whether Micro Plnt Year Extent Species Of No ion model type adopted maintained plan Journal planted VFC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Honge, Hiriyur SF, Kadu Not 1 2 ha * Pit 5X5m * * * Arasingudi badam, Maintained Bugin

Chitradurga,

2 2007-08 Doddaganala 10 ha * * Pit * * * * * Hosatti Molakalmuru, Bevu, Not 3 3 ha * Pit 10X10m * * * Mogalalli Honge Maintained * Information was not available. Qualitative aspects of the plantations are given in table 4.2c below:

Table 4.2c: Qualitative aspects of individual plantations of Chitradurga (SF) Division Range/ Selection of Choice Estimated Sl. Selection of Protection Survival General Year Village Extent Plantation of total No site aspects % condition model Species survival 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Hiriyur SF, 1 2 ha * * * * 25.00 50 Poor Arasingudi Chitradurga, 2 Doddaganala 10 ha * * * * * 0 Failure Hosatti 2007-08 Molakalmuru, 3 3 ha * * * * 39.80 119.4 Poor Mogalalli Weighted average of seedling survival = 11.29% * Information was not available. The survival of the three evaluated plantations varies from 25 to 39.80%. Out of these plantations, two were poor and one was failure which constitutes to 66.66% and 33.33% respectively of the total evaluated plantation area of 15 ha. B. Public distribution of seedlings: Information was not available. C. Other works: Information was not available.

3. Davanagere (SF) Division

A. Performance of departmental plantations: During 2007-08, Davanagere (SF) Division raised 16 plantations spread over 193.75 ha. Out of which four plantations over 23 ha were evaluated under two different schemes KSFMBC and Scarcity. The sampling

58

intensity was 11.87% by area and 25% by the number of works. List of plantations used for sampling is given in table 4.3a below:

Table 4.3a: List of plantations selected for evaluation in Davangere (SF) Division Sl. Location/ Name of the Year Range/ Taluk Hobli Village Extent No Sy No Scheme 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 Davanagere * Doddabathi 240 10 ha Scarcity 2 Jagalur * Marana hally 1 2 ha KSFMBC 3 Harihara * Chikkabidri * 1 ha KSFMBC-06

2007-08 2/1,17.p,19,16/8,16/2 4 Honalli * Kadat hal 10 ha KSFMBC 19/8,19/p,16,16/1 * Information was not available.

Observations of the evaluation team are given plantation-wise in table 4.3b below:

Table 4.3b: Summary of evaluation of individual plantations of Davanagere (SF) Division Main Status Sl. Range/ Village Plantation Plantation Spacing Whether Micro Year Extent Species Of Pltn. Journal No model type adopted maintained plan planted VFC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Davanagere, Honge, Not 1 10 ha * Pit 5X5m * * * Doddabathi Anjan Maintained Jagalur, Marana Mixed 2 2 ha * Pit 7X7m * * * * hally local sps hari hara, Mixed Not

3 2007-08 1 ha * Pit 7X7m * * * Chikkabidri local sps Maintained Honalli, Kadat 4 10 ha * * Pit * * * * * hal * Information was not available.

Qualitative aspects of the plantations are given in table 4.3c below:

Table 4.3c: Qualitative aspects of individual plantations of Davanagere (SF) Division Selection Range/ Choice Estimated Sl. Selection of Protection Survival General Year Village Extent of total No of site Plantation aspects % condition Species survival model 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Davanagere, 1 10 ha * * * * 90 900 Very good Doddabathi Jagalur, 2 2 ha * * * * 27 54 Poor Maranahally Harihara, 3 1 ha * * * * 10 10 Failure 2007-08 Chikkabidri Honalli, 4 10 ha * * * * 40 400 Poor Kadathal Weighted average of seedling survival = 59.3% * Information was not available.

59

The survival of the four evaluated plantations varies from 10 to 90%. Out of these plantations, one was very good, two were poor and one was failure which constitutes to 25%, 50% and 25% respectively of the total evaluated plantation area of 15 ha. B. Public distribution of seedlings: Information was not available. C. Other works: Information was not available.

4. Koppal (SF) Division

A. Performance of departmental plantations: During 2007-08, Koppal (SF) Division raised 12 plantations spread over an area of 127.5 ha. Out of this one plantation was evaluated over an area of 4 ha under the scheme SGRY-ZP. The sampling intensity was 3.14% by area and 8.33% by the number of works. Deatials of plantation used for sampling is given in table 4.4a below:

Table 4.4a: Details of the plantation selected for evaluation in Koppal (SF) Division Sl. Year Range/ Hobli Village Location/ Extent Name of the No Taluk Sy No ( Ha/Km) Scheme 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2007-08 Koppal * Kinnal * 4 ha SGRY-ZP * Information was not available.

Observations of the evaluation team are given in table 4.4b below:

Table 4.4b: Summary of evaluation of the plantation in Koppal (SF) Division Sl. Year Range/ Extent Main Plantation Plantation Spacing Whether Status Micro Plnt. No Taluk (Ha/ Species model type adopted mainta Of Plan Journal Km) planted ined VFC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 14 Koppal, Honge, Main 1 2007-08 4 ha Pit 5X5m * * * * Kinnal Bevu, Aala tained * Information was not available.

The qualitative aspect of the plantation is given in table 4.4cbelow:

Selection Extent Choice Estimated Sl. Range/ Selection of Protection Survival General Year (Ha/ of total No Taluk of site Plantation aspects % condition Km) Species survival model 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Koppal, 1 2007-08 4 ha * * * * 75.00 300 Good Kinnal Survival rate = 75% * Information was not available.

60

B. Public distribution of seedlings: Information was not available. C. Other works: Information was not available.

5. Bellary (T) Division

A. Performance of departmental plantations: During 2007-08, Bellary (T) division raised 31 plantations over an area of 876.19 ha. Out of this six plantations were evaluated over an area of 115 ha under four different schemes namely DDF, KSFMBC, Town planting and CA. The sampling intensity was 13.12% by area and 19.35% by the number of works. List of plantations used for sampling is given in table 4.5a below:

Table 4.5a: List of plantations selected for evaluation in Bellary (T) Division Sl. Range/ Location/ Extent Name of the Year Hobli Village No Taluk Sy No Scheme 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Hagari 1 * Nandi 3 15 ha DDF Bommanahalli Hagari Hagari 2 * Town planting 10 ha Town planting Bommanahalli Bommanahalli JBIC-KSFMBC 3 Bellary * M.Lakkahalli 60 15 ha (M-05) KSFMBC-422

4 2007-08 Hadagali * Huguler 311 20 ha SCP (M-05) KSFMBC-422 5 Hospete * O.G. Thanda 53/107, 108 30 ha SCP (M-04) Compensatory 6 Kudligi * Gudekote 38-45 25 ha Afforestation * Information was not available.

Observations of the evaluation team are given plantation-wise in table 4.5b below:

Table 4.5b: Summary of evaluation of individual plantations of Bellary (T) Division Main Whether Status Sl. Plantation Plantation Spacing Micro Plnt Year Range/ Village Extent Species mainta Of No model type adopted plan Journal planted ined VFC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Hagari Mixed 1 BommanahalliNan 15 ha * Pit 4X4m * * * Maintained local sps di Hagari Mixed 2 BommanahalliHag 10 ha * Pit 5X5m * * * Maintained local sps ari Bommanahalli

2007-08 Bellary, Hunase, 3 15 ha * Pit 5X5m * * * Maintained M.Lakkahalli Nerale Hunase, Hadagali, 4 20 ha Honge, * Pit 5X5m * * * Maintained Huguler Muttuga

61

Kamara, Hosapete, O.G. 5 30 ha Honge, * Trench 4X4m * * * Maintained Thanda Eucalyptus Honge, Kamara, 6 Gude kote 25 ha * Trench 4X4m * * * Maintained Simetanga di * Information was not available.

Qualitative aspects of the plantations are given in table 4.5c below:

Table 4.5c: Qualitative aspects of individual plantations of Bellary (T) Division

Selection of Estimated Sl. Range/ Selection of Choice of Protection Survival General Year Extent Plantation total No. Village site Species aspects % Condition model survival 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Hagari 1 BommanahalliNa 15 ha * * * * 70 1050 Good ndi Hagari BommanahalliHa 2 10 ha * * * * 84 840 Very Good gari Bommanahalli Bellary, 3 15 ha * * * * 80 1200 Good 2007-08 M.Lakkahalli Hadagali, 4 20 ha * * * * 77.4 1548 Good Huguler Hosapete, O.G. 5 30 ha * * * * 70.38 2111 Good Thanda 6 Gude kote 25 ha * * * * 80 2000 Good Weighted average of seedling survival = 76.08% * Information was not available.

The survival of the six evaluated plantations varies from 70 to 80%. Out of these plantations, one was very good and five were good which constitutes to 16.66% and 83.33% respectively of the total evaluated plantation area of 115 ha. B. Public distribution of seedlings: Information was not available. C. Other works: Information was not available.

6. Chitradurga (T) Division

A. Performance of departmental plantations: During 2007-08, Chitradurga (T) division raised 61 plantations spread over 2080.46 ha out of which 18 plantations over 490 ha were evaluated under five different schemes KSFMBC, NAP-FDA, CAREFL, RSP-139, 12th Finance Commission. The sampling intensity was 23.55% by area and 29.5% by the number of works. List of plantations used for sampling is given in table 4.6a below:

62

Table 4.6a: List of plantations selected for evaluation in Chitradurga (T) Division Sl. Range/ Location/ Name of the Year Hobli Village Extent No Taluk Sy No Scheme 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 Chitradurga * Kurumaradikere 47 FS 25 ha NAP (ANR) 2 Hiriyur * Yelladakere 62 25 ha NAP 3 Hosadurga * Madi hally 25, 26 25 ha FDA 4 Holalkere * Ganjigatti 26 25 ha NAP 5 Challakere * Kurdihalli 207 50 ha NAP-FDA 6 Molakulmur * Hirehalli 188 25 ha NAP-FDA 7 Chitradurga * Kakerao 10 & 8 20 ha RCP-139 MW 8 Hiriyur * Yelladakere 62 20 ha RCP-139-MW 9 Challakere * Hirekere 34 20 ha RCP-139 MW 10 Molakulmuru * Buklur halli 12 20 ha RCP-139 MW

11 2007-08 Hosadurga * Kaggalkatte FS 1 25 ha KSFMBC 12 Holalkere * Gattihosalli * 25 ha KSFMBC 13 Challakere * Doddachellur 48 25 ha KSFMBC 14 Molakulmuru * Neralahalli 54, 85 25 ha KSFMBC 15 Chitradurga * Kunchignal 33 50 ha KSFMBC-M1 16 Hiriyur * Gudihalli 16, 19, 20, 21, 27 50 ha KSFMBC-M2 Honnehalli 17 Hosadurga * 103 10 ha CAREFL (Devapura) 18 Molakulmuru * Buklurhalli 10, 11, 12 25 ha 12 th TFC * Information was not available.

Observations of the evaluation team are given plantation-wise in table 4.6b below:

Table 4.6b: Summary of evaluation of individual plantations of Chitradurga (T) Division Plantati Status Sl. Range/ Main Species Plantation Spacing Whether Micro Plnt Year Extent on Of No Village planted type adopted maintained plan Journal model VFC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Chitradurga, Nilagiri & Pit + 1 Kurumaradiker 25 ha Mixed local * 10X10m * * * Maintained Trench e sps Nilagiri, & Hiriyur, Pit + Not 2 25 ha Mixed local * 4X4m * * * Yelladakere Trench Maintained sps Nilagiri, & Hosadurga, Pit + 3 25 ha Mixed local * 10X10m * * * Maintained Madi hally Trench sps Nilagiri, & Holalkere,

4 2007-08 25 ha Mixed local * Pit 10X10m * * * Maintained Ganjigatti sps Nilagiri, & Challakere, 5 50 ha Mixed local * Pit 5x5m * * * Maintained Kurdi halli sps Eucalyptus, Molakul muru, Honge, 6 25 ha * Pit 10X10m * * * Maintained Hirehalli Kamara, Nerale

63

Honge, Aala, Pit + 7 Chitradurga, 20 ha * 10X10m * * * Maintained Basari Trench Hiriyur, Kamara, Pit + 8 20 ha * 5X5m * * * Maintained Yelladakere Honge, Nilgiri Trench Kamara, Challakere, Honge, 9 20 ha * Pit 5x5m * * * Maintained Hirekere Eulalyptus, Neem, Kamara, Molakul muru, Honge, 10 20 ha * Pit 10X10m * * * Maintained Buklur halli Eulalyptus, Aala, Basari , Nilagiri & Hosadurga, Not 11 25 ha Mixed local * Pit/ Trench 10X10m * * * Kaggalkatte Maintained sps Holalkere Nelli, Hunase, 12 25 ha * Pit 7X7m * * * Maintained Gatti hosalli Sisoo, Hippe Eucalyptus, & Challakere, 13 25 ha Mixed local * Pit 5x5m * * * Maintained Dodda chellur sps Molakul muru, Hunase, Sitap Not 14 25 ha * Pit 10X10m * * * Nerala halli hal, Aala Maintained Honge, Chitra durga, 15 50 ha seemetangdi, * Pit * * * * Maintained Kunchignal Aala, Basari Honge, Hiriyur, 16 50 ha Kamara, * Pit 5X5m * * * Maintained Gudihalli Nerale, Nelli Kamara & Hosadurga, Not 17 10 ha Mixed local * Pit/ Trench * * * Honnehalli Maintained sps 10X10m Kamara, Molakul muru, 18 25 ha Eucalyptus, * Pit 10X10 m * * * Maintained Buklurhalli Honge * Information was not available.

Qualitative aspects of the plantations are given in table 4.6c below:

Table 4.6c: Qualitative aspects of individual plantations of Chitradurga (T) Division Selection of Estimated Sl. Range/ Selection Choice of Protection Survival General Year Extent Plantation total No. Taluk of site Species aspects % condition model survival 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Chitradurga, 1 25 ha * * * * 34.80 870 Poor Kurumaradikere Hiriyur, 2 25 ha * * * * 59.70 1493 Average Yelladakere Hosadurga, 3 25 ha * * * * 78.00 1950 Good Madihally Holalkere, 4 25 ha * * * * 62.70 1568 Good

2007-08 Ganjigatti Challakere, 5 50 ha * * * * 61.28 3064 Good Kurdihalli Molakulmuru, 6 25 ha * * * * 60.90 1523 Good Hirehalli 7 Chitradurga, 20 ha * * * * 76.70 1534 Good

64

Kakerao Hiriyur, 8 20 ha * * * * 56.20 1124 Average Yelladakere Challakere, 9 20 ha * * * * 85.65 1713 Very Good Hirekere Molakulmuru, 10 20 ha * * * * 72.68 1454 Good Buklur halli Hosadurga, 11 25 ha * * * * 56.30 1408 Average Kaggalkatte Holalkere 12 25 ha * * * * 80.00 2000 Good Gattihosalli Challakere, 13 25 ha * * * * 91.50 2287.5 Very Good Doddachellur Molakulmuru, 14 25 ha * * * * 31.10 778 Poor Neralahalli Chitradurga, Complete 15 50 ha * * * * 0 0 Kunchignal Failure 16 Hiriyur, Gudihalli 50 ha * * * * 54.60 2730 Average Hosadurga, 17 10 ha * * * * 43.90 439 Average Honnehalli Molakulmuru, 18 25 ha * * * * 64.18 1605 Good Buklurhalli Weighted average of seedling survival = 56.19 * Information was not available.

The survival of the 18 evaluated plantations varies from 0 to 91.5%.Out of these plantations, two were very good, eight were good, five were average, two were poor and one was a failure which constitutes 11.11%, 44.44%, 27.77%, 11.11% and 5.55% respectively of the 490 ha of evaluated plantation. B. Public distribution of seedlings: Information was not available. C. Other works: Information was not available.

7. Davenagere (T) Division

A. Performance of departmental plantations: During 2007-08, Davangere (T) Division raised 46 plantations spread over an area of 1220.94 ha out of which six plantations over 135 ha were evaluated under three different schemes NAP-FDA, CP and 12th Finance Commission. The sampling intensity was 11.06% by area and 13.04% by the number of works. List of plantations used for sampling is given in table 4.7a below:

65

Table 4.7a: List of plantations selected for evaluation in Davangere (T) Division Sl. Location/ Name of the Year Range/ Taluk Hobli Village Extent No Sy No Scheme 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NAP-FDA 1 Davanagere * Pudukalahalli 25 25 ha (A.R.Model) 2 Harapanahalli * Kyanakatte 354 A 30 ha NAP-FDA 3 Hannali * Musinal 61 30 ha NAP-FDA

4 2007-08 Harapana halli * N. Arawama halli 267 25 ha NAP-FDA 5 Jagalur * Kallena halli 47 15 ha CP 6 Jagalur * Nibager 25 10 ha 12 th TFC * Information was not available.

Observations of the evaluation team are given plantation-wise in table 4.7b below:

Table 4.7b: Summary of evaluation of individual plantations of Davenagere (T) Division Spaci Status Sl. Main Species Plantation Plantati ng Whether Micro Year Range/ Village Extent of Plnt. Journal No planted model on type adopt maintained plan VFC ed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Davanagere, 1 25 ha Nilgiri * Pit 4X5m * * * Maintained Pudukala-halli Kamara & Harapanahalli, 2 30 ha mixed local * Pit 5X5m * * * Maintained Kyanakatte sps Mixed local 3 Hannali, Musinal 30 ha * Trench 4X5m * * * Maintained sps Nilagiri & Harapana halli,

4 2007-08 25 ha mixed local * Trench * * * * Maintained N.Arawamahalli sps Nilagiri & Jagalur, Pit + 10X10 5 15 ha mixed local * * * * Maintained Kallenahalli Trench m sps, Nilgiri, Pit + 10X10 6 Jagalur, Nibager 10 ha * * * * Maintained Honge Trench m * Information was not available.

66

Qualitative aspects of the plantations are given in table 4.7c below:

Table 4.7c: Qualitative aspects of individual plantations of Davangere (T) Division Selection of Estimated Sl. Range/ Selection of Choice of Protection Survival General Year Extent Plantation total No. Taluk site Species aspects % condition model survival 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Davanagere, 1 25 ha * * * * 70 1750 Good Pudukala-halli Harapanahalli, 2 30 ha * * * * 65 1950 Good Kyanakatte 3 Hannali, Musinal 30 ha * * * * 82 2460 Very Good Harapana halli,

4 2007-08 25 ha * * * * 52 1300 Average N.Arawamahalli Jagalur, 5 15 ha * * * * 61.19 918 Good Kallenahalli 6 Jagalur, Nibager 10 ha * * * * 43.15 432 Average Weighted average of seedling survival = 65.25% * Information was not available.

The survival of the six evaluated plantations varies from 43.15 to 82%. Out of these plantations, one was very good, three were good, and two were average which constitutes to 16.66%, 50% and 33.33% respectively of the total evaluated plantation area of 135 ha. B. Public distribution of seedlings: Information was not available. C. Other works: Information was not available. 8. Koppal (T) Division: The evaluation team did not evaluate any works in the division.

-o0o-

67

5. CHAMARAJANAGAR CIRCLE

Circle summary

Chamarajanagar Circle consists of four divisions namely (1) Chamarajanagar (SF) Division (2) Kollegal (T) Division (3) Cauvery (WL) Division and (4) BRT Tiger Reserve. During 2007-08, Chamarajanagar circle raised 75 plantations spread over an area of 1513.25 ha. Out of this the evaluation committee selected 17 plantations in 248 ha under five different schemes. The sampling intensity was 16.38% by area and 22.66% by the number of works except Cauvery (WL) Division. The weighted average of survival percentage of territorial divisions was 53.76, social forestry division was 60.58 and that of wildlife divisions was 42. Division-wise performance report is presented below:

1. Chamarajanagar (SF) Division

A. Performance of epartmental plantations: During 2007-08, Chamarajanagar (SF) Division raised 10 plantations over an area of 28.25 ha. Out of which four plantations were evaluated over an area of 8 ha under two different schemes KSFMBC and SGRY (TP). The sampling intensity is 28.32% by area and 40% by the number of works. List of plantations surveyed is given in table 5.1a below:

Table 5.1a: List of plantations selected for evaluation in Chamarajanagar (SF) Division Sl. Location/ Year Range Hobli Village Extent Name of the Scheme No Sy No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 M.G.S.V. Jr. 1 Kollegal * * 2.5 ha KSFMBC M-06 college 2 Kollegal * Kannur 383 0.5 ha KSFMBC M-08 3 Gundlupet Kasaba Doddamole * 4 ha SGRY (TP)

2007-08 Dumadasanap 4 Gundlupet Kasaba 78,79 1 ha KSFMBCM-08 ura * Information was not available.

Observations of the evaluation team are given plantation-wise in table 5.1b below:

68

Table 5.1b: Summary of evaluation of individual plantations of Chamarajanagar (SF) Division Wheth Main Plant Plant Status Sl. Spacing er Micro Plnt Year Range/ Village Extent Species ation ation of No adopted maintai plan journal planted model type VFC ned 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Not 1 Kollegal 2.5 ha Honge Yes Pit 5X5m Yes * * written Silver oak, Not 2 Kollegal/ Kannur 0.5 ha Yes Pit 2X2m * * * Teak, Neem written Acacia Gundlupet/ nilotica, 3 4 ha Yes Pit 4X2m Yes Yes * Written 2007-08 Doddamole Acacia, Eucalyptus Gundlupet/ Hebbevu, 4 1 ha Yes * * Yes NA * * Dumadasanapura Neem, Teak * Information was not available.

Qualitative aspects of the plantations are given in table 5.1c below:

Table 5.1c: Qualitative aspects of individual plantations of Chamarajanagar (SF) Division Selection of Sl. Range/ Selection Choice of Protection Survival Estimated General Year Extent plantation No Village of site Species aspects % total survival condition model 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 Kollegal/ 2.5 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 70 175 Good Kollegal/ 2 0.5 ha * * * * 53.33 26.66 Average Kannur Gundlupet/ 3 4 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 65 260 Good Doddamole 2007-08 Gundlupet/ 4 Dumadasanapu 1 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 23 23 Poor ra Weighted average of seedling survival = 60.58% * Information was not available

The survival of the four evaluated plantations varies from 23 to 70%. Out of these plantations, two are good, one is average and one is poor which constitute to 50%, 25% and 25% respectively of the total evaluated plantation area of 8 ha.

B. Public distribution of seedlings: The team randomly evaluated 5,300 seedlings planted by nine farmers. Survival was found to be very good in two cases, good in two cases,

69

average in two cases, poor in one case and failure in two cases. Table 5.1d gives the details:

Table 5.1d: Public distribution of seedlings evaluated in Chamarajanagar (SF) Division Sl. Name of the Seedlings Species Survival General Year Hobli Village No Farmer Planted Planted % condition 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 Palya Doddinduvadi Mahadevaiah 100 Teak 62 Good 2 Kasaba Basthipura C.Shivamallu 100 Teak 75 Good 3 Harave Udigala Shivamma 950 Teak 12.5 Failure Teak, 4 Harave Udigala S. Channabasavappa 700 21.42 Poor Eucalyptus 5 Santemaralli Mangala Mahadevaswamy 300 Teak 50 Average Teak & 6 Santemaralli Honganuru P.Rangaswamy 1200 100 Very Good Eucalyptus 2007-08 Teak & 7 Santemaralli Honganuru Mahadevamma 150 50 Average Silver oak Teak & Very Good 8 Santemaralli Honganuru Mahadevaswamy 1300 84 Casurina Jyothi 9 Chandakavadi M. Naganna 500 Teak, 1 Failure Gowdanapura Average survival = 50.65%

C. Other works: Information was not available.

2. Kollegal (T) Division

A. Performance of departmental plantations: During 2007-08, Kollegal (T) Division raised 54 plantations spread over 1120 ha out of which seven plantations were evaluated in 145 ha area. These plantations were raised under three different schemes namely TFC, GUA, and KSFMBC. The sampling intensity is 12.95% by area and 12.95% by the number of works. List of plantations surveyed is given in table 5.2a below:

Table 5.2a: List of plantations selected for evaluation in Kollegal (T) Division Sl. Range Location/Sy Year Hobli Village Extent Scheme No No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 Gundlupet Hangala Lokkere * 20 ha TFC 2 M.M.Hills Ramapura MM Hills Town 10 ha GUA RF 3 Ramapura * Sulvadi 20 ha KSFMBC-M-02 yedeyarahalli 4 Kollegal Lokkanahally Uttur * 30 ha KSFMBC -M-03

5 2007-08 Hanur Hanur Kanchalli * 20 ha KSFMBC -M-04 6 Ramapura Ramapura Gejjalnatha Ramapura 20 ha KSFMBC -M-05 7 Gundlupet * Huliamanagudi * 25 ha KSFMBC *Information was not available

70

Observations of the evaluation team are given plantation-wise in table 5.2b below:

Table 5.2b: Summary of evaluation of individual plantations of Kollegal (T) Division Wheth Main Planta Plantat Status Sl. Range/ Spacing er Micro Plnt Year Extent Species tion ion of No Village adopted maintai plan journal planted model type VFC ned 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Gundlupet/ Mixed local Partially 1 20 ha * Pit 5X5m Yes NA NA Lokkere species written Mixed local Partially 2 M.M.hills 10 ha Yes Pit 10X10m Yes * * species written Ramapura/ Mixed local Partially 3 20 ha Yes Pit 5X5m Yes Yes Yes Sulvadi species written Kollegal/ Partially 4 30 ha Teak Yes Pit 3.5X3.5m Yes Yes Yes

Uttur written Hanur/ Clonal Partially 5 2007-08 20 ha Yes Pit 2X3m Yes Yes * Kanchalli Nilgiri written Ramapura/ Mixed local Partially 6 20 ha Yes Pit 10 X 10m Yes Yes Yes Gejjelnatha species written Gundlupet/ Partially 7 Huliamanag 25 ha Hunse Yes Pit 10 X 10m Yes Yes No written udi * Information was not available

Qualitative aspects of the plantations are given in table 5.2c below:

Table 5.2c: Qualitative aspects of individual plantations of Kollegal (T) Division Selection of Sl. Selection Choice of Protection Survival Estimated General Year Range/ Village Extent plantation No of site Species aspects % total survival condition model 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Gundlupet/ 1 20ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 54 1080 Average Lokkere 2 M. M. Hills/ 10ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 60 600 Average Ramapura/ 3 20ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 45 900 Average Sulvadi 4 Kollegal/ Uttur 30ha Improper Improper Improper Improper 78 2340 Good

5 2007-08 Hanur/ Kanchalli 20ha Improper Improper Improper Improper 0 0 Failure Ramapura/ 6 20ha Proper Proper Proper Improper 40 800 Average Gejjelnatha Gundlupet/ 7 25ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 83 2075 Good Huliamanagudi Weighted average of seedling survival = 53.76%

The survival of the seven evaluated plantations varies from 0 to 83%. Out of these plantations two were good, three were average, one was poor and one was failure which

71

constitutes to 28.57%, 42.86%, 14.28%, 14.28% respectively of the 145 ha plantations evaluated.

B. Public distribution of seedlings: Information was not available.

C. Other works: The evaluation team visited 14 other works, out of which six were found to be good and eight were satisfactory. List of works inspected are given in table 5.2e.

Table 5.2e: Lit of other works evaluated in Kollegal (T) Division: Sl. Year Range/ Hobli Village Name of the work Scheme Remarks No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Construction of Ponachi, 1 Gundlupet/ Hangala Residential qtrs at I.F.P.S Good MM Hills Ponachi Water supply to 2 Kollegal MM Hills Ecotourism Good M.M. Hills Maintenance of 3 Kollegal Kollegal Land & Buildings Satisfactory C-6 qtrs Building 4 * Kollegal Land & Buildings Satisfactory maintenance Building 5 * Kollegal maintenance Land & Buildings Satisfactory C-9 qtrs Erection of solar 6 Kollegal Kollegal Timber Satisfactory street light Construction of 7 Gundlupet/ Hangala * Residential qtrs at Good

2007-08 Chikkaelachatta Gundlupet/ Removal of hard 8 Kaninapura NC (State) Satisfactory Therekanambi rock from EPT Gundlupet/ Removal of hard 9 Kaninapura NC (State) Satisfactory Therekanambi rock from EPT Gundlupet/ Removal of hard 10 Kaninapura NC (State) Satisfactory Therekanambi rock from EPT 11 Chamarajpet/Hangala Kebbepura SMC Works KSFMBC Satisfactory Purchase of Bolero 12 Chamarajpet/Hangala Kollegala Project Elephant Good Vehicle Purchase of Amb. 13 Chamarajpet/Hangala Kollegala Grand 2000 DSL Project Elephant Good Car Construction of 14 Gundlupet/ Hangala * KSFMBC Good Residential qtrs * Information was not available

3. Cauvery (WL) Division

A. Performance of departmental plantations: During 2007-08, one plantation over an area of 15 ha was evaluated under the scheme NAP-FDA. Details of plantation surveyed are given in table 5.3a below:

72

Table 5.3a: Details of the plantations selected for evaluation in Cauvery (WL) Division Sl. Location/ Year Range Hobli Village Extent Scheme No. Sy No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2007-08 Kanakapura Sathanur Hyra 1 15 ha NAP-FDA

Observations of the evaluation team are given plantation-wise in table 5.3b below:

Table 5.3b: Evaluation results of the plantation of Cauvery (WL) Division Model Status Sl. Range/ Main Species Pit/ Spacing Whether Micro Plnt. Year Extent of of No Village planted Trench adopted maintained plan Journal Plnt VFC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2007-08 Kanakapura/ Honge, Partially 1 15 ha No Pit 0.6X0.6m No No No Hyra Simetangadi written

Qualitative aspects of the plantation are given in table 5.3c below:

Table 5.3c: Qualitative aspects of the plantation evaluated in Cauvery (WL) Division Selection of Estimated Sl. Range/ Selection Choice of Protection Survival General Year Extent plantation total No Village of site Species aspects % condition model survival 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Kanakapura/ 1 2007-08 15 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 83.00 1245 Very Good Hyra

Seedling survival was 83%. This plantation of 15 ha is in very good condition.

B. Distribution of seedlings to the public: Information is not available.

C. Other works: Out of 75 other works, 17 works were evaluated by the evaluation team, which accounts to 22.66% by the number of works. All the works were found to be good. List of works inspected are given in table 5.3d.

Table 5.3d: List of other works evaluated in Cauvery (WL) Division Sl. Range/ Year Village Name of the work Scheme Remarks No Hobli 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Kanakapura/ Construction of Tent 1 Hyra PADF (NP) Good Halaguru No.1 at Bhimeshwari Plasting& Painting for Tent No.1 at Kanakapura / 2 Hyra Bhimeshwari in PADF (NP) Good Halaguru

2007-08 Kanakapura

Kanakapura / Construction of Tent 3 Hyra PADF (NP) Good Halaguru No.2 at Bhimeshwari

73

Providing Rooting Kanakapura / plasting& painting 4 Hyra PADF (NP) Good Halaguru for tent No.2 at Bhimeshwari Construction of Kanakapura / platform tent No2 at 5 Hyra PADF (NP) Good Halaguru Bhimeshwari in Kanakapura WL Supplying & spreading of Kanakapura / 6 Hyra Anchigrass to tents at PADF (NP) Good Halaguru Bhimeshwari in Kanakapura Kanakapura / Renovation of store 7 Hyra PADF (NP) Good Halaguru room at Bhimeshwari Repair of Dormitory Kanakapura/ Basavanabetta 8 building at Muthathi Ecotourism Good Sathanur (Muttati) nature Camp Kanakapura/ Basavanabetta Construction of 9 Ecotourism Good Sathanur (Muttati) compd. wall Desilting& Hanur, 10 Chikkallur deepening of water DNPS Good Wildlife hole at Hittamarakere Desilting and deepening of check Cowdally/ 11 Dantally dam at DNPS Good Ramapura Neralahattihalla in cowdally WL Range Desilting and deepening of Cowdally/ 12 Dantally waterhole at DNPS Good Ramapura kongarapodukunte in cowdally WL Construction of 13 Kanakapura Chillandawadi Check dam at DNPS Good Somanamaradahalla Maintenance of Cowdally / 14 Dantally Fireline in Cowdally DNPS Good Ramapura WL Excavation of EPT Cowdally/ from Uthabavihalla 15 Dantally NC(P) Good Ramapura boundary line to hosallypatta lands Excavation of 16 Hanur Chikkallur Elephant Proof NC(P) Good Trench in Hanur Cowdally / Const. Of Causeway 17 Dantally DNPS Good Ramapura at Garjagulihalla

4. BRT Tiger Reserve

A. Performance of departmental plantations: During 2007-08, BRT Tiger Reserve raised eight plantations out of which two plantations were evaluated over an area of 80 ha

74

under the scheme KSFMBC. The sampling intensity was 25% by the number of works. List of plantations surveyed is given in table 5.4a below:

Table 5.4a: List of plantations selected for evaluation in BRT Tiger Reserve Sl. Range Location/ Name of the Year Hobli Village Extent No. Sy.No. Scheme 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 Chamarajanagar * Amachavadi 461 50 ha KSFMBC 08

2 2007- Kollegal WL * Kurubanakatte * 30 ha KSFMBC

* Information was not available

Observations of the evaluation team are given plantation-wise in table 5.4b below:

Table 5.4b: Summary of evaluation of individual plantations of BRT Tiger Reserve Extent Main Status Sl. Plantation Spacing Whether Micro Plnt. Year Range/ Village (Ha/ Species z of No type adopted maintained plan journal Km) planted VFC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Acacia & Chamarajanagar/ 1 50 ha Mixed local Yes Pit/Trench * Yes NA NA Maintained Amachavadi species Sandal,

2007-08 Kollegal WL/ * 2 30 ha bamboo, Yes Pit Yes NA NA Maintained Kurubanakatte bevu * Information was not available

Qualitative aspects of the plantations are given in table 5.4c below:

Table 5.4c: Qualitative aspects of individual plantations of BRT Tiger Reserve Selection of Estimated Sl. Selection of Choice of Protection Survival General Year Range/ Village Extent plantation total No site Species aspects % condition model survival 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Chamarajanagar/ 1 50 ha Proper Proper Proper Improper 70 3500 Good Amachavadi Kollegal WL/

2 2007-08 30 ha Proper Proper Proper Improper 3 90 Failure Kurubanakatte Weighted average of seedling survival = 44.87%

Overall seedling survival rate varies from 3 to 70%. Out of these plantations, one was found to be good and one was found to be failure which constitutes to 50% each of the total plantation of 80 ha.

75

B. Distribution of seedlings: During the year 2007-08, 40,000 seedlings were distributed over 15 villages. The team visited one farmer’s field to evaluate distribution of seedlings. Table 5.4d gives the details:

Table 5.4d: Public distribution of seedlings evaluated in BRT Tiger Reserve No of Sl. Name of the Survival Year Hobli Village seedlings Species Remarks No. Farmer % planted 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Teak, nelli 70.00 1 Kasaba Arepalya Gautham 4250 and Good 08 2007- Eucalyptus Average survival = 70%

C. Other works: The evaluation team visited 12 other works out of which seven were good and four were satisfactory. One work could not be verified due to its ephemeral nature. List of works inspected are given in table 5.4e

Table 5.3e: List of other works evaluated in BRT Tiger Reserve Sl. Year Range/ Hobli Village Name of the work Scheme Remarks No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Kollegal WL/ Construction of DNPS 1 Doddasampige RF Good Kasaba APC Shed (central ) Kollegal WL/ Construction of DNPS 2 Kollegal Town Good Kasaba RFO office building (Central ) Chamarajanagar/ Construction of 3 Galipura I.D.T.H Good Kasaba RFO office building Ephemeral 4 Kollegal WL Doddasampige RF Maint of fire line I.F.M.S. work. Could not be seen now Chamarajanagar/ Construction of 5 Chamarajanagar DNPS (State) Good Kasaba Compound wall Chamarajanagar/ Construction of 6 Chamarajanagar DNPS (State) Good Kasaba Compound wall DNPS

7 2007-08 Kollegal (WL) Ittigegudda kere Desilting of tank Satisfactory (central ) Chamarajanagar/ Construction of new 8 Yedapura KSFMBC Good Kasaba tank Behind Chamarajanagar/ 9 Kumbeshwara Gully checks KSFMBC Satisfactory Kasaba temple Chamarajanagar/ Yedabetta, 10 Gully checks KSFMBC Satisfactory Kasaba Karimanti Chamarajanagar/ 11 Amachawadi CPT works KSFMBC Good Kasaba Karalakatte to 12 Kollegala WL Road repair works. DNPS (State) Satisfactory Amekere road

76

General observations:

The evaluation team has the following observations to make with regard to the plantations and other works:

1. Pit planting model with miscellaneous species either in pure or part of plantation is by and large unsuccessful. In such cases selection of species should be done carefully. 2. In Wildlife and other forest areas construction of check dams, causeways etc., should be taken up only when absolutely essential. Utmost importance should be given for selection of site point for soil and moisture conservation measures. 3. Creation of new waterholes / de-silting or deepening / strengthening of water holes is a major habitat improvement activity that helps in the availability of water to the animals during the pinch summer season. It may be beneficial to create more water storages in interior areas to mitigate migration of animals. 4. Soil and moisture conservation works should be done in concentrated way by identifying smaller/medium watersheds to reduce run off and check soil erosion. Activities such as plugging of gullies in the upper region of smaller watersheds / checkdams/ nalabunds / masonry dam / earthen dam should be done in a planned manner to recharge the ground water. 5. Plantation Journals are maintained for all the plantations, but needs to be updated.

-o0o-

77

6. CHIKKAMAGALURU CIRCLE

Circle summary

Chikkamagaluru Circle consists of three divisions namely (1) Chikkamagaluru (T) Division (2) Koppa (T) Division and (3) Chikkamagaluru (SF) Division. During 2007-08, Chikkamagaluru circle raised 257 plantations over an area of 2112 ha. Out of this the evaluation committee selected 24 plantations spread over an area of 239.6 ha under six different schemes. The sampling intensity was 11.34% by area and 9.34% by the number of works. The overall survival percentage of the territorial divisions was 66.08 and overall survival percentage of the social forestry division was 61.16.

1. Chikkamagaluru (SF) Division

A. Performance of departmental plantations: During 2007-08, Chikkamagaluru (SF) Division raised 164 plantations over an area of 196 ha. Out of this, the evaluation team surveyed ten plantations over 21.6 ha raised under SGRY (ZP). Sampling intensity was 11.02% by area and 6.09% by the number of works. List of plantations evaluated is given in

table 6.1a below:

Table 6.1a: List of plantations selected for evaluation in Chikkamagaluru (SF) Division Sl Location/ Name of the Year Range Hobli Village Extent No Sy No. Scheme 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 Chikkamagaluru Vasthare Halasumane 14, 16, 17 13 ha SGRY (ZP) 2 Kadur SF Yagati Garayadahally 17 1ha SGRY (ZP) 3 Kadur SF Yagati Garayadahally 17/p 1 ha SGRY (ZP) Amruthapura Koranahalli 4 Kadur SF 9 1 ha SGRY (ZP) ( Yagati) (Rampura) 5 Kadur SF Yagati Rampura 9/p 1 ha SGRY (ZP)

6 2007-08 Tarikere SF Kasaba Pirumenahally 29 1ha SGRY (ZP) 7 Tarikere SF Kasaba Pirumenahally 30 1 ha SGRY (ZP) 8 Koppa SF Kasaba Kesave 18 0.80 ha SGRY (ZP) 9 Koppa SF Kasaba Kesave 18 0.80 ha SGRY (ZP) 10 Sringeri SF Kigga Yedadalu 138 1 ha SGRY (ZP)

Observations of the evaluation team are given plantation-wise in table 6.1b below:

78

Table 6.1b: Summary of evaluation of individual plantations of Chikkamagaluru (SF) Division Whet Plantat Plantat Main Spac her Status Sl. ion ion Micro Plnt. Year Range/ Village Extent species ing maint of No model type plan journal planted ained VFC

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Chikkamagaluru Pit/ 3mX3 Partially 1 13 ha Acacia Yes Yes No NA / Halasumane Trench m written Sapota, Mavu, Written Kadur SF/ 2 1ha Silver oak, Yes Pit Yes No No NA up to Garayadahally Teak date Sapota, Mavu, Written Kadur SF/ 3 1 ha Silver oak, Yes Pit Yes Yes Yes Yes up to Garayadahally Teak date Mavu, Teak, Kadur SF/ Silver oak, * * * * * * Partially 4 Koranahalli 1 ha Sapota, written (Rampura) Nugge Kadur SF/ Teak, * * * * * * * 5 Rampura 1 ha Nugge, Silver oak Teak, Tarikere SF/ 6 1ha Halasu, * * * No No NA *

Pirumenahally Silver oak

2007-08 Teak, Mavu, Tarikere SF/ 7 1 ha Silver oak, * * * * * * * Pirumenahally Sapota, Nugge Sapota, Mavu, Written Koppa SF/ Teak, 8 0.80 ha Yes Pit Yes * No NA up to Kesave Silver oak, date Acacia Mavu, Written Koppa SF/ Teak,Silver 9 0.80 ha Yes Pit * Yes No NA up to Kesave oak, date Acacia Mavu, Sringeri SF/ Teak, Written 10 Yedadalu 1 ha Silver oak, Yes Pit Yes Yes No NA up to Acacia date

* Information was not available

Qualitative aspects of the plantations are given in table 6.1c below:

Table 6.1c: Qualitative aspects of individual plantations of Chikkamagaluru (SF) Division Selection Protecti Estimate Sl. Selectio of Choice of Survival General Year Range/ Village Extent on d total No n of site plantatio species % condition aspects survival n model 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Chikkamagaluru 1 / Halasumane 13 ha Proper Proper Proper Improper 80.00 1040 Good 08

2007-

79

Kadur SF/ 2 1ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 72.00 72 Good Garayadahally Kadur SF/ 3 1 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 79.00 79 Good Garayadahally Kadur SF/ 4 Koranahalli 1 ha Proper Improper Improper Improper 0 0 Total Failure (Rampura) Kadur SF/ 5 1 ha Proper Improper Improper Improper 0 0 Total Failure Rampura Failure Tarikere SF/ 6 1ha Improper Improper Improper Improper 0.03 0 due to land Pirumenahally use change Tarikere SF/ Failure 7 Pirumenahally 1 ha * * * * 0 0 due to land use change Koppa SF/ 0.80 8 Proper Proper Improper Improper 5.00 4 Failure Kesave ha Grafted Koppa SF/ 0.80 Mango failed. 9 Proper Proper Improper Improper 86.50 69 Kesave ha Others are coming up Grafted mango and Sringeri SF/ 10 1 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 56.75 57 teak failed. Yedadalu Others are coming up Weighted average of seedling survival = 61.15% * Information was not available

Survival rate among the ten evaluated plantations varies from 0 to 86.5%. Out of these plantations, one was very good, three were good, one was average and five were failure which constitutes to 10%, 30%, 10% and 50% respectively of the total evaluated plantation

area of 21.6 ha.

B. Public distribution of seedlings: The team randomly evaluated 18,590 seedlings distributed to 11 farmers. Survival was found to be very good in six cases, good in one case and failure in four cases. Table 6.1d gives the details:

Table 6.1d: Public distribution of seedlings evaluated in Chikkamagaluru (SF) Division No. of Sl. Name of the Species General Year Range Hobli Village seedlings Survival % No Farmer Planted Condition Planted 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Teak is doing Teak, 1 Kadur SF Hirenallur Seegehaldu Sri.Ramappa 700 0.01 well. Rest Silver oak failed Teak is doing 2 Kadur SF Hirenallur Seegehaldu Smt.GowriBai 900 Silver oak 0.09 well. Rest 2007-08 failed Pavan-Mahalaxmi Only 3 Kadur SF Kasaba Thangali 700 Silver oak 16 Saw mill Silver oak in

80

the bunds is doing well Mavu, Chikkamagaluru Sapota, 4 Amble Banavara Sri.Mallaiah 800 3 Failure SF Silver oak,Teak Very Good Chikkamagaluru ThogariHank 5 Kasaba Sri.Mallegowda 4950 Silver oak 90 Silver oak is SF el doing well Chikkamagaluru 6 Kasaba Arasinaguppe Sri. M.S.Ravindra 1150 Silver oak 95 Very Good SF Good Mavu, Mavu,SilverOa Chikkamagaluru Sapota, 7 Kasaba Kunnali Sri.Ithappa 320 75 k, Sapota are SF Teak, coming up Silver oak well Mavu, Very Good. Sapota, 8 Mudigere SF Kasaba Kunnali Duggappa 320 85 Teak has Teak, suppressed Silver oak 9 Mudigere SF Banakal Heggadlu Shivanna H.M 6500 Silver oak 95 Very Good Very Good 10 Koppa SF Kasaba Koppa J.C. Alwris 2000 Acacia 90

11 N.R Pura SF Balehonnur Chattikodige Sri. M.P.Yakob 250 Silver oak 90 Very Good Average survival = 58.09%

C. Other works: Information was not available. 2. Chikkamagaluru (T) Division

A. Performance of departmental plantations: During 2007-08, Chikkamagaluru (T) Division raised 26 plantations spread over 778 ha. The evaluation committee selected five plantations over 86 ha raised under three different schemes namely KSFMBC, DDF and 12th Finance for evaluation. The sampling intensity was 11.05% by area and 19.23% by the

number of works. List of plantations surveyed is given in table 6.2a below:

Table 6.2a: List of plantations selected for evaluation in Chikkamagaluru (T) Division Sl. Location/ Name of the Year Range Hobli Village Extent No. SyNo Scheme 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 KaniveDasara 1 Chikkamagaluru Dasarahalli(Lakya) 83,84 25 ha KSFMBC halli 2 Chikkamagaluru Kasaba(Vastare) Dummigere 44 15 ha KSFMBC 3 Kadur Lakya(Birur) Doddaghatta 21 25 ha KSFMBC Banakal.B

2007-08 Hosahalli 4 Mudigere Banakal 353 5 ha DDF (Banakal Dasarahalli) 5 Aldur Aldur(Banakal) Kundur 121 16 ha 12th Finance

Observations of the evaluation team are given plantation-wise in table 6.2b below:

81

Table 6.2b:Summary of evaluation of individual plantations of Chikkamagaluru (T) Division Main Sl. Range/ Plantation Plantation Spac Whether Status Micro Plnt Year Extent species No Village model type ing maintained of VFC plan Journal planted 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Chikkamagaluru/ Teak and Written up 1 Kanive 25 ha other Yes Pit Yes Yes Yes Yes to date Dasarahalli timber sps Teak and Written up 2 Dummigere 15 ha other Yes Pit 3.5X3.5m Yes Yes Yes to date timber sps Eucalyptus Kadur/ 10X10m Written up 3 25 ha and other Yes Pit+Trench Yes Yes Yes Doddaghatta 4.5X4.5m to date

2007-08 sps Mudigere/ Written up 4 Banakal.B.Hosah 5 ha Acacia Yes Pit 3X3m Yes No No to date alli Teak and Written up 5 Aldur/Kundur 16 ha other Yes Pit 2X2m Yes No No to date timber sps

Qualitative aspects of the plantations are given in table 6.2c below:

Table 6.2c: Qualitative aspects of individual plantations of Chikkamagaluru (T) Division Selection of Choice Estimated Sl. Range/ Selection of Protectio Survival General Year Extent Plantation of total No Village site n aspects % condition model species survival 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Chikkamagaluru/ Poor except for 1 25 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 25.00 625 Kanive Dasarahalli teak Poor 2 Dummigere 15 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 25.83 387

Kadur/ 3 25 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 82.75 2069 Very Good Doddaghatta 2007-08 Mudigere/ 4 Banakal. 5 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 90.90 455 Very Good B.Hosahalli 5 Aldur/Kundur 16 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 80.04 1280 Good Weighted average of seedling survival = 56%

Survival of the five evaluated plantations varies from 25 to 90.9%. Out of these plantations, two were very good, one was good and two were poor which constitutes to 40%, 20%, and

40% respectively of the total evaluated plantations over 86 ha.

B. Public distribution of seedlings: The team randomly evaluated 14,475 seedlings distributed to eight farmers. Survival was found to be very good in seven cases, good in three cases. Table 6.3d gives the details:

82

Table 6.2d: Public distribution of seedlings evaluated in Chikkamagaluru (T) Division No. of Sl. Name of the Species Survival General Year Range Hobli Village seedlings No Farmer Planted % condition Planted

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 BanjenahalliSy 1 Kadur Kasaba Sri.Chandrappa 400 Teak 80 Good No.98 BanjenahalliSy 2 Kadur Kasaba Sri.Krishnappa 400 Teak 70 Good No.102 Sri.H.G.Somashe 3 Kadur Kasaba Hoovinahalli 75 Nugge 50 Average karappa 4 Mudigere Kasaba Bidarahalli Upendrakumar 500 Silver oak 90 Very Good Very Good 5 Mudigere Kasaba Bidarahalli Sri.Prabhakara 500 Silver oak 90 2007-08 Very Good 6 Chikkamagaluru Kasaba Kaimara TippanahalliEst 4500 Silver oak 90 Very Good 7 Chikkamagaluru Vasthare Mukthihalli TammayaShetty 5450 Silver oak 90

Revanna Very Good 8 Chikkamagaluru Kasaba Sirgunda 2650 Silver oak 90 SiddappaEst Average survival = 81.25%

C. Other works: Table 6.2e gives the details of 24 other works evaluated. Quality of other works was found to be good in eight cases. The remaining 16 cases were ephemeral in

nature and could not be evaluated.

Table 6.2e:Other works evaluated in Chikkamagaluru (T) Division

Sl. Year Range Hobli Village Name of the work Scheme Remarks No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Fire Tracing Intensification of Ephemeral Kolagame to 1 Muthodi * Kolagame Forest work. Could Malaguru Road - 8 Management not be found Kms Fire Tracing Intensification of Ephemeral 2 Muthodi * Muthodi Muthodi to Jagara - Forest work. Could 3 Kms Management not be found Fire Tracing Intensification of Ephemeral 3 Muthodi * Athigundi Athigundi Shola Forest work. Could Forest 10 Kms Management not be found Fire Tracing Intensification of Ephemeral

4 Kadur * Bhramasamudra Bhramasa-mudra Forest work. Could SF Management not be found 2007-08 Intensification of Ephemeral Fire Tracing 5 Kadur * Sakrepatna Forest work. Could Sakrepatna VF Management not be found Fire Tracing Intensification of Ephemeral 6 Aldur * Kundur Kundur Sy,No.235 Forest work. Could Teak Plantation Management not be found Fire Tracing Intensification of Ephemeral 7 Aldur * Kanagadde Kanagadde to Forest work. Could Kundur 06 Kms Management not be found 8 Aldur * Talavara Fire Tracing Intensification of Ephemeral

83

Talavara to Forest work. Could Kundur06 Kms Management not be found Fire Tracing Intensification of Ephemeral Chandagod to 9 Aldur * Chandagod Forest work. Could Sargod D Lilne 04 Management not be found Kms 11th Forest 10 Aldur Aldur Kundur CPT Work 9 Kms Good Protection CPT Work 672 12th Finance 11 Aldur * Thathakola Good RMTR Commission Fire Tracing Intensification of Ephemeral 12 Mudigere * Thathakola Thathakola RF 10 Forest work. Could Kms Management not be found Fire Tracing Intensification of Ephemeral B.Hosahalli 1960 13 Mudigere * B.Hossahalli Forest work. Could Teak Plantation 38 Management not be found - ha Fire Tracing Intensification of Ephemeral B.Hosahalli 1962 14 Mudigere * B.Hossahalli Forest work. Could Teak Plantation 45 Management not be found - ha Fire Tracing Intensification of Ephemeral Mudremane 1963 15 Mudigere * Mudremane Forest work. Could Teak Plantation 20 Management not be found -ha Fire Tracing Intensification of Ephemeral 16 Mudigere * Hoysalalu Hoysalalu 2000 Forest work. Could Plantation 30- ha Management not be found Repaire of FDA Building 17 Mudigere * Mudigere Quarter at Good Maintenance Mudigere Repaire of FDA Building 18 Mudigere * Mudigere Quarter at Good Maintenance Mudigere Fire Tracing Ephemeral Mullaiyanagiri 11th Forest 19 Chikkamagaluru * Mullaiyanagiri work. Could Shola Forest - Protection not be found 7Kms Fire Tracing Ephemeral 11th Forest 20 Chikkamagaluru * Mathavara Mathavar RF - 5 work. Could Protection Kms not be found Construction of Land and 21 Chikkamagaluru Kasaba Chikkamagaluru Vehicle Shed at Good Buildings Srinivas Nagar Construction of Land and 22 Chikkamagaluru Kasaba Chikkamagaluru Compound Wall at Good Buildings CF Quarters Construction of Vehicle and Land and 23 Chikkamagaluru Kasaba Chikkamagaluru Good Watcher Shed at Buildings CF Quarters. Construction of Under Ground Maintenance 24 Chikkamagaluru Kasaba Chikkamagaluru Good Tank at CF Building Quarters *Information was not available

84

3. Koppa (T) Division

A. Performance of departmental plantations: During 2007-08, Koppa (T) Division raised 67 plantations spread over 1138 ha. The evaluation committee selected nine plantations in 132 ha raised under four different schemes namely KSFMBC, DDF, TFC and FDA for evaluation. The sampling intensity was 11.59% by area and 13.43% by the number of works. List of plantations surveyed is given in table 6.3a below:

Table 6.3a:List of plantations selected for evaluation in Koppa (T) Division Sl Location/ Name of the Year Range Hobli Village Extent No Sy No. Scheme 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 Koppa Hariharapura Bandigadi 135 15 ha KSFMBC-III 2 Koppa Hariharapura H.H.Pura 98 9 ha TFC Vittala(Ajjig 3 N.R.Pura Kasaba 92 20 ha KSFMBC-III udda) 4 N.R.Pura Balehonnur Konodi 73 5 ha FDA 5 Chikkagrahara Kasaba Sarya 73 25 ha KSFMBC-III

6 2007-08 Balehonnur Balehonnur B.Kanaboor 127 10 ha KSFMBC-IV 7 Kalasa Balehonnur Coove 163,22,23 20 ha KSFMBC-II 8 Sirigeri Hariharapura Kupli 11 18 ha KSFMBC-II 9 Sirigeri Kasaba Asanabalu 117 10 ha DDF

Observations of the evaluation team are given plantation-wise in table 6.3b below:

Table 6.3b: Summary of evaluation of individual plantations of Koppa (T) Division

Extent Main Plantati Status Sl. Plantation Spac Whether Micro Plnt Year Range/ Village (Ha/ Species on of No type ing maintained plan Journal Km) Planted Model VFC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Koppa/ Teak and Written up to 1 15 ha Yes Pit 3.5X3.5m Yes Yes Yes Bandigadi Others date Acacia and Written up to 2 Koppa/ H.H.Pura 9 ha Other Misc Yes Pit 2.5X2.5m Yes No No date sps Teak and other N.R.Pura/ Vittala Written up to 3 20 ha hardwood Yes Pit 7X7m Yes Yes Yes

(Ajjigudda) date species

2007-08 N.R.Pura/ Hardwood 2.5X2.5m Written up to 4 5 ha Yes Pit Yes Yes Yes Konodi species and 5X5m date Chikkagrahara/S Teak and Written up to 5 25 ha Yes Pit * Yes Yes Yes arya Others date Balehonnur/ Teak, Written up to 6 10 ha Yes Pit 2.5X2.5m Yes Yes Yes B.Kanaboor Acacia date

85

Acacia, Kalasa/ Teak, Written up to 7 20 ha Yes Pit 5X5m Yes Yes Yes Coove Cane, date and others Mixed Sirigeri/ Written up to 8 18 ha hardwood Yes Pit 4X4m Yes Yes No Koppali date species Acacia and Sirigeri/ Written up to 9 10 ha Other Misc No Pit 3X3m Yes Yes No Asanabalu date sps * Information was not available

Qualitative aspects of the plantations are given in table 6.3c below:

Table 6.3c:Qualitative aspects of individual plantations of Koppa (T) Division Extent Selection of Survival Estimated Sl. Selection of Choice of Protection General Year Range/ Village (Ha/ plantation % total No site Species aspects condition Km ) model survival 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Koppa/ 1 15.00 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 78 1170 Good Bandigadi Koppa/ 2 9.00 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 89 801 Very Good H.H.Pura N.R.Pura/ Vittala 3 20.00 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 75 1500 Good (Ajjigudda) N.R.Pura/ 4 5.00 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 85 425 Very Good Konodi Chikkagrahara/ 5 25.00 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 75 1875 Good

2007-08 Sarya Balehonnur/ 6 10.00 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 84 840 Very Good B.Kanaboor 7 Kalasa/Coove 20.00 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 78.60 1572 Good 8 Sirigeri/Koppali 18.00 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 60 1080 Average Good Sirigeri/ 9 10.00 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 79 790 VFC is Asanabalu involved Weighted average of seedling survival = 76.16%

Survival rates among the nine evaluated plantations vary from 60 to 89%. Out of these plantations, three were very good, five were good and one was poor which constitutes to 33.33%, 55.55%, and 11.11% respectively of the total evaluated plantation area of 132 ha.

B. Public distribution of seedlings: The team randomly evaluated 13,025 seedlings distributed to ten farmers. Survival was found to be very good in five cases, good in two cases and average in one case. Table 6.3d gives the details:

86

Table 6.3d: Public distribution of seedlings evaluated in Koppa (T) Division No. of Sl. Name of the Species Survival Year Range Hobli Village seedlings No Farmer Planted % Remarks Planted 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Sri.Sridhar 1 Koppa Hariharapura Hariharapura 50 Acacia 80 Good Bhatt Teak, Sri.GovindaGo 2 Chickagrahara Balehonnur Aduvally 2600 Silver oak, 80 Good wda Belenje 3 Chickagrahara Balehonnur Aduvally Sri.Ramesh 250 Silver oak 85 Very Good 4 Chickagrahara Balehonnur Aduvally Sri.Suresh 250 Silver oak 80 Good Sri K.V 5 Sringeri Megunda Agalagandi 100 Silver oak 91 Very Good

2007-08 Ramamurthy Sri B.S 6 Sringeri Kasaba Melukoppa 500 Acacia 94 Very Good Praveen Sri B.S 7 Sringeri Kasaba Melukoppa 75 Acacia 97 Very Good Praveen Sri M.R Silver oak, 8 Balehonnur Balehonnur B.Kanaboor 1100 85 Very Good Achutha Acacia Survival is Silver oak, Very Good. 9 Balehonnur Balehonnur B.Kanaboor Sri M. Nagesh 1600 90 Acacia Growth is moderate Sri Silver oak, 10 N.R Pura Kasaba K.Kanaboor MallappaHegg 6500 Acacia, 75 Good ade Teak Average survival = 85.7%

C. Other works: Table 6.3e gives the details of 14 other works evaluated. Quality of other works was found to be good in eight cases. In five cases the works were ephemeral and

therefore could not be evaluated. In one case information was not forthcoming.

Table 6.3e: List of other works evaluated in Koppa (T) Division Sl. Name of the Year Range Hobli Village Scheme Remarks No work 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Extraction and Work was transportation of long over. 1 Chikagrahara Balehonnur Megarmakki 01-Timber dead and fallen Could not Timber be verified. 2 Chikagrahara Balehonnur Sringeri SMC work 12th Finance Good Construction of 3 Sringeri * Sringeri 01-Timber Good compound wall Construction of 4 Sringeri * Sringeri 01-Timber Good compound wall 2007-08 Construction of Eco- 5 Sringeri Kigga Sindodi visitors pass issue Good Tourisum counter Forest Work was Clearing and protection long over. 6 Koppa * Hedse formation of new regeneration Could not “D” line in RF and COP be verified.

87

Repairs to Forest 7 Kalasa * Mavinakere Guard Quarters at KSFMBC Good Kalasa Excavation of KSFMBC 8 Kalasa * Koppa Good Contour trenches M-IV Staggered 9 Koppa * Hariharpura 12th Finance * trenches Work was Re-clearing of fire long over. 10 Balehonnur Balehonnur Muduguni lines in IFM Could not Balehonnur Range be verified. Work was Re-clearing of long over. 11 Balehonnur Balehonnur Devadana firelines in IFM Could not Balehonnur Range be verified. Excavation of KSFMBC 12 N.R Pura Kasaba Madboor Good Contour trenches Model II 01-Timber Construction of and other 13 N.R Pura Kasaba Muthinkoppa Good compound wall forest produce Work was KSFMBC – long over. 14 N.R Pura Kasaba Madboor Desilting of tank Model II Could not be verified. * Information was not available

4. Badra Tiger Reserve: No works were evaluated in this division.

General Observations:

• Gaur, deer and other wild animals are damaging some of the plantations. It was already recorded in the inspection report of the DCF and other officials in the plantation journal. Badly damaged plantations were replanted with Acacia.

• Where VFCs take interest, the plantation success rates are found better. Considerable revenue is being generated for the VFCs in many places and the participation of the villagers in the plantation activity and conservation issues is sustained quite well.

• Civil works and SMC works were appropriate and site specific. They served the intended purpose.

• The then DCF has taken good interest and inspected almost all plantations and recorded his observations in the plantation journal.

• Plating inside and on the staggered trenches was found to yield very good results. This practice could be emulated elsewhere.

88

ChickmagaluruTaluk 1. Sandal regeneration was very good in the Block plantation at Halasumane village Sy no 14,16and17 raised under SGRY –ZP Scheme. Effective protection is needed for the Sandal regeneration to establish and grow. 2. Farmers in general seemed to be interested in fast growing species rather the miscellaneous species like Halasu, Mavu and Sapota. MudigereTaluk 3. Seedlings distribution scheme here is a quite successful. The survival percentage is around 85 to 90 across the species. Koppa and Sringeri Taluk 4. These are wet taluks and receive a lot of rainfall. Farmers seem interested in fast growing tree crops. Grafted Mango and teak failed because of heavy shade. 5. Grafted mango is failed due to lack of care. Other seedlings are performing well. There are also some total failures because farmers have not taken any interest. Tarikere and Kadur Taluks 6. Some farmers are changing the land use pattern after planting. Few seedlings were now found surviving. 7. These are dry taluks and choice of species is quite important for success. Drought conditions are frequent and the motivation of farmers is low. However, on irrigated lands teak is thriving well but silver oak is struggling because of shade. -o0o-

89

7. DHARWAD CIRCLE

Circle summary Dharwad Circle comprises of seven divisions namely (1) Dharwad (T) Division (2) Gadag (T) Division (3) Haveri (T) Division (4) Dharwad (SF) Division (5) Gadag (SF) Division (6) Haveri (SF) Division and (7) Ranebennur (WL) Division. During 2007-08, Dharwad circle has raised 245 plantations over an area of 3892.41 ha. Out of this the evaluation committee selected 34 plantations in 498.85 ha raised under nine schemes. The overall survival percentage of the territorial divisions was 72.81 and social forestry division was 50.70. Division-wise details are given below.

1. Dharwad (SF) Division

A. Performance of departmental plantations: During 2007-08 Dharwad (SF) division raised 39 plantations over an area of 219.46 ha. The evaluation committee selected seven plantations over 20.4 ha raised under two schemes namely SGRY and KSFMBC. List of plantations surveyed is given in table 7.1a below:

Table 7.1a: List of plantations selected for evaluation in Dharwad (SF) Division Sl. Location/ Name of the Year Range Hobli Village (Ha/Km) No SY. No scheme 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 Dharwad (SF) Garag Kotur High School * S.G.R.Y. 20 2 Hobli (SF) Chabbi Hubli Road Side 7.69 ha S.G.R.Y. 20 3 Navalgund Morab Morab School Plantation 1.00 ha KSFMBC 4 Kundgol Kundgol Bhutarlaghatta Ashraya Janata Plot 4.91 ha S.G.R.Y. 20

5 2007-08 Kundgol Kundgol Hireharakuni Ashraya Janata Plot 2.58 ha S.G.R.Y. 20 6 Kundgol Kundgol Kamdolli Ashraya Janata Plot 2.22 ha S.G.R.Y. 20 7 Dharwad Bammigatti Bammigatti School & Hospital 2.00 ha KSFMBC

Observations of the evaluation team are given plantation-wise in table 7.1b below:

Table 7.1b: Summary of evaluation of individual plantations of Dharwad (SF) Division Plant Whether Status Sl. Range/ Main species Plantati Spac Micro Plnt Year Area ation maintain of No Village planted on type - ing plan journal model ed VFC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Written Dharwad Mixed local 5 X 1 * Yes Pit Yes Yes Yes Up to Kotur species 5m date Written

2007-08 Hubli (SF) 7.69 Mixed local 2 Yes Pit Yes Yes Yes Up to Hubli ha species date

90

Written Navalgund 1.00 Mixed local 3 Yes Pit Yes Yes Yes Up to Morab ha species date Kundgol Written 4.91 Mixed local 4 Bhutarlagha Yes Pit Yes Yes Yes Up to ha species tta date Kundgol Written 2.58 Mixed local 5 Hirehara Yes Pit Yes Yes Yes Up to ha species kuni date Written Kundgol 2.22 Mixed local 6 Yes Pit Yes Yes Yes Up to Kamdolli ha species date Dharwad Mixed local 7 2 ha Yes Pit Yes Yes Yes * Bammigatti species * Information was not available

Qualitative aspects of the plantations are given in the table 7.1c below

Table 7.1c: Qualitative aspects of individual plantations of Dharwad (SF) Division Selection Choice Estimated Sl. Range/ Selection of Protection Survival General Year Area of total No Village of site Plantation aspects % condition Species survival model 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Dharwad 1 8.27 Proper Proper Proper Proper 100 827 Very Good Kotur Hubli(SF) 7.69 2 Proper Proper Proper Proper 75.7 58 Good Hubli ha Navalgund 1.00 3 Proper Proper Proper Proper 25 25 Poor Morab ha Kundgol 4.91 4 Bhutarla Proper Proper Proper Proper 35 172 Poor ha ghatta

2007-08 Kundgol 2.58 5 Hirehara Proper Proper Proper Proper 25 64 Poor ha kuni Kundgol 2.22 6 Proper Proper Proper Proper 47.75 106 Average Kamdolli ha Dharwad 7 Bammi 2 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 78 156 Good gatti Weighted average of seedling survival = 49.12%

Survival percentage of seven evaluated plantations varies from 25 to 100. Out of these plantations, one was very good, two were good, one was average and three were poor which constitutes to 14.28%, 28.57%, 14.28 and 25 % respectively of the 28.67 ha plantations evaluated.

91

B. Public distribution of seedlings: The team randomly evaluated four villages where 1145 seedlings were distributed in 2007-08. Observed survival percentages village-wise are given

in table 7.1d below:

Table 7.1d: Public distribution of seedlings evaluated in Dharwad (SF) Division No. of Sl. Name of the Main species Year Hobli Village seedlings Survival % No farmer planted Remarks planted 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Dadbika Hasansab Jani Nilgiri, Acacia, 1 Alnavar 445 10 Failure malapur Koramaddi Nerale, Mango 2 Sansi Katnur Fakirappa Itag Teak 100 54 Average Chennappa

3 2007-08 Gudgeri Kamdri Teak 500 58 Average Hanchinal 4 Yaliwal Yaliwal Nagappa Javai Eucalyptus 100 60 Average

C. Other works: Information was not available.

2. Gadag (SF) Division

A. Performance of departmental plantations: During 2007-08 Gadag (SF) division raised 22 plantations over an area of 25 ha. The evaluation team selected two plantations over 4 ha raised under KSFMBC scheme. Details of the plantations evaluated are given in table 7.2a below:

Table 7.2a: List of plantations selected for evaluation in Gadag (SF) Division Sl. Location/ Name of the Year Range Hobli Village Extent No Sy.No scheme 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Guru Mahanteshwara 1 Ron * Sudi 2ha KSFMBC PU College Basanagouda giradi

2 2007-08 Ron * Ron 2ha KSFMBC-02 First grade College * Information was not available

Observations of the evaluation team are given plantation-wise in table 7.2b below:

Table 7.2b: Summary of evaluation of individual plantations of Gadag (SF) Division Main Plantati Whether Status Sl. Range/ Plantati Spac- Micro Plnt Year Area species on Maintai of No Village on type ing plan journal Planted Model ned VFC 1 2 3 4 8 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 Mixed local Written Ron/ 8X8 1 2 ha species + Yes Pit Yes Yes Yes Up to Sudi m Nilagiri date Mixed local Written

2007-08 8X8 2 Ron 2 ha species + Yes Pit Yes Yes Yes Up to m Nilagiri date

92

Summarises the qualitative aspects of the plantations is given in the table 7.1c below:

Table 7.2c: Qualitative aspects of individual plantations of Gadag (SF) Division Selection Choice Estimated Sl. Range/ Selection of Protection Survival General Year Area of total No Village of site Plantation aspects % condition Species survival model 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Ron/ 1 2 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 52 104 Average Sudi 08

2 2007- Ron 2 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 51 112 Average Weighted average of seedling survival = 51.5%

Survival percentage of two plantations evaluated was around 52 and they were graded as average.

B Public distribution of seedlings: In Shirhatti range 4062 seedlings were distributed to the farmers during 2007-08. The survival percentage of the seedlings planted on the farmers land is 81. In Mundargi range 225 seedlings were distributed to the farmers during 2007-08. The survival percentage of the seedlings planted on farmers land is 52. The evaluation team visited farmer’s field and found 81 % survival as indicated in table7.2d below:

Table 7.2d: Public distribution of seedlings evaluated in Gadag (SF) Division Name of No. of Main Sl. Year Range Hobli Village the seedlings species Survival % General No farmer planted planted condition 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Gouda. 1 2007-08 * Ballati Ballati 126 Nilgiri 81 Very Good C.A * Information was not available

C. Other works: Information was not available.

3. Haveri (SF) Division

A. Performance of departmental Plantations: During 2007-08 Haveri (SF) Division raised 54 plantations over an area of 174 ha. The evaluation committee selected five plantations over 25 ha raised under KSFMBC scheme. List of plantations evaluated is given in table 7.3a below:

Table 7.3a: List of plantations selected for evaluation in Haveri (SF) Division Sl. Location/ Name of the Year Range Hobli Village Area No Sy. No scheme 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

93

KSFMBC-11 1 Haveri Guttala * Guttala town 1ha Phase -08 2 Hangal * Kondoji 144 1ha KSFMBC Chikkerur to 3 Hirekerur * Chikkerur 10 km S.G.R.Y 20 Hansbhavi 2007-08 4 Byadgi Kaginele Chikkabasur Chikkabasur 12ha S.G.R.Y 20 5 Ranebennur Kuppelur Konante 136 1ha KSFMBC-8-A * Information was not available

Observations of the evaluation team are given plantation-wise in table 7.3b below:

Table 7.3b: Summary of evaluation of individual plantations of Haveri (SF) Division Main Plantati Whether Status Sl. Range/ Plantati Spa- Micro Plnt Year Area species on maintain of No Village on type cing plan journal planted model ed VFC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Mixed local 7X 1 Haveri 1ha Yes Pit Yes Yes Yes * species 7m Mixed local Hangal 2 1ha species + Yes Pit * Yes Yes Yes * Kondoji Eucalyptus Hirekerur Mixed local 10 3 10 km Yes Pit Yes Yes Yes Chikkerur species X10m Written 2007-08 Byadagi Mixed local 1 X 4 12ha Yes Pit Yes Yes Yes Up to Chikkabasur species 1m date Mango, Teak, Ranebennur Not 5 1ha Eucalyptus, Yes Pit * Yes Yes Yes Konante written Acacia * Information was not available

Summarises the qualitative aspects of the plantations are given in the table 7.3c below

Table 7.3c: Qualitative aspects of individual plantations of Haveri (SF) Division Selection Choice Survival Estimate Sl. Range/ Area Selection of Protectio General Year of d total No Village of site Plantation n aspects % condition Species survival model 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 Haveri 1ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 75 75 Good Hangal 2 1ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 2 2 Failure Kondoji Hirekerur 10 3 Proper Proper Proper Proper 40 400 Poor Chikkerur km Byadagi 4 2007-08 Chikka 12 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 75 900 Good basur Ranebennu 5 1ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 35 35 Poor r Konante Weighted average of seedling survival = 56.48% * Information was not available

Based on the survival percentage, two (40%) plantations were graded as good, two (40%) as poor and one (20%) as failure.

94

B. Public distribution of seedlings: The team randomly evaluated 900 seedlings distributed to 2 farmers and found the survival rate to be 48.0% in one case and 5% in another case. Table 7.3d gives the details:

Table 7.3d: Distribution of seedlings in Haveri (SF) Division No. of Sl. Name of the Main species Survival Year Range Hobli Village seedlings General No farmer planted % Planted condition 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 * Hansbhavi Ramankoppa Basavrajappa 800 Nilgiri, Teak 48 Average

Kotreshappa 2 * Hirekerur Nolgeri 100 Nilgiri, Teak 5 Failure

2007-08 Gudappa Chalvadi Average seedling survival = 26.5% * Information was not available

C. Other works: Information was not available.

4. Dharwad (T) Division

A. Performance of departmental plantations: During 2007-08 Dharwad (T) Division raised 35 plantations spread over an area of 831.25ha. The evaluation committee selected five plantations in 101.25ha raised under three different schemes namely FDA, KSFMBC, and Afforestation in other areas. List of plantations surveyed is given in table 7.4a below:

Table 7.4a: List of plantations selected for evaluation in Dharwad (T) Division Sl. Location/ Area Name of the Year Range Hobli Village No Sy. No (Ha/Km) scheme 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 Dharwad Hallgeri Holtikoti 33,34(p) 25 ha FDA 2 Dharwad Hallgeri T.R.Nagar 28,29 25 ha KSFMBC-M-03 3 Kalghatagi Dumwad Jumanaikanakoppa 28 30ha KSFMBC-M-04 4 Kalghatagi Dumwad Linganakoppa 41 10 ha KSFMBC-M-05 2007-08 21-Afforestation 5 Hubli Hubli Hubli * 11.25km in other areas * Information was not available

95

Observations of the evaluation team are given plantation-wise in table 7.4b below:

Table 7.4b: Summary of evaluation of individual plantations of Dharwad (T) Division Plantati Status Sl. Main species Plantation Spac - Whether Micro Plnt Year Range/ Village Area on of No planted type ing maintained plan journal Model VFC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Dharwad 5mX1.3 Written 1 25 ha Acacia Yes Pit Yes Yes Yes Holtikoti m Up to date Dharwad Mixed local Partially 2 25 ha Yes Pit 2mX2m Yes Yes Yes T.R.Nagar species Written Kalghatagi Acacia + Pit/ 2.5X2.5 Written 3 Jumanaikana 30ha Mixed local Yes Yes Yes Yes Trench m Up to date

2007-08 Koppa species Kalghatagi Mixed local Written 4 10 ha Yes Pit 7X7m Yes Yes Yes Linganakoppa species Up to date Hubli, 11.25 Mixed local Written 5 Yes Pit 8X8m Yes Yes Yes Hubli km species Up to date

Qualitative aspects of the plantations are given in the table 7.4c below:

Table 7.4c: Qualitative aspects of individual plantations of Dharwad (T) Division Selection of Estimated Sl. Range/ Selection Choice of Protection Survival General Year Area Plantation total No Village of site Species aspects % condition model survival 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Dharwad 1 25 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 100 2500 Very Good Holtikoti Dharwad 2 25 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 86 2150 Very Good Holtikoti Kalghatagi 3 30ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 65.57 1967 Good

2007-08 Jumanaikanakoppa Kalghatagi 4 10 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 90 900 Very Good Liknganakoppa 5 Hubli, Hubli 11.25km Proper Proper Proper Proper 76.83 864 Good Weighted average of seedling survival = 82.77%

Survival percentage of five evaluated plantations varies from 65.57 to 100. Out of these plantations, three were very good and two were good which constitute 60% and 40 % respectively of the total evaluated area of 101.25 ha.

B. Public distribution of Seedling: The team visited one farmer field and seedlings performance was evaluated as shown in the table 7.4d below:

Table 7.4d: Public distribution of seedlings evaluated in Dharwad (T) Division No. of Sl. Species Year Hobli Village Name of the farmer seedlings Survival % General No planted planted condition 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Basappa Siddappa 1 2007-08 Dharwad Manasur 600 Teak 100 Very good Karaba

96

C. Other works: The team visited gully check construction work and found it to be good.

Table 7.4e: List of other works evaluated in Dharwad (T) Division evaluated Sl. Range / Location/ Name of the Year Village Scheme Remarks No Hobli Sy. No. work 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Construction of Dharwad/ 1 2007-08 Ragikallpur * Gully Check KSFMBC Good Alnavar dam *Information was not available

5. Gadag (T) Division

A. Performance of departmental plantation: During 2007-08 Gadag (T) Division raised 45 plantations spread over an area of 1272.5ha. The evaluation committee selected seven plantations in 161 ha raised under three different schemes namely, FDA, KSFMBC, and Afforestation in other areas. List of plantations evaluated is given in table 7.4a below:

Table 7.5a: List of plantations selected for evaluation in Gadag (T) Division Sl. Location/ Year Range Hobli Village Area Scheme No Sy.No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 Gadag Ron Ron Town Ron Town 5 km GUA 2 Mundargi Dambal Doni 148, 142, 143 25.ha KSFMBC-02 3 Mundargi Dambal Haroeri 185, 186(p) 20 ha KSFMBC-05 4 Mundargi Mundargi Singtalur 134(a) 46 ha DDF

5 2007-08 Shirahatti Shirahatti Varavi 61, 67 25 ha KSFMBC-04 6 Shirahatti Shirahatti Ranatur 94,95 20 ha Comp.Affo 7 Gadag Naregal Nellur 54 20.ha FDA-AR

Observations of the evaluation team are given plantation-wise in table 7.5b below

Table 7.5b: Summary of evaluation of individual plantations in Gadag (T) Division Main Whether Status Sl. Plantation Pit/ Micro Plnt Year Range/ Village Area species Spacing maintain Of No Model Trench plan journal planted ed VFC Mixed Gadag , 1 5 km local Yes Pit 5X5m Yes Yes Yes Up to date Ron Town species Bevu, 2 Mundargi Doni 25ha Sirsal, Yes Pit 5X5m Yes Yes Yes Up to date Tapasi

2007-08 Mundargi 3 20ha Hunase Yes Pit 10X10m Yes Yes Yes Up to date Haroeri Eucalyptus Mundargi 4 46 ha Citriodora Yes Trench 5X5m Yes Yes Yes Up to date Singtalur Honge

97

Mixed Shirahatti Pit + 10X10m 5 25ha local Yes Yes Yes Yes Up to date Varavi Trench & 5X5m species Mixed Shirahatti Pit + 10X10m 6 20 ha local Yes Yes Yes Yes Up to date Ranatur Trench & 5X5m species Tapasi, Uday, 7 Gadag Nelure 20ha Yes Trench 5X5m Yes Yes Yes Up to date Honge, Bage

Summarises the qualitative aspects of the plantations is given in the table 7.5c below:

Table 7.5c: Qualitative aspects of individual plantations of Gadag (T) Division Selection Choice Estimated Sl. Range/ Selection of Protection Survival General Year Area of survival No Village of site Plantation aspects % condition Species percent model Gadag 1 5 km Proper Proper Proper Proper 69.0 345 Good Ron Town Mundargi 2 25ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 67.0 1675 Good / Doni Mundargi 3 20ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 92.5 1850 Very Good / Haroeri Mundargi/ 4 46ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 89.5 4117 Very Good Singtalur 2007-08 Shirahatti/ 5 25ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 68.15 1704 Good Varavi Shirahatti/ 6 20ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 51.32 1026 Average Ranatur Gadag 7 20ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 62.0 1240 Good /Nelure Weighted average of seedling survival=74.26%

Survival percentage of seven evaluated plantations varies from 51.32 to 92.5. Out of these plantations, two were very good, four were good and one was average which constitutes to 28.57%, 57.14% and14.29 % respectively of the total evaluated area of 161 ha.

B. Public distribution of seedlings: Two farmers were surveyed and seedlings performance was evaluated. Table 7.5d summarises the results.

Table 7.5d: Public distribution of seedlings evaluated in Gadag (T) Division No. of Sl. Range/ Name of the Species Survival Year Village seedlings General No. Hobli farmer planted % planted condition 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Nerale, 1 Mundaragi Mundaragi U.F. Angadi 120 90 Very good Karibevu, 08

2 2007- Dombal Done H. Dappor 600 Teak, Nilgiri 80 Good Average survival % = 85

98

C. Other works: The team evaluated soil and moisture conservation works in three ranges and found them to be good. Details are furnished in the table 7.5a.

Table 7.5e: List of other works evaluated in Gadag (T) Division Location/ Sl. Year Range/ Village Name of the work Scheme Remarks Sy. No. No Hobli

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Gadag/ Soil and moisture KSFMBC- 1 Mahalingpura 136 Good Gadag conservation work SCP Mundaragi/ 142, 143, 2 Doni Gully Check KSFMBC Good

2007-08 Dambal 148 3 Shirgati * * Gully Check * Good *Information was not available

6. Haveri (T) Division

A. Performance of departmental Plantations: During 2007-08 Haveri (T) Division raised 49 plantations spread over an area of 1352.2 ha. The evaluation team selected six plantations in 172.2 ha raised under three different schemes namely, KSFMBC, 12th finance and FPR and Cultural Operations. List of plantations surveyed is given in table 7.6a below:

Table 7.6a: List of plantations selected for evaluation in Haveri (T) Division Sl. Location/ Name of the Year Range Hobli Village Area No Sy.No scheme 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 Haveri Guttala Negalur 562 34 ha KSFMBC-04 87,57(p), 55 (p), 56 (p), 2 Hangal Bankapur Shadagaravalli 51(p), 58, 59, 60(p), 61, 58 ha KSFMBC-02 82(p), 90 3 Hirekerur Rattihalli Hirekabbas 56, 57, 60 25 ha KSFMBC-03

4 2007-08 Byadgi Byadgi Bisalhalli 26 30 ha KSFMBC-05 5 Ranebennur Medleri Gudagur 69 16.20 ha 12th Finance 6 Ranebennur * Ranebennur Ranebennur Town 9km FPR &CO *Information was not available

Observations of the evaluation team are given plantation-wise in table 7.6b below

Table 7.6b: Summary of evaluation of individual plantations of Haveri (T) Division Status Sl. Range/ Main species Plantation Plantation Whether Micro Plnt Year Area Spacing of No Village planted model type maintained plan journal VFC 1 2 3 4 8 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 Haveri, Mixed local Written 1 34 ha Yes Pit + Trench 6-7m Yes Yes Yes Negalur species Up to date Hangal Mixed local Written 2 58 ha Yes Pit 5X5m Yes Yes Yes 2007-08 Shadagarahalli species Up to date

99

Hirekerur Mixed local 3.5X3.5 Written 3 25 ha Yes Pit Yes Yes Yes Hirekabbar species m Up to date

Byadgi, Mixed local Written 4 30 ha Yes Pit 10X10m Yes Yes Yes Bisalhalli species Up to date

10X10m Ranebennur Mixed local Written 5 16.20 ha Yes Pit/Trenches Yes Yes Yes Gudagur species Up to date 4X4m

Ranebennur Mixed local Written 6 9km Yes Pit 10X10m Yes Yes Yes Ranebennur species Up to date

Qualitative aspects of the plantations are given in the table 7.6c below.

Table 7.6c: Qualitative aspects of individual plantations of Haveri (T) Division Selection of Estimated Sl. Range/ Area Selection Choice of Protection Survival General Year Plantation total No Village (Ha/Km) of site Species aspects % condition model survival 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 Haveri Negalur 34 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 78 2652 Good

Hangal 3132 2 58 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 54 Good Shadagaravalli Hirekerur 1550 3 25 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 62 Good Hirekabbas 4 20 Byadgi Bisalhalli 30 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 58. 1740 Good 07 Ranebennur 810 5 - 16.20 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 50 Poor 08 Gudagur Ranebennur 702 6 9km Proper Proper Proper Proper 78 Good Ranebennur Weighted average of seedling survival=61.13%

Based on survival percentages, five (83%) plantations were rated as good and one (17%) as poor.

B. Public distribution of seedlings: The team visited two farmer’s field and the evaluation results

are summarised in the table below7.6d.

Table 7.6d: Public distribution of seedlings evaluated in Haveri (T) Division Sl. Name of the No. of seedlings Main species Survival Year Range Hobli Village General No. Farmer planted planted % condition 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 * Hansbhavi Ramankoppa Basavrajappa 800 Nilgiri, Teak 48 Average Kotreshappa 08

2 207- * Hirekerur Nolgeri 100 Nilgiri, Teak 5 Failure Gudappa Chalvadi Average survival = 26.5% *Information was not Available

C. Other works: Information was not available.

100

7. Rannebennur (WL) Subdivision: During 2007-08 Haveri (T) division raised one plantation over an area of 18 ha. The evaluation team surveyed this plantation of 15 ha raised under scheme CSSRNR. Details of plantations are given in table 7.7a below:

Table 7.7a: Plantation selected for evaluation in Ranebennur WL Sub division Range/ Sl. Year Village Location/ Scheme Hobli Extent No Sy. No

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Ranebennur/ 1 2007-08 Hunasikatti 74 15 CSS RNR Medleri

Observations of the evaluation team are given plantation-wise in table 7.7b below:

Table 7.7b: Observations on the selected plantation in Ranebennur WL Subdivision Main Status Sl. Range/ Plantation Plantation Spac - Whether Micro Plnt Year Area species of No Village model type ing maintained plan journal planted VFC 1 2 3 4 8 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 Hunse, 2007- Ranebennur Written Up 1 15.00 ha Ala,Arali, Yes Pit 7x7 m Yes Yes Yes 08 WL Range to date Basari, Bevu

Summarises the qualitative aspects of the plantations is given in the table 7.7c below

Table 7.7c: Qualitative aspects of the selected plantations in Ranebennur WL Subdivision Selection of Choice Sl. Range/ Selection Protection Survival General Year Area Plantation of No Village of site aspects % condition model Species 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 2007- Ranebennur 1 15.00 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 31 Poor 08 WL Range

Plantations are not worth attempting in wildlife areas. Survival is very low.

Table 7.7d: List of other works evaluated in Ranebennur WL Subdivision Sl. Range/ Location/ Year Village Name of the work Scheme Remarks No Hobli Sy. No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Ranebennur, Construction of KSFMBC 1 Hunasikatti * Good Medlrei Community hall -SCP Ranebennur, Yattina Construction of Nala CSS-RNR 2 * Satisfactory Medlrei gudda area bund (Central) Wildlife Formation of Mini CSS 3 Attiveri * Good Ranebennur Nalbund at Attiveri (State) Desilting and CSS

2007-08 Ranebennur, 4 * * deepening of tank at (State) Satisfactory Medlrei Hullatti pick up dam RNR Excavation of CPT at Ranebennur, 5 * * Baslikatti old quarry to KSFMBC Good Medlrei Medleri cross road

101

Ranebennur, Excavation of CPT at 6 * * KSFMBC Good Medlrei Rahotankatti to Medleri Erection of chain link mesh fencing around CSS 7 Ranebennur Attiveri * Good the remaining portion (Central) of garden area of ABS Erection of chain link mesh fencing around Ranebennur, 8 Gangajala * western boundary of PADF Good Medlrei nature camp at gangajala Ranebennur, Construction of KSFMBC 9 Hunasikatti * Good Medlrei Samudaya Bhavana -SCP *Information was not available

-o0o-

102

8. GULBARGA CIRCLE

Circle Summary

Gulbarga Circle consists of eight divisions namely (1) Bidar (SF) Division (2) Gulbarga (SF) Division (3) Raichur (SF) Division (4) Yadgir (SF) Division (5) Bidar (T) Division (5) Gulbarga (T) Division (7) Raichur (T) Division and (8) Yadgir (SF) Division. During 2007-08 Gulbarga circle raised 487 plantations over an area of 5141.14 ha. Out of this the evaluation committee selected 80 plantations in 586.25 ha under 12 schemes for evaluation. The sampling intensity was 11.40% by area and 16.43 by number of works. The weighted average of survival percentage of territorial division was 58.68 and social forestry division was 34.96. Evaluation results of 2007-08 are presented division-wise below.

1. Bidar (SF) Division A. Performance of departmental plantations: During 2007-08 the division raised 53 plantations spread over 179.00 ha of which six plantations in 25.95 ha were selected for evaluation under four schemes MNREGS, KSFMBC, CRF and SCP. The sampling intensity was 14.49% by area and 11.32 by the number of works. The plantations were linear strips in most cases. However block plantation, school forestry institutional plantations etc., were less than 4.00 ha in size. List of plantations used for sampling is given in the table below.

Table 8.1a: List of plantations selected for evaluation in Bidar (SF) Division Sl. Location/ Extent No. Year Range Hobli Village Sy. No. Scheme 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Hokrana - Nandi 1 Aurad Dabka Road side 5 km MNREGS Bijalgaon 35,23/2,53/6 2 Bidar Mannali Nagura, Honnadi 10 ha KSFMBC 7,35/7,61,26 Gadagi to 3 Bidar Gadagi Road side 5 km MNREGS Nandagaon Basava

4 2007-08 Narayanapur Narayanapur Navodaya School 3.45 ha CRF kalyana Basava Rajkumar 5 * * Halli 0.50 ha SCP kalyana S/o Tukaram Bheemappa S/o 6 Humnabad Humnabad Hallikhed 2.00 ha KSFMBC Bagappa * Information was not available

Observations of the evaluation team are given plantation-wise in table 8.1b below:

103

Table 8.1b: Summary of evaluation of individual plantations of Bidar (SF) Division Main Status Sl. Range/ Plantation Plantation Spac- Mainte Micro Plnt Year Extent species of No Village model type ing nance Plan Journal planted VFC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Aurad, Bevu, Hokrana - 5 km 1 Honge, * * * * * * * Nandi Arali Bijalgaon Bidar, 10 ha Teak, Bevu, 3.25 X Written 2 Nagura, Yes Pit No NA NA Honge, Mavu 3.25m partially Honnadi Bidar, Gadagi 5 km Bevu, Honge,

3 No to Nandagaon Arali Yes Pit 10X10m * NA NA

2007-08 Basava 3.45 ha 4 kalyana, Mixed species Yes Pit 5X5m Yes Yes Yes NA Narayana pur Basava 0.50 ha Teak, Nugge, 5 Yes Pit 7-10m No * * NA kalyana, Mango Humnabad, 2.00 ha 6 * * * * * * * * Humnabad * Information was not available

Qualitative aspects of the plantations are given in table 8.1c below:

Table 8.1c: Qualitative aspects of individual plantations of Bidar (SF) Division Selection of Sl. Range/ Selection of Choice of Protection Survival Estimated General Year Extent plantation No Village site Species aspects % total survival condition model 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Aurad, Hokrana - 1 5 km * * * * 30 150 Poor Nandi Bijalgaon Bidar, 2 Nagura, 10 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 45 450 Average Honnadi Bidar, 3 Gadagi to 5 km Proper * * Nil 30 150 Poor Nandagaon 2007-08 Basava School 4 kalyana, 3.45 ha Improper Improper Proper 60 207 Average plantation Narayana pur Basava 5 0.50 ha Proper Proper Proper Improper 20 10 Failure kalyana, Humnabad, 6 2.00 ha * * * * * * Failure Humnabad Weighted average of seedling survival = 37.26% * Information was not available

Survival percentage of six evaluated plantations varies from 20 to 60. Out of these plantations, two were average, two were poor and two were total failures. There are no

104 outstanding or good plantations. The proportions of average, poor and failed plantations constitute 33.33% each of the total evaluated plantation area of 25.95 ha.

Failure of road side plantations of could be attributed to no post planting care by the gram panchayat. FNB was not made available to the evaluation team since they are kept in the gram panchayat. The plantations of Nagur and Honnadi raised under KSFMBC are just 10.00 ha located in two different places. Among the seedlings distributed to farmers, Nugge which has only a life span of 5 years has already disappeared. Grafted mango is dead for want of care. However, stubbles of honge which is non-browsable are visible in some locations.

B. Public distribution of seedlings: Information was not available. C. Other works: Information was not available.

2. Gulbarga (SF) Division

A. Performance of departmental plantations: The division raised 281 plantations over 1195.0ha during 2007-08 under KREGS, KSFMBC and NREGA schemes. For evaluation, 25 plantations spread over 133.13 ha were across all the ranges of the division were selected. The list includes 10 road side plantations covering 39.5 km and 15 block/institutional plantations covering 93.63 ha. The sampling intensity was 17.96% by area and 8.89 by number of works. List of plantations used for sampling is given in the table below.

Table 8.2a: List of plantations selected for evaluation in Gulbarga (SF) Division Sl. Location/ Extent Year Range Hobli Village Scheme No. Sy. No. (Ha/Km) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Mannur- 1 Afzalpur Karajagi * 3 km NREGA(K) Indibridge Ingalagi cross- 2 Afzalpur Atnoor * 3 km NREGA(K) Ingalgi 3 Afzalpur Karajagi Karajagi * 6 ha NREGA(K) 4 Afzalpur Atnoor Revoor * 6 ha NREGA(K) Hallisalagara cross- 5 Alanda Alanda Roadside 10 km NREGA(K) Hallisalagara village 2007-08 Madan 6 Alanda Savleshwara * 5 ha NREGA(K) Hipparaga 7 Alanda Nimbarga Savleshwara * 5 ha NREGA(K) Thumkunta- 8 Chincholi Chincholi * 3 km NREGA Hudeberanahalli 9 Chincholi Kodalli Nidagunda * 3.5 ha NREGA Murtur Shabad 10 Chittapura Shahabad * 3 km NREGA Railway Line

105

11 Chittapura walwar Ladlapura * 2.75 ha NREGA Khajakotanoor- 12 Gulbarga Aurad * 6 km NREGA Hagaraga 13 Gulbarga Kamalpur Belur block * 6 ha NREGA 14 Gulbarga Kamalpur Gogi-Jeevaragi * 3 km NREGA 15 Gulbarga Kamalpur Kamalpur * 7.23 ha NREGA Hadgli haruthi 16 Gulbarga Pattan * 8.5 ha NREGA block 17 Jewargi Andola Chennur- Gudur * 6 km NREGA Hullur- 18 Jewargi Nelogi * 3 km NREGA Narayanapura 19 Jewargi Yadrami Malli- Biral * 3 km NREGA 20 Jewargi Nelogi Yathnoor * 10 ha NREGA 21 Sedam Mudhol Gadadun * 3 km NREGA 22 Sedam Kolkunda Duganoor * 10 ha NREGA 23 Sedam Kolla Handuraki * 5 ha NREGA 24 Sedam Kolla Motakpalli * 7.15 ha NREGA Dhuttargaon 25 Alanda * * 5 ha KSFMBC Gurukul ashram *Information was not available

Observations of the evaluation team are given plantation-wise in table 8.2b below:

Table 8.2b: Summary of evaluation of individual plantations of Gulbarga (SF) Division Plantati Status Sl. Range/ Main species Plantatio Whether Micro Plnt. Year Extent on Spacing of No. Village planted n type maintained Plan Journal model VFC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 13 14 Afzalpur, Neem & other Partially 1 Mannur- 3 km Yes Pit 10X10m Yes No No local sps written Indibridge Afzalpur, Arali, Mathi, Partially 2 Ingalagi cross- 3 km Yes Pit 10X10m Yes No No Sirasala, written Ingalgi Afzalpur, Partially 3 6 ha Neem, Honge Yes Pit 10X10m Yes No No Karajagi written Badami, Partially 4 Afzalpur, Revoor 6 ha Hunase, Yes Pit 10X10m Yes No No written Sirasala Alanda, Hallisalagara

Neem & other Partially 5 cross- 10 km Yes Pit * Yes No No local sps written 2007-08 Hallisalagara village Alanda, Savlesh Neem & other Partially 6 5 ha Yes Pit 10X10m Yes No No wara local sps written Neem & other Partially 7 Alanda 5 ha Yes Pit 10X10m Yes No No local sps written Chincholi, Neem, Honge, Partially 8 Thumkunta- 3 km Yes Pit 10X10m Yes No No Peltophoru written Hudeberanahalli Neem, Honge, Chincholi, Partially 9 3.5 ha Aala, Atti, Yes Pit 10X10m Yes No No Nidagunda written Nelli

106

Chittapura, Neem, Honge, Partially 10 Murtur Shabad 3 km Yes Pit 10X10m Yes No No Tapasi written Railway Line Chittapura, Partially 11 2.75 ha Honge * Pit 3X3m No No No Ladlapura written Gulbarga, Hunse, Nerale, 12 Khajakotanoor- 6 km Yes Pit 3X3m Yes No No Not written Buruga, Siris Hagaraga Gulbarga, Belur 13 6 ha Bevu, Sissoo Yes Pit 10X10m No No No Not written block Gulbarga, Gogi- Bevu, Sisoo, Partially 14 3 km Yes Pit 10X10m Yes No No Jeevaragi Honge written Gulbarga, Neem & other 15 7.23 ha Yes Pit 10X10m No No No Not written Kamalpur local sps Gulbarga, Neem & other 16 Hadgliharuthi 8.5 ha Yes Pit 10X10m No No No Not written local sps block Jewargi, Neem & other Partially 17 6 km Yes Pit 10X10m Yes No No Chennur- Gudur local sps written Jewargi, Hullur- Neem & other Partially 18 3 km Yes Pit 10X10m Yes No No Narayanapura local sps written Jewargi, Neem & other Partially 19 3 km Yes Pit 10X10m Yes No No Malli- Biral local sps written Jewargi, Partially 20 10 ha Neem Yes Pit 10X10m Yes No No Yathnoor written Partially 21 Sedam, Gadadun 3 km Neem, Honge Yes Pit 10X10m No No No written Neem, Honge, Partially 22 Sedam, Duganoor 10 ha Yes Pit 10X10m No No No Arali written Neem, Neem Sedam, Partially 23 5 ha & other local Yes Pit 10X10m No No No Handuraki written sps Sedam, Honge, 24 7.15 ha Yes Pit 8X8m No No No Not written Motakpalli Simarouba Alanda, Bevu, Arale, Partially 25 5 ha Yes * * * * * Dhuttargaon sissoo written * Information was not available

107

Qualitative aspects of the plantations are given in table 8.2c below:

Table 8.2.c: Qualitative aspects of individual plantations of Gulbarga (SF) Division Selection of Estimated Sl. Range/ Selection Choice of Protection Survival General Year Extent plantation total No Village of site Species aspects % condition model survival 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Afzalpur, 1 Mannur- 3 km Proper Proper Proper Proper 48.20 145 Average Indibridge Afzalpur, Ingalagi 2 cross- 3 km Proper Proper Proper Improper 55.70 1167 Average Ingalgi Afzalpur, 3 6 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 51.20 307 Average Karajagi 4 Afzalpur, Revoor 6 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 81.30 488 Very Good Alanda, Hallisalagara 5 10 km Proper Proper Proper Proper 26.95 270 Poor cross-Hallisalagara village Alanda, 6 5 ha Improper Improper Proper Improper 10.60 53 Failure Savleshwara 7 Alanda, 5 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 22.60 113 Poor Chincholi, 8 Thumkunta- 3 km Proper Proper Proper Proper 19.20 58 Failure Hudeberanahalli Chincholi, 9 3.5 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 2.05 7 Failure Nidagunda Chittapura, Proper Poor 10 Murtur Shabad 3 km Proper Proper Improper 32.33 97

Railway Line

2007-08 Chittapura, Proper 11 2.75 ha Proper Proper Proper 75.00 206 Good Ladlapura Gulbarga, Proper 12 Khajakotanoor- 6 km Proper Proper Proper 41.42 249 Average

Hagaraga Gulbarga, Belur Proper 13 6 ha Proper Proper Proper 95.00 570 Very Good block Gulbarga, Gogi- Proper 14 3 km Proper Proper Proper 68.00 204 Good Jeevaragi Gulbarga, Proper 15 7.23 ha Proper Proper Proper 71.00 513 Good Kamalpur Gulbarga, Hadgli Proper 16 8.5 ha Proper Proper Proper 90.00 765 Very Good haruthi block Jewargi, Chennur- 17 6 km Proper Proper Proper Proper 23.66 142 Poor Gudur Jewargi, Hullur- Proper 18 3 km Proper Proper Proper 68.50 206 Good Narayanapura Jewargi, Malli- Proper 19 3 km Proper Proper Improper 79.60 239 Good Biral Proper 20 Jewargi, Yathnoor 10 ha Proper Proper Proper 55.00 55 Average

Proper 21 Sedam, Gadadun 3 km Proper Proper Improper 3.83 12 Failure

108

Proper 22 Sedam, Duganoor 10 ha Proper Proper Proper 85.00 850 Very Good

Sedam, Proper 23 5 ha Proper Proper Proper 90.00 450 Very Good Handuraki Sedam, Proper 24 7.15 ha Proper Proper Proper 45.00 322 Average Motakpalli Alanda, Proper 25 5 ha Proper Proper Improper 22.6 113 Poor Dhuttargaon Weighted average of seedling survival = 55.36% *Information is not avialable

Survival percentage of 25 evaluated plantations varies from 2.05 to 90.00. Out of these plantations four are very good, six are good, seven are average, four are poor and four are failure which constitutes to 16%, 24%, 29.16%, 16.0%, and 16.0% respectively of the total evaluated plantation area of 133.13 ha. Surviving roadside saplings measure 10 - 14 ft height. They need further protection. Most of the block plantation areas are repeatedly planted and surviving plants are mostly root stock of different ages. Appropriate spacing has not been maintained. Some of the block plantations are small patches of 2.75 ha. Where the plantation is well protected and has good grass growth, wildlife particularly spotted deer, peacock and rabbit are notices. To support them some fruit yielding species like bore could be planted in the future plantations. Average height of seedlings in the institutional areas is about 10-12 ft. Treatment plan surveyed sketches are missing in the plantation journals.

B. Public distribution of Seedlings: The information regarding utilization of seedlings for public distribution for 2007-08 is to be furnished in Form D by the division concerned. No details were provided by the division in spite of much correspondence. No records or registers are available. Hence the evaluation of distribution of seedlings could not be taken up. The matter needs the attention of senior officers. C. Other works: The details of other works carried out were also not provided by the concerned division office to the evaluation team in spite of much correspondence. However, orally team was informed that new buildings, SMC works etc., have not been taken up in the division during 2007-08. Hence team has not evaluated any.

3. Raichur (SF) Division

A. Performance of departmental plantations: During 2007-08, the division raised 83 plantations spread over 749.65 hectares of roadside, in schools, institutions and other public places under various schemes. Out of this 17 plantations were selected in 54.5 ha for evaluation. These plantations were raised under three schemes namely MGNREGA,

109

Demonstration Plot and KSFMBC. The sampling intensity was 7.27% by area and 20.48 by number of works. List of plantations used for sampling is given in the table below.

Table 8.3a: List of plantations selected for evaluation in Raichur (SF) Division Sl. Location / Year Range Hobli Village Extent Scheme No Sy. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Tuntapura- 1 Raichur Yeragera Tuntapura 5 km NREGA Manjarla Road - Sheelahalli farm 2 Lingasugur Gurugunta Sheelahalli * NREGA forestry 3 Lingasugur Lingasugur Aidanal 3/1, 5/1, 5 4.5 ha NREGA Govt. Junior KSFMBC 4 Sindhanoor Sindhanoor Sindhanoor 1 km College M-06 5 Lingasugur Gurugunta Hatti Hatti Village 2 ha NREGA 6 Lingasugur Gurugunta Hatti Hatti Village 2 ha NREGA 7 Lingasugur Gurugunta Hatti Hatti Village 2 ha NREGA 8 Lingasugur Gurugunta Hatti Hatti Village 2 ha NREGA 9 Lingasugur Gurugunta Hatti Hatti Village 2 ha NREGA C/o. Circle 10 Lingasugur Maski Maski Police inspector, 1 ha NREGA office Devanamapriya

11 2007-08 Lingasugur Maski Maski 4 ha NREGA Ashoka college K.S.R.T.C Bus 12 Lingasugur Maski Maski 5 ha NREGA depo 13 Devedurga Devedurga Mosarkal Baburaya darga 4 ha NREGA Masanappa 14 Devedurga Devedurga Mosarkal 6 ha NREGA darga Matmari- Rajoli 15 Raichur Gillesugur Matmari 6 km NREGA road Demonstration 16 Manvi Kallur Tupadoor 13 1 ha plot- 139 Demonstration 17 Manvi Kallur Tupadoor 69 1 ha plot- 139 Ramdurga- 18 Devadurga Gabbur Ramadurga 6 km NREGA Arakere road * Information was not available.

110

Observations of the evaluation team are given plantation-wise in table 8.3b below:

Table 8.3b: Summary of evaluation of individual plantations of Raichur (SF) Division Plantati Status Sl. Range/ Main species Plantation Whether Micro Plnt Year Extent on Spac-ing of No Village planted type maintained plan journal model VFC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Raichur,

1 Tuntapur- 5 km Mixed species Yes Pit Yes * * Written up 10X10m Manjarla Road to date Lingasugur, 2 * * * * * * * * * Sheelahalli Lingasugur, 3 4.5 ha * * * * * * Not written Lingasugur Sindhanoor, Partially 4 Govt. Junior 1 km Mixed species Yes Pit 5X5m Yes * * written College Lingasugur, 5 2 ha Mixed species Yes Pit 10X10m Yes * * Not written 2007-08 Hatti Lingasugur, 6 2 ha Mixed species Yes Pit 10X10m Yes * * Not written Hatti Lingasugur, 7 2 ha Mixed species Yes Pit 10X10m Yes * * Not written Hatti Lingasugur, 8 2 ha Mixed species Yes Pit 10X10m Yes * * Not written Hatti Lingasugur, 9 2 ha Mixed species Yes Pit 10X10m Yes * * Not written Hatti Lingasugur, 10 1 ha Mixed species Yes Pit 10X10m Yes * * Not written Maski Lingasugur, 11 4 ha Mixed species Yes Pit 5X5m Yes * * Not written Maski Lingasugur, 12 5 ha Mixed species Yes Pit 5X5m Yes * * Not written Maski

Devedurga, 13 4 ha Mixed species Yes Pit 10X10m Yes * * Not written Mosarkal Devedurga, 14 6 ha Mixed species Yes Pit 10X10m Yes * * Not written Mosarkal Raichur, Partially 15 6 km Mixed species Yes Pit 10X10m Yes * * Matmari written Manvi, Grafted Partially 16 1 ha Yes Pit 5X10m Yes * * Tupadoor mango written Manvi, Grafted 17 1 ha * Pit 5X10m * * * * Tupadoor mango Devadurga, Partially 18 6 km Mixed species Yes Pit 10X10m Yes * * Ramadurga written * Information was not available

111

Qualitative aspects of the plantations are given in table 8.3c below:

Table 8.3.c: Qualitative aspects of individual plantations of Raichur (SF) Division Selection of Sl. Extent Selection Choice of Protection Survival Estimated General Year Range/Village plantation No of site Species aspects % total survival condition model 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Raichur, 1 Tuntapur- 5 km Proper Proper Proper Improper 11.00 55 Failure Manjarla Road Lingasugur, 2 * * * * * * 0 Poor Sheelahalli Land use Lingasugur, 3 4.5 ha * * * * * 0 pattern has Lingasugur changed Sindhanoor, 4 Govt. Junior 1 km Proper Proper Proper * 23.00 23 Poor 2007-08 College Lingasugur, 5 2 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 37.50 75 Poor Hatti Lingasugur, Failure 6 2 ha Proper Proper Proper Improper 10.00 20 Hatti Lingasugur, Failure 7 2 ha Proper Proper Proper Improper 6.00 12 Hatti Lingasugur, Failure 8 2 ha Proper Proper Proper Improper 2.50 5 Hatti Lingasugur, Failure 9 2 ha Proper Proper Proper Improper 5.00 10 Hatti Lingasugur, 10 1 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 48.00 48 Average Maski Lingasugur, 11 4 ha Proper Proper Proper Improper 19.75 79 Failure Maski Lingasugur, 12 5 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 20.40 102 Failure Maski Devedurga, Poor 13 4 ha Proper Proper Proper Improper 27.50 110 Mosarkal Devedurga, Poor 14 6 ha Proper Proper Proper Improper 38.30 230 Mosarkal Raichur, 15 6 km Proper Proper Proper Improper 2.80 17 Failure Matmari Raichur, 15 1 ha Proper Proper Proper Improper 2.80 0 Good Matmari Manvi, 16 1 ha Proper Proper Proper * 0.50 0 Failure Tupadoor Some other Manvi, 17 6 km * * * * 0 0 species have Tupadoor been grown Sapling Devadurga, 18 6 km Proper Proper Proper Proper 0 0 removed for Ramadurga road widening Weighted average of seedling survival = 14.42% * Information was not available.

112

Survival percentage in the 18 evaluated plantations varies from 0.50 to 48. Out of these plantations, one is average, four are poor and 13 are failure which constitutes to 6%, 22.22% and 72.22% respectively of the total evaluated plantation of 54.5 ha. MGNREGA Plantations were raised along roadside, institutional premises and burial grounds with species like bevu, honge, tapasi, bage, ficus, Peltophorum, gulmohar, rain-tree etc. In farmers land species like teak, honge, nerale, karibevu, mango, nelli etc. are planted but their performance is poor. Demonstration plots were meant to display the advantage of tree farming to farmers. This plantation is raised over 2 ha of land at 2 locations of one ha each with 200 grafted mango seedlings which failed. Similarly, KSFMBC (Model-6) plantation is raised over one hectare of land in Government Junior College, Sindhanoor is also a near failure.

D. Public distribution of seedlings: Information was not available. E. Other works: Information was not available.

4. Yadgir (SF) Division:

A. Performance of departmental plantations: Most of the plantations of 2007-08 selected for evaluation were raised under NREGS. These include roadside, community land and block plantations, covering three taluks namely Yadgir, Shapur and Shorapur of Yadgir district. The division raised 78 plantations covering an area of 548.13ha of which nine plantations covering 54.5ha were selected for evaluation by the committee, comprises of six roadside plantations, one institutional plantation and two block plantations. The sampling intensity was 11.54% by number of works and 9.94 % by area. List of plantations used for samplings is given in the table below.

Table 8.4a: List of plantations selected for evaluation in Yadgir (SF) Division Sl. Location/ Extent Name of the Year Range Village No Hobli Sy. No. ( Ha/km) Scheme 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 Shahapur Doromahalli Doromahalli Road side 5km NREGA 2 Shahapur Halgera Halgera 55 10ha NREGA 3 Shorapur Thimthimi Thimthimi Road side 6km NREGA 4 Shorapur Aldhal Chikamhalli Road side 6km NREGA 5 Shorapur Baischbal Kammhalli Rhudrabhumi 5ha NREGA

6 2007-08 Shorapura Devagonahal Baddypor C & D class 7.5ha NREGA 7 Yadgir Killamkura Killamkure Road side 6km NREGA 8 Yadgir Kakaluvana Borabanda Road side 6km NREGA 9 Yadgir Pasapaula Yampada Road side 3km NREGA

113

Observations of the evaluation team are given plantation-wise in table 8.4b below:

Table 8.4b: Summary of evaluation of individual plantations of Yadgir (SF) Division Main Status Sl. Range/ Plantation Plantation Whether Micro Plnt Year Extent species Spacing of No Village model type maintained plan journal planted VFC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Shahapur, Mixed 1 5km Yes Pit 10X10m No No No Not written Doromahalli plantation Shahapur, 2 10ha Bevu Yes Pit 10X10m Yes No No Not written Halgera Shorapur, Mixed 3 6km Yes Pit 10X10m No No No Not written Thimthimi plantation Shorapur, Mixed 4 6km Yes Pit 10X10m No No No Not written Chikamhalli plantation Shorapur, Mixed

5 5ha Yes Pit 5X5m No No No Not written Kammhalli plantation

2007-08 Shorapura, Mixed 6 7.5ha Yes Pit 10X10m No No No Not written Baddypor plantation Yadgir, Mixed 7 6km Yes Pit 10X10m No No No Not written Killamkure plantation Yadgir, Mixed 8 6km Yes Pit 10X10m No No No Not written Borabanda plantation Yadgir, Mixed 9 3km Yes Pit 10X10m No No No Not written Yampada plantation

Qualitative aspects of the plantations are given in table 8.4c below:

Table 8.4c: qualitative aspects of individual plantations of Yadgir (SF) Division Selection of Sl. Range/ Selection Choice of Protection Survival Estimated General Year Extent plantation No Village of site Species aspects % total survival condition model 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Shahapur, 1 5 km Proper Proper Proper Improper 10 500 Failure Doromahalli Shahapur, Proper Proper 50 2 10 ha Proper Proper 500 Average Halgera Shorapur, 3 6 km Proper Proper Proper Improper 11 66 Failure Thimthimi Shorapur, 4 6 km Proper Proper Proper Improper 7 420 Failure Chikamhalli Shorapur, 5 5 ha Improper Proper Proper Improper * 0 * Kammhalli 2007-08 Shorapura, 6 7.5 ha Proper Proper Proper Improper 50 375 Average Baddypor Yadgir, 21 Poor 7 6 km Proper Proper Proper Improper 126 Killamkure Yadgir, 30 Poor 8 6 km Proper Proper Proper Improper 180 Borabanda Yadgir, 40 Poor 9 3 km Proper Proper Proper Improper 120 Yampada Weighted average of survival seedling = 33.71% * Information was not available.

114

Survival percentage of nine evaluated plantations varies from 7 to 50. Out of these plantations, two were average three were poor, four were failure which constitutes to 22.22%, 33.33%, and 44.44% respectively of the total evaluated area of 54.5 ha.

B. Public distribution of seedlings: Information was not available. C. List of other works: Information was not available.

5. Bidar (T) Division

A. Performance of departmental plantations: During 2007-08 Bidar (T) division raised 44 plantations spread over 770.44 ha. The evaluation committee selected seven plantations in 78.17 ha under five schemes namely KSFMBC, NAP-FDA (ANR), KSHIP, GUA and CAMPA. List of plantations used for sampling is given in the table below.

Table 8.5a: List of plantations selected for evaluation in Bidar (T) Division Sl. Location/ Name of the Year Range Hobli Village Extent No. Sy. No. Scheme 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 Aurad Chintaki Alur (K) 61, 89 & 95 20.67ha KSFMBC M-04 2 Aurad Chintaki Nagampalli 22 20ha NAP-FDA (ANR) 3 Bidar Janawada Honnikeri 61 15ha KSFMBC M-05 4 Bhalki Byala halli Halabarga 58 5ha KSHIP

5 Basva Basva Basva Town 7ha GUA 2007-08 kalyana Kalyana Kalyana Compensatory 6 Humnabad Nirana Muttangi 55 6.5ha Afforestation 7 Humnabad * Humnabad * 4km KSHIP * Information was not available

Observations of the evaluation team are given plantation-wise in table 8.5b below:

Table 8.5b: Summary of evaluation of individual plantations of Bidar (T) Division Plantati Status Sl. Range/ Main species Plantation Spacing Whether Micro Plnt Year Extent on of No Village planted type maintained plan Journal model VFC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Aurad, Gliricidia and Partially 1 mixed tree Yes Trench * Yes * * Alur (K) 20.67ha Written species Gliricidia and Aurad, Pit + Partially 2 mixed tree Yes 4X4m Yes Yes * Nagampalli 20ha Trench Written

species Bidar, Ullal Kaju & Partially 3 Yes Pit 5X5m Yes * * Honnikeri 15ha Nelli Written Bhalki, Partially 4 Honge, Neem Yes Pit * Yes Yes Yes Halabarga 5ha Written

115

Neem, Badam Partially 5 Basva kalyana, Yes Pit 10X10m Yes Yes Yes 7ha Honge Written Gliricidia, Humnabad, Partially 6 6.5ha Acacia, Yes Trench 5X5m Yes Yes Yes Muttangi Written Cassia Mixed tree Partially 7 Humnabad 4km Yes Pit * Yes Yes * species written * Information was not available

Qualitative aspects of the plantations are given in table 8.5c below:

Table 8.5c: Qualitative aspects of individual plantations of Bidar (T) Division Selection of Survival Sl. Range/ Extent Selection of Choice of Protection Survival General Year plantation % X No Village site Species aspects % condition model extent 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Good but Aurad, Gliricidia 1 20.67ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 62.50 1292 Alur (K) suppressed all others Good but Aurad, Gliricidia 2 20ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 65 1300 Nagampalli suppressed all others Bidar, 3 15ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 95 1425 Very good Honnikeri Bhalki, 4 5ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 67 335 Good Halabarga 5 Basva kalyana, 7ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 72 504 Good Humnabad, 6 6.5ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 80 520 Good Muttangi 7 Humnabad 4km Proper Proper Proper Proper 80 320 Good * Information was not available. Weighted average survival of the seedlings = 72.86

Survival percentage of seven evaluated plantations varies from 62.50 to 95. Out of these plantations, one is very good and 6 are good which constitutes to 14.28% and 85.71% of the extent 78.17 ha of plantations evaluated. Gliricidia is most promising species but it completely dominates all other species. Because of this and also because of the refractory nature of the site honge, tapasi and neem failed. Cashew is doing well on lateritic soil. In Humnabad and Bhalki neem is doing well. Plantation journals were not properly maintained.

B. Public distribution of Seedlings: Regarding the implementations of RSPD scheme, the division office has furnished the information pertaining to Humnabad and Bidar ranges

116

only. In these two ranges only teak, silver oak and karibevu survived on farm lands. At the time of evaluation, farmers requested for technical guidance for planting now and marketing support at the time of harvesting. Out of 5 plantations evaluated 2 were very good, 2 were average and one was poor which corresponds to 40.0%, 40.0% and 20% respectively.

Table 8.5d: Public distribution of seedlings evaluated in Bidar (T) Division No. of Sl. Name of the Main species Survival General Year Taluk/ Village seedlings No Farmer planted % condition Hobli planted 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Veeranna S/o Humnabad, 1 Gadavanthi Havegappa 1,000 Teak 57 Average Kasaba patil Humnabad, Keshava S/o 2 Kallur 500 Teak 90 Very Good Kasaba Madanna Babu Rao S/o Humnabad, 3 Kallur Manikappa 500 Teak 91 Very Good

2007-08 Kasaba Bheemashetty Humnabad, Mirazuddin Teak, Silver 4 Dummanasur 800 46 Average Benchin choli Patel oak, Karibevu Humnabad, Manikappa 5 Dummanasur 200 Teak 35 Poor Benchincholi Gadha Average seedling survival = 63.8% * Information was not available

C. Other works: No building, thinning, logging works were carried out during 2007-08 as per the details furnished by the division office. However SMC works like gully checks, percolation ponds have been carried out in the plantation areas.

Table 8.5e: List of other works evaluated in Bidar (T) Division Sl. Range/ Year Village Name of the work Scheme General condition No Hobli 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Bidar, Excavation of percolation KSFMBC 1 Bagdal Satisfactory Bagdal ponds & catch pits M-05 Aurad, 2 Alur (K) Percolation of ponds NAD FDA Satisfactory Wadgoan

2007-08 Basava Excavation of percolation 3 kalyana, Khanapur NAD FDA Very Good pond Mudubi

6. Gulbarga (T) Division

A. Performance of departmental plantations: During 2007-08 Gulbarga (T) Division raised 48 plantations covering an area of 1129 ha. The evaluation committee selected 6 plantations in 101 ha under three schemes namely KSFMBC, FDA and DDF. List of plantations used for sampling is given in the table below.

117

Table 8.6.a: List of plantations selected for evaluation of Gulbarga (T) Division Sl. Location/ Year Range Hobli Village Extent Scheme No Sy. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 Gulbarga Gulbarga Sindhagi * 8 ha FDA 2 Alanda Nimbarga Bhusnooru 198 15 ha KSFMBC (M-5) Madana Madana 3 Alanda 3/1 & 80 8 ha DDF Hipparaga Hipparaga Shevanaiktanda

4 2007-08 Chincholi Chincholi 4 25 ha KSFMBC (M-1) (Yuktapur) 5 Chittapur Nalwar Belgera 109, 110 25ha KSFMBC (M-2) 6 Chittapur Nalwar Honnikere 154 20ha FDA (Silvi) * Information was not available

Observations of the evaluation team are given plantation-wise in table 8.6b below:

Table 8.6b: Summary of evaluation of individual plantations of Gulbarga (T) Division Status Sl. Range/ Main species Plantation Plantation Whether Micro Plnt Year Extent Spacing of No Village Planted model type maintained plan journal VFC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Gulbarga, GlIricidia, Not 1 8 ha Yes Trench 6-7m Yes No No Sindhagi Cassia siamea produced Alanda, Mixed local Written up 2 15 ha Yes Pit 10x10m Yes No No Bhusnooru species to date Alanda, Not 3 Madana 8 ha * Yes Trench 4x4m No No No produced Hipparaga Chincholi/ Shevunaik Mixed local Written up 4 25 ha Yes * * Yes No No tanda species to date 2007-08 (Yaktapur) Mixed local Chittapur, species + Not 5 25ha Yes Pit 5x5m Yes Yes Yes Belgera Hardwickia produced binata Chittapur, Mixed local Not 6 20ha Yes Pit 5x5m Yes No No Honnikere species produced * Information was not available

118

Qualitative aspects of the plantations are given in table 8.6c below:

Table 8.6c: Qualitative aspects of individual plantations of Gulbarga (T) Division Selection of Sl. Range/ Selection of Choice of Protection Survival Estimated General Year Extent plantation No Village site species aspects % total survival condition model 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Gulbarga, 1 8 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 100.0 800 Very Good Sindhagi Alanda, 2 15 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 79.55 1193 Good Bhusnooru Alanda, 3 Madana 8 ha Proper Proper Improper Improper 73.00 584 Average Hipparaga Chincholi,

2007-08 Good, Seed 4 Shevunaik 25 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 76.47 1912 sowing done tanda Chittapur, 5 25ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 82.50 2063 Very Good Belgera Chittapur, 6 20ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 77.50 1550 Good Honnikere Weighted average of seedling survival =80.21%

Survival percentage in the six evaluated plantations varies from 73 to 100. Out of these plantations, two are very good and four are good which constitutes to 33.33% and 66.66% respectively of total evaluated area of 101 ha. The NAP-FDA plantation has been raised on C and D lands has come-up very well. Survival percentage is 100%. Plantation journal and sketch has not been provided. Out of three species planted under KSFMBC Model-05 plantations, neem comprises 93% and it is doing well. However a higher mixture could have been better. In KSFMBC (Model-01) Plantation, seed of neem, kakke, seethapal and honge were sown and the results are very impressive. Effective protection to the plantation promoted good natural vegetation. Under NAP-FDA silvi-pasture was raised but the species were inappropriate.

B. public distribution of Seedlings: About 2,09,200 seedlings were distributed in four taluks viz., Alanda, Gulbarga, Chincholli and Chittapur during 2007-08. Major species distributed are teak, karibevu, nelli, badam. Beneficiaries list was not provided to the evaluation team. Nevertheless, one farmer’s land in Gulbarga taluk was evaluated where 4000 teak seedlings were planted and it has come-up well with 75% survival.

119

Table 8.6d: Public distribution of seedlings evaluated in Gulbarga (T) Division No. of Sl. Name of the Species Survival Year Taluk/ Village seedlings General No. farmer planted % Hobli planted condition 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Gulbarga, Virendra patil 1 2007-08 Kumsi 4,000 Teak 75 Good Howrad kumsi

C. Other works: List of other works carried out in the division is listed in table 6.6e. Of 11 other works carried out in the division, four were civil works and rest was fire protection works. Two civil works (repair & maintenance) were concerned with white wash & painting. One work pertained to ecotourism (construction of path ways and steps). Qality of the work was good. Another one is construction of RFO office; quality of the work is good. However, relevant records were not produced.

Table 8.6e: List of other works evaluated in Gulbarga (T) Division Sl. Range/ General Year Village Name of the work Scheme No Hobli condition 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Maintenance of staff Building 1 Gulbarga Gulbarga Good quarters maintenance Aurad, Construction of 2 Chandrapalli Ecotourism Good Chincholi pathways and steps 2007-08 Construction of RFO 3 Chittapura Chittapura Land & Building Good office

7. Raichur (T) Division:

A. Performance of departmental plantations: During 2007-08, the division raised 29 plantations spread over 401.50 ha of degraded forests, roadsides and public places, out of which five plantations were selected for evaluation in 54 ha under KSFMBC and GUA schemes. The sampling intensity was 17.24 by the number of works and 13.35 % by area. List

of plantations selected for evaluation is given in the table 8.7a below:

Table 8.7a: List of plantations selected for evaluation in Raichur (T) Division Sl. Location Name of the Year Range Hobli Village Extent No /Sy. No. scheme 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 Manvi Turvihal Ratnapura 7&9 20ha KSFMBC-M-02 2 Raichur Yergera Ayzapura 56 10ha KSFMBC-M-05 3 Deodurga Deodurga Vengalapura RF 10ha KSFMBC-M-02

4 2007-08 Lingasugur Gurugunta Gadagi 03 10ha KSFMBC-M-05 5 Raichur Raichur Raichur City 4ha GUA

Observations of the evaluation team are given plantation-wise in table 8.7b below:

120

Table 8.7b: Summary of evaluation of individual plantations of Raichur (T) Division Whether status Sl. Range/ Main species Plantatio Plantatio Micro Plnt Year Extent spacing maintaine of no Village planted n model n type plan journal d VFC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Manvi, Mixed written 1 20ha Yes Pit 6x6m Yes yes NO Ratnapura plantation partially Mixed Raichur, 10ha Yes written 2 plantation pit 5x5m Yes yes yes Ayzapura partially

Deodurga, 10ha Mixed Yes written up 3 Vengala Pit 5x5m Yes yes yes plantation to date pura 2007-08 Lingasugur, 10ha Mixed Yes written up 4 Pit 7x7m Yes yes yes Gadag plantation to date Mixed Raichur, 4ha not 5 plantation Yes Pit 9x9m Yes no no Raichur produced

Qualitative aspects of the plantations are given in table 8.7c below:

Table 8.7c: Qualitative aspects of individual plantations of Raichur (T) Division Extent Selection of Sl. Range, Selection of Choice of Protection Survival Survival % General Year (Ha/ plantation No. Village site Species aspects % X Extent condition Km) model 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Manvi, 1 20 ha Improper Improper Improper Improper 19.72 394 Failure Ratnapura Raichur, 10 ha 58.97 Average 2 Proper Proper Proper Proper 590 Ayzapura Deodurga, 10 ha 51.80 Average 3 Proper Proper * * 518 Vengalapura 2007-08 Lingasugur, 10 ha 60.00 4 Proper Proper Proper Proper 600 Average Gadagi Raichur, 4 ha 45.00 5 Proper Proper Proper Proper 180 Average Raichur Weighted average of seedling survival = 42.26% * Information was not available

Survival percentage of five evaluated plantations varies from 19.72 to 60. Out of the total plantations evaluated over 54 ha, four were average and one was a failure which constitutes to 80% and 20%. The CPT and stone wall around KSFMBC Model-02 Plantations were not effective. Low survival percentage is due to wrong selection of species and poor fertility status of the site. Hence the objective of the scheme is not fulfilled. In the KSFMBC Model-05 Plantations, even though survival percentage after 5 to 6 years is reasonably good, growth is very poor. Only Simaruba is doing well. Urban

121

plantations suffered much from heavy biotic pressure. However, the surviving plants are healthy and good.

B. Seedlings distribution to the public: During 2007-08, about 96,100 seedlings were distributed in the division to 116 farmers. Of this, seedlings distributed to 16 farmers covering 13845 seedlings (14.4%) were evaluated. The average survival percentage is 32.41%. The major surviving species is teak. Details are given in table 8.7d below:

Table 8.7d: Public distribution of seedlings evaluated in Raichur (T) Division No. of Sl. Name of the Main species Survival General Year Hobli Village seedlings No. farmer planted % condition planted Yaklasa Kamakshamma W/o Teak, Honge, 1 Raichur 2,750 55 Average Pura Shanmukappa Karibevu K.Shantappa S/o Teak, Honge, 2 Yargera L.K.Doddi 1,300 12 Failure Linganna Nelli Sonnanarasimha S/o Teak, Honge, 3 Yargera Mukridoddi 690 22 Poor Shreenivasa Seethapala Shivareddy S/o Teak, Honge, Yargera Tuntapura 1,000 20 Failure Timmareddy Seethapala Ananthareddy S/o Honge, Teak, 5 Yargera L.K.Doddi 750 7 Failure Shatareddy Nelli Hanumanthappa S/o 6 Sindanoor Mallapura 600 Teak 92 Very Good Yonkappagudi Complete 7 Sindanoor Sindanoor Dyavamma 1550 Teak, Bevu 0 Failure Gangamma W/o 8 Sindanoor Kalamangi 1,000 Teak 80.00 Good Sharanappa

2007-08 Sujatha Patela W/o 9 Devadurga Devadurga 1,005 Teak, Honge 54.00 Average Shivrajappa 10 Devadurga Piligunda H.A.Nadagouda 600 Teak 83.00 Very Good Lingappa S/o 11 Gurugunta Kota 500 Bevu, Hunase Nill * Basalingappa Basavaraja S/o 12 Gurugunta Kota 300 Bevu, Hunase Nill * Rangappa Karikola Medana Pakirappa S/o 13 Mudagol 500 Bevu, Hunase Nill * Pura Yamanappa Medana Veeresh S/o 14 Mudagol 500 Bevu, Hunase Nill * Pura Rayappa Medana Shankrappa S/o 15 Mudagol 500 Bevu, Hunase Nill * pura Amonesh Vaachappa S/o 16 Gurugunta Gaddagi 100 Teak, Hunase 40.00 * Hanumanthappa Average survival rate = 32.41% * Information was not available

During the evaluation, some of the farmers expressed their difficulty in procuring the seedlings from the department and requested for simplification of the procedure. Due to scarcity of labourers in agricultural field, lot of farmers are switching over to forestry. This

122

situation may be taken advantage by the department to bring more areas under forest cover through better extension activities.

C. Other works: About 26 other works are carried out in the division during 2007-08 of which four works were evaluated. These were mainly soil and moisture conservation works. Works carried out were satisfactory. However, it is better to get technical assistance while carrying out such works.

Table 8.7e: List of other works evaluated in Raichur (T) Division Sl. Location/ Name of General Year Range Hobli Village Scheme No Sy. No. the work condition 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 Raichur Raichur Maliyabad 82 & 82/1 NAP-FDA-MFP SMC Good 2 Devadurga Devadurga Vengalapura 51 KSFMBCPM-02 SMC Good KSFMBC 3 Manvi Turuvehal Ratnapura 69 SMC Good M-05 2007-08 KSFMBC 4 Lingasugur Gurugunta Gadagi DF SMC Good M-01

8. Yadgir (T) Division A. Performance of departmental plantations: During 2007-08, the division raised 42 plantations spread over 1240 ha out of which four plantations in 85 ha raised under two schemes were selected for evaluation. The sampling intensity was 9.52 by the number of works and 6.85% by area. List of plantations evaluated is given in the table 8.8a below:

Table 8.8a: List of plantations selected for evaluation in Yadgir (T) Division Sl. Location/ Name of the Year Range Hobli Village Extent No. Sy. No. scheme 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 Shorapura Narayanapura Rayangola 5/1 25ha KSFMBC M-02 KSFMBC 2 Yadgir Kshapur 26 25ha Hattikuni M-02

3 2007-08 Shorapura Shorapura Devargunal 221 15ha NAP-FDA 4 Shorapura Shorapura Naganatagi 23 20ha NAP-FDA

123

Observations of the evaluation team are given plantation-wise in table 8.8b below:

Table 8.8b: Summary of evaluation of individual plantations of Yadgir (T) Division Main Extent Main Plantati Status Sl. Range/ Plantati Spac- te Micro Plnt Year (Ha/ species on of No Village on type ing nanc Plan Journal Km) planted model VFC e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Shorapura Mixed Written 1 25ha * Pit 5X5m Yes * * Rayangola local sps partially

Gliricidia, Yadgir Written 2 Cassia & Yes Pit 5X5m Yes Yes Yes K shapur 25ha partially Honge 2007-08 Shorapura Mixed Written 3 15ha Yes Pit 7X7m Yes Yes Yes Devaragonal local sps partially Shorapura Mixed Written 4 20ha Yes Pit 3X3m Yes Yes Yes Naganatagi local sps partially * Information was not available

Qualitative aspects of individual plantations are given in the table below:

Table 8.8c: Qualitative aspects of individual plantations of Yadgir (T) Division Extent Selection of Estimated Sl. Range/ Selection Choice of Protection Survival General Year (Ha/ plantation total No Village of site Species aspects % condition Km) model survival 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Shorapura 1 25ha Improper Improper Improper Proper 35 875 Poor Rayangola Yadgir 2 25ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 65 1625 Good K shapur Shorapura

3 2007-08 15ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 30 450 Poor Devaragonal Shorapura 4 20ha Improper Improper Improper Proper 20 400 Failure Naganatagi Weighted average survival of seedlings = 39.41%

Survival percentage of the four plantations evaluated varies from 20 to 65. Out of these plantations, one is good, two are poor and one is failure which constitutes to 25%, 50% and 25 % respectively of the total evaluated area of 85 ha. The results show that except for K.Shapur plantation of Yadgir range, the survival percentage of other plantations is very poor. Failure is attributable to wrong choice of species and poor quality of the site. On poor sites, Gliricidia is a good choice. The plantation raised at Devargonal in Shorapur range under NAP-FDA overlapps with the CAMPA plantation raised in 2011 rains. Hence the survival percentage could not be calculated accurately. However, based on the height and size of seedlings percentage was arrived.

124

B. public distribution of Seedlings: The DCF has furnished information showing Burugaladoddi and Vivhutihalli villages to which five thousand and four thousand seedlings were distributed respectively. However, no details were available about the names of the farmers, number of seedlings distributed, survey number of the land etc. Therefore the survival percentage could not be ascertained.

C. Other works: No civil works were carried out during 2007-08, as per the details furnished by the DCF. However soil conservation works like gully checks, percolation ponds, etc were carried out in the plantations evaluated but no details about the design, sanction amount etc., were forthcoming. Hence they were also not evaluated.

-o0o-

125

9. HASSAN CIRCLE

Circle summary

Hassan Circle consists of four divisions namely (1) Hassan (SF) Division (2) Tumkur (SF) Division (3) Hassan (T) Division and (4) Tumkur (T) Division. During 2007-08, Hassan Circle raised 269 plantations spread over 4730.1 ha. Out of this, the evaluation committee selected 25 plantations over 396.5 ha under 13 schemes for evaluation. The weighted average of survival percentage of territorial divisions was 73.02 and that of social forestry divisions was 37.55. Division-wise details are given below:

1. Hassan (SF) Division

During 2007-08 the division raised 28 plantations over an extent of 110.5 ha of which three plantations in 20 ha were selected for evaluation. CCF, Kodagu Circle and his team of officers were asked to evaluate the works in Hassan Circle. They have not done their job. No report was submitted. Hence report for the division is considered as nil.

2. Tumkur (SF) Division

A. Performance of departmental Plantations: During 2007-08 the division raised 56 plantations spread over 382.3 ha of which six plantations in 29.5 ha were selected for evaluation under four schemes namely SGRY, KSFMBC, KSF and VFDF. The sampling intensity is 7.72% by area and 10.71 by works. List of plantations used for sampling is given in the table below:

Table 9.2a: List of selected individual plantations in Tumkur (SF) Division Sl. Location/ Name of the Year Range Hobli Village Extent No. Sy. No. scheme 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 SF Kortagere Holavanahally Arasapura 17 5 ha SGRY (ZP) 2 Tumkur Urdigere Nijagallu R/s 5 km K.S.F 3 SF Pavagada Kasaba Balammanahalli * 10 ha SGRY (TP) 4 Turuvekere Dobbeghalla Byadara Kodagihalli * 3 ha KSFMBC 5 2007-08 Kunigal Yadiyur Kaggere * 3.5ha VFDF 6 SF Tiptur Kibbanahalli Kotagihalli * 3 km SGRY (ZP) * Information was not available.

Observations of the evaluation team are given plantation-wise in table 9.2b below:

126

Table 9.2b: Summary of evaluation of individual plantations for Tumkur (SF) Division Main Status Sl. Range/ Plantation Plantation Whether Micro Plnt Year Extent species Spacing of No. Village model type maintained plan journal planted VFC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 SF Kortagere, Mixed local Pit + Partially 1 5 ha Yes * Yes NA NA Arasapura sps Trench written Tumkur, Mixed local Partially 2 5 km Yes Pit 10x10m Yes NA NA Nijagallu sps written SF Pavagada, Pongamia, Partially 3 Balammana 10 ha Yes Pit 10x10m Yes NA NA Seethapala written Halli Turuvekere, Teak, Silver Partially 4 2007-08 Byadara 3 ha oak Grafted Yes Pit * Yes Yes No written Kodagihalli mavu etc Kunigal, Mixed local Partially 5 3.5ha Yes Trench 10x10m Yes No No Kaggere sps written SF Tiptur, Mixed local Partially 6 3 km Yes Pit 10x10m Yes * * Kotagihalli sps written * Information was not available.

Qualitative aspects of the plantations are given in table 9.2c below:

Table 9.2c: Qualitative aspects of individual plantations of Tumkur (SF) Division Selection of Estimated Sl. Range/ Selection of Choice of Protection Survival General Year Extent plantation total No. Village site Species aspects % condition model survival 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Kortgere, 1 5 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 89.13 446 Very Good Arasapura Tumkur, Poor 2 5 km Proper Proper Proper Proper 30 150 Nijagallu Pavagada, 3 Balammana 10 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 99.9 999 Very Good Halli Turuvekere, 4 2007-08 Byadara 3 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 40 120 Poor Kodagihalli Kunigal, 5 3.5ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 43 1505 Average Kaggere Tiptur, 6 3 km Proper Proper Proper Proper 83 249 Very Good Kodagihalli Weighted average of seedling survival = 56.86%

Survival percentage of six evaluated plantations varies from 30 to 100. Out of these plantations three were very good, one was average and two were poor which constitutes to 50%, 16.66% and 33.33% respectively of the total evaluated plantation area of 61 ha.

B. Public distribution of Seedlings: Information was not available.

C. Other works: Information was not available.

127

3. Hassan (T) Division

A. Performance of departmental plantations: During 2007-08 the division raised 116 plantations spread over 2456.3 ha of which six plantations in 160 ha were selected for evaluation under six schemes namely KSFMBC, KFDF, 12th Finance, Cultural operations and FDA/NAP. The sampling intensity is 6.51% by area and 5.17 by works. List of plantations used for sampling is given in the table below:

Table 9.3a: List of plantations selected for evaluation in Hassan (T) Division Sl. Location/ Year Range Hobli Village Extent Name of the scheme No. Sy. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 Sakaleshpura Kasaba Byakaravally 39 20 ha 12th Finance 2 Sakaleshpura Hanbal Gudanankere 68,73,75 50 ha JBIC (KSFMBDCP)-05 3 Yeslur Yeslur Halliyur 82,85 25 ha KSFMBDCP-04 4 Arakalgud * Goblikaval 1 25 ha NAP/FDA 5 Arsikere Javagal Madanahalli 34 30 ha JBIC-02 2007-08 Eleven Forest Ramenahalli 6 Arsikere Kanakatle Paduvanahalli 10ha Protection regeneration SF & Cultural Operation

Report of the evaluation team on the quantitative parameters is given in table 9.3b below:

Table 9.3b: Summary of evaluation of individual plantations for Hassan (T) Division Whether Status Sl. Range/ Main species Plantation Plantation Micro Plnt Year Extent Spacing Maintai of No. Village planted model type plan journal ned VFC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Sakaleshpura, Acacia & Written up 1 Byakara 20 ha Mahogany, Yes Pit 3x5m Yes Is inactive No to date vally Neralu, Nelli Sakalesh Mavu, Nelli, Written up 2 pura, Gudanan 50 ha Yes Pit 10x10m Yes Is inactive No Antuvala, Halasu to date kere Acacia, Shivani, Yeslur, Written up 3 25 ha Dhoopa, Kiral Yes Pit 10x10m Yes Is inactive No Halliyur to date bogi etc. Arakalgud, Written up 4 25 ha Acacia Yes Pit 10x10m Yes Is inactive No 2007-08 Gobli kaval to date Arsikere, Honge, Halasu, Written up 5 Madana 30 ha nerale, Nelli, Yes Pit 5x5m Yes Yes Yes to date halli Bevu, Hippe Acacia, Arsikere, Eucalyptus, Written up 6 Paduvana 10ha Yes Pit 10x10m Yes * * Honge, Nelli, to date halli Neralu * Information was not available.

128

Qualitative aspects of the plantations are given in table 9.3c below:

Table 9.3c: Qualitative aspects of individual plantations of Hassan (T) Division Extent Selection of Estimated Sl. Range, Selection of Choice of Protection Survival Year (Ha/ plantation total Remarks No. Village site Species aspects % Km ) model survival 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Sakleshpura, 1 20 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 76.92 1538 Good Byakaravally Sakleshpura, 2 50 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 97.32 4866 Very Good Gudanankere Yeslur, 3 25 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 93.48 2337 Very Good Halliyur Arakalgud,

4 2007-08 25 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 91.87 2297 Very Good Goblikaval Arsikere, 5 30 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 57.00 1710 Average Madanahalli Arsikere, 6 10ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 68.00 680 Good Paduvanahalli Weighted average of seedling survival = 83.93%

Survival percentage of six evaluated plantations varies from 57 to 97.32. Out of these plantations three were very good; two were good and one was average which constitutes to 50%, 33.33% and 16.66% respectively of the total evaluated plantation area of 160 ha.

B. Public distribution of seedlings: Information was not available.

C. Other works: Information was not available.

4. Tumkur (T) Division

A. Performance of departmental plantations: During 2007-08 the division raised 69 plantations spread over 1781 ha of which 10 plantations in 187 ha were selected for evaluation under six schemes; SGRY, KSFMBC, KFDF,12th Finance, Cultural operations

and FDA/NAP. The sampling intensity is 7.61% by area and 8.62 by works.

Table 9.4.a: List of selected individual plantations in Tumkur (T) Division Sl Location/ Name of the Year Range Hobli Village Extent No. Sy. No. scheme 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 Tiptur Honnavalli Halkurike 01 40 ha KSFMBC-04 2 Korategere C.N.Durga Gowrikallu 31 20 ha KFDF Papaiah 3 Pavagada Nagalmdike * 20 ha FDA/NAP naroppa 4 Madhugiri Dodderi Thimalapura * 20 ha FDA 5 Madhugiri Dodderi Sajjehasahally * 4 Km SGRY (ZP) 6 2007-08 Bukkapatna Kandikere Gantenahalli * 25 ha 12th Finance Uddanachik 7 Bukkapatna Bukkapatna 01 10 ha C.O.P kanahatty 8 Sira Bukkapatna Anthapura * 3 km SGRY

129

Margondana 9 Sira Bukkapatna 31 25 ha FDA/NAP halli 10 Kunigal Kasaba N. Gollarahatti 01 20 ha KSFMBC * Information was not available

Table 9.4b gives the quantitative details of the plantations surveyed.

Table 9.4b: Summary of evaluation of individual plantations of Tumkur (T) Division Plantati Whether Status Sl. Range/ Main species Plantatio Micro Plnt Year Extent on Spacing Maintain of No. Village planted n type plan Journal model ed VFC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Acacia, Tiptur, Pit + 6x6m & Written up 1 40 ha Eucalyptus, Yes Yes Yes No Halkurike Trench 4x4m to date Bevu, Nerale Acacia, Korategere, Eucalyptus, Pit + 4x4m & Partially 2 20 ha Yes Yes No No Gowri kallu Honge, Nelli, Trench 2x2m written Nerale Pavagada,

Not Partially 3 Papaiah 20 ha Honge Yes Trench 5x5m Yes No evaluated written naroppa Madhugiri, Partially 4 20 ha Mixed local sps Yes Trench 5x5m Yes Yes Yes Thimalapura written Madhugiri, Sissoo, Mixed 5 4 km Yes Pit 10x10m Yes NA NA Not seen Sajjehasahally local sps Bukkapatana, Eucalyptus, Written up 6 25 ha Yes * * * Yes * Gantena halli Kamara to date Bukkapatna, Eucalyptus, Pit + 10x10m & 7 Uddanak 10 ha mixed local Yes Yes Yes Yes * Trench 4x4m kanahatty sps Mixed local Partially 8 Sira, Antha pura 3 km Yes Pit 10x10m Yes Yes Yes sps written Sira, Nerale, 9 Margondana 25 ha Honge, Yes Trench 6x6m Yes Yes * * halli Kamara Hunase, Kunigal, Partially 10 20 ha Hippe, Bevu, Yes Pit 10x10m Yes Yes Yes N.Gollarahatti written Halasu * Information was not available

Table 9.4c gives the qualitative aspects of the plantations evaluated:

Table 9.4.c: Qualitative aspects of individual plantations of Tumkur (T) Division Selection Choic Estimate Sl. Range, Selectio of e of Protection Survival Year Extent d total Remarks No. Village n of site plantatio Specie aspects % survival n model s 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Tiptur, 1 40 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 62 2480 Good Halkurike Korategere, 2 20 ha Improper Improper Proper Proper 43.13 863 Average Gowrikallu Pavagada, 3 Papaiah 20 ha Proper Improper Proper * 19.64 393 Failure 2007-08 naroppa Madhugiri, 4 Thimala 20 ha Proper Improper Proper Proper 57.57 1151 Average pura

130

Madhugiri, Poor 5 Sajjehasa 4 km NA NA NA Can’t say 30 120

hally Bukkapatna, 6 25 ha Proper Improper Proper Proper 100 2500 Very Good Gantenahalli Bukkapatna, 7 Uddanak 10 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 95 950 Very Good kanahatty Sira, 8 3 km Proper Proper Proper Proper 52 156 Average Anthapura Sira, 9 Margondana 25 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 52 1300 Average halli Kunigal, 10 N.Gollara 20 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 85 1700 Very Good hatti Weighted average of seedling survival = 62.10% * Information was not available

Survival percentage of 10 evaluated plantations varies from 19.64 to 100. Out of these plantations three were very good; one was good, four were average, one was poor and one was failure which constitutes to 30%, 40%, 10%, 10% and 10% respectively of the total evaluated plantation area of 187 ha.

B. Public distribution of seedlings: Information was not available.

C. Other works: Information was not available.

-o0o-

131

10. KANARA CIRCLE

Circle summary

Kanara Circle consists of seven divisions namely (1) Karwar (SF) Division (2) Haliyal (T) Division (3) Honnavar (T) Division (4) Karwar (T) Division (5) Sirsi (T) Division (6) Yellapur (T) Division (7) Dandeli-Anshi Tiger Reserve. During 2007-08, Kanara circle raised 636 plantations over an area of 14366.4 ha. Out of this the evaluation team selected 67 plantations in 1677.75 ha under nine different schemes for evaluation. The sampling intensity was 11.67% by area and 10.53% by the number of works. The weighted average of survival percentage of territorial divisions is 61.23 and that of social forestry divisions is 50.4. Other works of Dandeli-Anshi Tiger Reserve were found be satisfactory. Division-wise results of the evaluation are given below:

1. Karwar (SF) Division

A. Performance of departmental plantations: During 2007-08, Karwar (SF) Division raised 51 plantations over an area of 173.2 ha. Out of this five plantations were evaluated in 25 ha under two different schemes SGRY and Costal zone plantation. The sampling intensity was 14.43% by area and 9.8% by the number of works. List of plantations surveyed is given in table 10.1a below:

Table 10.1a: List of plantations selected for evaluation in Karwar (SF) Division Sl. Location/ Name of the Year Range Hobli Village Extent No Sy. No. Scheme 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 Honnavara * Adukli 22(2) 3 ha SGRY 2 Bhatkal * YellodiKavori 68 5 ha SGRY Paramanandmatha 3 Sirsi * * 5 ha SGRY compound Hanumapauramath 4 2007-08 Mundgod * * 2 ha SGRY ha Dhareshwara Coastal Zone 5 Kumta * * 10 ha coastal belt Plantation *Information is not available

Observations of the evaluation team are given plantation-wise in table 10.1b below:

132

Table 10.1b: Summary of evaluation of individual plantations of Karwar (SF) Division Main Plantati Whether Status Sl. Range/ Extent Plantation Spacing Micro Plnt Year Species on maintain of No Village type adopted plan journal planted model ed VFC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Honnavara, 1 3ha Acacia Yes Pit 2.5X 2.5m Yes * * Not available Adukli Bhatkal, Cashew & 2 5ha Yes Pit 2.5X 2.5m Yes * * Not available YellodiKavori Teak Sirsi, Paramand 3 5ha Acacia Yes * * Yes * * Not available compound matha

2007-08 Mundgod 4 Hanumapuramat 2ha Acacia Yes Pit 3X3m * * * Not available ha Kumta, Cassurina 5 Dhareshwar 10ha Yes Pit 5X5m * * * Partially written sp. &Honge coastal belt * Information was not available

Qualitative aspects of the plantations are given in table 10.1c below:

Table 10.1c: Qualitative aspects of individual plantations of Karwar (SF) Division Selection Selection of Estimated Sl. Range/ Choice of Protection Survival General Year Extent of Plantation total No Village Species aspects % condition site model survival 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Honnavara, 1 3 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 20 60 Failure Adukli Bhatkal, 2 5 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 0 0 Failure YellodiKavori Sirsi, 3 Paramand 5 ha Proper Proper Proper Improper 80 400 Good

compound matha Mundgod 2007-08 4 Hanumapuramat 2 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 0 0 Failure ha Kumta, 5 Dhareshwar 10 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 80 800 Good coastal belt Weighted average of seedling survival = 50.4%

General observations on departmental plantations: The survival of the five evaluated plantations varies from 0 to 80%. Out of five plantations of 25 ha, two were good and three were poor which constitutes to 40% and 60% respectively. B. Public distribution of seedlings: Information was not available. C. Other works: Information was not available.

133

2. Haliyal (T) Division

A. Performance of departmental plantations: During 2007-08, Haliyal (T) Division raised 69 plantations over an area of 2665.5 ha. Out of this nine plantations were evaluated over an area of 430 ha under four different schemes KSFMBC, TFC, NAP and ANR. The sampling intensity was 16.13% by area and 13.04% by the number of works. List of plantations surveyed is given in table 10.2a below:

Table 10.2a: List of plantations selected for evaluation in Haliyal (T) Division Sl Location/ Name of the Year Range Hobli Village Extent No Sy No Scheme 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1 Virnoli * Harnoda 21/27 50 ha KSFMBC-JICA 2 Tinaighat Castelrock Durga 15/42 15 ha TFC 3 Barchi Dandeli Nanakesarodga 3 50 ha KSFMBC-02 4 Jagalpet * Kasaruvadi 22 15 ha TFC 5 Tinaighat Castelrock Kalambuli 125 125 ha NAP

6 2007-08 Bhagwati Dandeli Tattihall 17 50 ha KSFMBC-05 7 Sambrani Sambrani Narnalli 13 50 ha ANR 8 Sambarni Murkwad Jatga 37 A 50 ha KSFMBC -03 9 Haliyal Dandeli Jaralli 38 25 ha NAP * Information was not available

Observations of the evaluation team are given plantation-wise in table 10.2b below:

Table 10.2b: Summary of evaluation of individual plantations of Haliyal (T) Division Whether Status Sl Range/ Main Species Plantation Plantation Spacing Micro Plnt Year Extent maintai of No Village planted model type adopted plan journal ned VFC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Virnoli/ 1 50 ha Teak &misc Yes Pit 2.5X2.5m Yes Yes Yes Up to date Harnoda Tinaighat/ 2 15 ha Acacia & misc sp Yes Pit 2.5X2.5m Yes No No * Durga Barchi/ Nana Teak, Nandi & 3 50 ha Yes Pit 5X5m Yes Yes Yes Up to date kesarodga misc sp Jagalpet/ Teak Acacia and 4 15 ha Yes Pit 2.5X2.5m Yes Yes Yes Up to date Kasaruvadi local sps Tinaighat/

5 125 ha Cane Yes Pit 5X5m Yes Yes Yes Up to date Kalambuli

2007-08 Bhagwati/ 6 50 ha Mixed local sps Yes Pit 7X7m Yes Yes Yes Up to date Tattihalla Sambrani/ Teak, Matti & 7 50 ha Yes Pit 4X4m Yes Yes No Up to date Narnalli misc Sambarni/ Teak, Matti & 8 50 ha Yes Pit 4X4m Yes Yes Yes Up to date Jatga misc Haliyal/ Mango, Halasu 9 25 ha Yes Pit 3.5X 3.5m Yes Yes No Up to date Jaralli misc * Information was not available

134

Qualitative aspects of the plantations are given in table 10.2c below:

Table 10.2c: Qualitative aspects of individual plantations of Haliyal (T) Division Selection of Sl Range/ Selection of Choice of Protection Survival Estimated General Year Extent plantation No Village site Species aspects % total survival condition model 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Plantation is Virnoli/ 1 50ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 76 3800 Good. Harnoda

Tinaighat/ 2 15ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 62 930 Good Durga

Barchi/ Nana Good. Natural 3 50ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 76 3800 kesarodga regn coming up

Jagalpet/ 4 15ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 81 1215 Very Good Kasaruvadi Tinaighat/ 5 125ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 97 12125 Very Good 2007-08 Kalambuli Bhagwati/ 6 50ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 62 3100 Good Tattihalla Sambrani/ 7 50ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 73 3650 Good Narnalli Sambarni/ 8 50ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 73 3650 Good Jatga Haliyal/ 9 25ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 68 1700 Good Jaralli Weighted average of seedling survival = 97%

Survival percentage of the nine evaluated plantations varies from 62 to 97%.Out of these plantations, two were very good and seven were good which constitutes to 22.22% and 77.77% respectively of the total evaluated plantation area of 430 ha.

B. Public distribution of seedlings: The team randomly evaluated 500 seedlings distributed to one individual farmer. Survival was found to be average. Table 10.2d gives the details:

Table 10.2d: Public distribution of seedlings evaluated in Haliyal (T) Division No of Sl Name of the Species Survival General Year Hobli Village seedlings No Farmer Planted % condition Planted Mohammad 1 2007-08 Dandeli Bedarshirgur 500 Teak 60 Average asadKittur Average survival = 60%

C. Other works: The evaluation team visited 20 other works, out of which 18 were good and information was not provided for two works. List of works inspected are given in table 10.2e.

135

Table 10.2e: List of other works evaluated in Haliyal (T) Division Sl Range/ Year Village Name of the work Scheme Remarks No Hobli 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Minor repairs and KSFMBC-200-Building 1 Barchi/ Dandeli Barchi rewiring to Forest Good Maintenance Quarters Minor repairs and KSFMBC-200-Building 2 Barchi/ Dandeli Barchi rewiring to Forest Good Maintenance Quarters Minor repairs and KSFMBC-200-Building 3 Barchi/ Dandeli Barchi rewiring to Forest Good Maintenance Quarters Minor repairs and KSFMBC-200-Building 4 Barchi/ Dandeli Barchi rewiring to Forest Good Maintenance Quarters Minor repairs and KSFMBC-200-Building 5 Barchi/ Dandeli Barchi rewiring to Forest Good Maintenance Quarters Tinaighat/ 6 Ivolighotge Gully plugs KSFMBCP Good Castlerock Tinaighat/ 7 Ghatkunang Gully plugs KSFMBCP Good Castlerock Tinaighat/ 8 Chandewadi Gully plugs KSFMBCP Good Castlerock Tinaighat/ 9 Chandewadi Gully plugs KSFMBCP Good Castlerock Dandeli/ Improvement of ACF 10 Dandeli 01-Timber Good Dandeli office Building 2007-08 Dandeli/ Repair to water 11 Dandeli 01-Timber Good Dandeli storage tank-2 of RVB Dandeli/ Bekarmaddi Protection 12 Alur TFC * Dandeli Camp Minor Repairs and Virnoli/ 13 Virnoli rewiring to Forest Qtrs KSFMBCP Good Dandeli No1 Construction of Tinaighat/ 14 Devalli Ground level water COP Good Castle rock tank Tinaighat/ Minor Repair of 15 Payaswadi TFC * Castlerock Quarters Jagalbet/ Distempering & 16 Jagalbet KSFMBC Good Castlerock Painting Jagalbet/ Construction of 17 Kelapani COP Good Castlerock Vermi compost Tank Jagalbet/ Construction of Gully 18 Kasarwadi TFC Good Castlerock Plugs Jagalbet/ Construction of Gully 19 Kasarwadi TFC Good Castlerock Plugs Jagalbet/ Construction of Gully 20 Kasarwadi TFC Good Castlerock Plugs * Information was not available

136

3. HONNAVAR (T) DIVISION

A. Performance of departmental plantations: During 2007-08, Honnavar (T) division raised 118 plantations over an area of 3131.7 ha. Out of which 14 plantations were evaluated over an area of 345 ha under five different schemes KSFMBC, FDA, TFC, KFDF and 12thFinance.The sampling intensity was 14.43% by area and 11.86% by the number of works. List of plantations surveyed is given in table 10.3a below:

Table 10.3a: List of plantations selected for evaluation in Honnavar (T) Division Sl Location/ Name of the Year Range Hobli Village Extent No Sy No Scheme 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 Kumta Honnavar Chandavar 152 2 ha KSFMBC-misc 256, 96 2 Katgal Mirjan Antravalli, Divigi 30 ha KSFMBC-04 A1A 3 Hiregutti Gokarna Gokarna 1269 25 ha KSFMBC-04 4 Hiregutti Mirjan Nagur 104 30 ha FDA(NAP) 5 Hiregutti Gokarna Gokarna 1269 25 ha KSFMBC-04 6 Katgal Mirjan Yana 44,55 25 ha FDA KFDF-03-Other 7 Kumta Kumta Aghanashini 262 15 ha Plantation 8 Kumta Honnavar Chandavar 252 20 ha 12th Finance

9 2007-08 Bhatkal Susgadi Nooz 79 25 ha KSFMBC-03 10 Honnavar Honnavar Salkod 332 A 15 ha TFC Horaginab ele, 11 Honnavar Honnavar Kasrkod 30 ha KSFMBC-07 motebele, kudrebele 12 Manki Manki Magod 21 25 ha KSFMBC-03 13 Gersoppa Mavinkurva Nagarbastikeri 285 25 ha CSSNAP(FDA) 14 Gersoppa Mavinkurva Mahime 159 30 ha KSFMBC

Observations of the evaluation team are given plantation-wise in table 10.3b below:

Table 10.3b: Summary of evaluation of individual plantations of Honnavar (T) Division Plantati Status Sl Range/ Main Species Plantation Spacing Whether Micro Plnt Year Extent on of No Village planted type adopted maintained plan journal model VFC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Kumta/ Teak, Matti, Written up 1 2 ha Yes Pit 3.3X3.3m Yes Yes Yes Chandavar misc to date Katgal/ Acacia, Written up 2 Antravalli, 30 ha Yes Pit 2.5X2.5m Yes Yes Yes cashew, Nelli to date Divigi Hiregutti/ Acacia, Geru, Written up 3 25 ha Yes Pit 2.5X2.5m Yes Yes Yes Gokarna etc to date 2007-08 Matti Hiregutti/ Written up 4 30 ha Nandi, Cane, Yes Pit 3X3m Yes Yes Yes Nagur to date etc Hiregutti/ Acacia, Geru, Written up 5 25 ha Yes Pit 2.5X2.5m Yes Yes Yes Gokarna etc to date

137

Katgal/ Teak, Thare, Written up 6 25 ha Yes Pit 5X5m Yes Yes Yes Yana Matti, Nandi to date Kumta/ Written up 7 15 ha Acacia Yes Pit 2.5X2.5m Yes Yes Yes Aghanashini to date Kumta/ Written up 8 20 ha Acacia Yes Pit 2.5X2.5m Yes Yes Yes Chandvar to date Dhoopa, Written up 9 Bhatkal/ Nooz 25 ha Yes Pit * Yes Yes Yes Urhonneetc to date Honnavar/ Written up 10 15 ha Acacia sp Yes Pit 3X3m Yes Yes Yes Salkod to date Honnavar/ Written up 11 30 ha Mangrove sps Yes Pit 1X1m Yes Yes Yes Kasrkod to date Neral, Kindal Written up 12 Manki/ Magod 25 ha Yes Pit * Yes Yes Yes Hole mattietc to date Gersoppa/ Written up 13 Nagar 25 ha Acacia sp Yes Pit 3X3m Yes Yes Yes to date bastikeri Gersoppa/ Antavala, Written up 14 30 ha Yes Pit 7X7m Yes Yes Yes Mahime Doopa, misc to date * Information was not available

Qualitative aspects of the plantations are given in table 10.3c below:

Table 10.3c: Qualitative aspects of individual plantations of Honnavar (T) Division Selection of Sl Selection Choice of Protection Survival Estimated General Year Range/ Village Extent plantation No of site Species aspects % total survival condition model 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Kumta/ 1 2 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 30.60 765 Poor Chandavar Katgal/ 2 30 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 57 1710 Average Antravalli, Divigi Hiregutti/ 3 25 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 93 2325 Very Good Gokarna 4 Hiregutti/ Nagur 30 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 25 750 Poor Hiregutti/ 5 25 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 93 2325 Very Good Gokarna Katgal/ 6 25 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 44 1100 Average Yana Kumta/ 7 15 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 69 1035 Good Aghanashini 8 2007-08 Kumta/ Chandvar 20 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 83.54 1671 Very Good 9 Bhatkal/ Nooz 25 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 49 1225 Average 10 Honnavar/ Salkod 15 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 86 1290 Very Good Honnavar/ 11 30 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 69.75 2093 Good Kasrkod 12 Manki/ Magod 25 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 46 1150 Average Gersoppa/ Nagar 13 25 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 86 2150 Very Good bastikeri Gersoppa/ 14 30 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 65 1950 Good Mahime weighted average of seedling survival = 62.43%

138

Survival of the 14 evaluated plantations varies from 25 to 93%.Out of these plantations five were very good, three are good, four are average, two are poor. It constitutes 35.71%, 21.43%, 28.57% and 14.28% respectively of the total evaluated plantation area of 345 ha.

B. Public distribution of seedlings: The team randomly evaluated 2,200 seedlings distributed to two farmers. Survival was found to be very good in one case and good in one case. Table 10.3d gives the details:

Table 10.3d: Public distribution of seedlings evaluated in Honnavar (T) Division No of Sl Name of the Species Survival General Year Hobli Village seedlings No Farmer Planted % Condition planted

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 Salkod Salkod GT Hegde 200 * 73 Good Very 2 Manki Manki Gopal M Naik 2000 * 82

2007-08 Good Average survival = 77.5% * Information was not available

C. Other works: Table 10.3e gives the details of three other works evaluated. All the works were found to be satisfactory.

Table 10.3e: List of other works evaluated in Honnavar (T) Division Sl No Year Hobli Village Name of the work Scheme Remarks

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 Honnavar Kasarkod Repair to Compound wall Land & building Satisfactory Rest House 2 Honnavar Honnavar Repairs to ACF Office Building Satisfactory &Sy Office Maintenance 3 2007-08 Honnavar Prabhatnagar Repairs to Car Shed DCF Building Satisfactory Bungalow Maintenance

4. Karwar (T) Division

A. Performance of departmental plantations: During 2007-08, Karwar (T) Division raised 128 plantations over an area of 2440 ha. Out of which 15 plantations were evaluated over an area of 315.75 ha under 6 different schemes KSFMBC, GUA, NAP-FDA, KFDF, 12thFinance and Compensatory plantation. The sampling intensity was 12.94% by area and 11.72% by the number of works. List of plantations surveyed is given in table 10.4a below:

139

Table 10.4a: List of plantations selected for evaluation in Karwar (T) Division Sl Location/ Name of the Year Range Hobli Village Extent No Sy No Scheme 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 Kadra Ghadsai Virje 40 &100 10 ha KSFMBC-05 2 Joida Kumbarwada Nagari 29 20 ha NAP-FDA 3 Joida Kumbarwada Nagari SB-22 25 ha 12th Finance Nellurkan 02-Compensatroy 4 Ankola Belekeri 7A1A1A1 25 ha chinballi plantation KSFMBCP 5 Ankola Belekeri Harwada 68 A1A1 25 ha (JBIC-II) KSFMBCP 6 Ramanguli Halwalli Halwalli 146 25 ha (JBIC-II) KSFMBC 7 Kadra Ghadsai Virje 53 A 25 ha (JBIC-II) KSFMBCP 8 Mastikatta Ankola Hebbul(Rajanguli) 72 25 ha (JBIC-II) Veterinary

9 2007-08 Ankola Ankola Ankola Hospital 0.75 ha GUA Compound 10 Joida Castle rock Diggi BI-IX-Diggi 20 ha NAP-FDA KFDF-03- Other 11 Karwar Kinnar Kove 124 20 ha Plantation KSFMBCP 12 Mastikatta Ankola Kawalalli Block:XXIV-40 25 ha (JBIC-II) KSFMBCP 13 Karwar Kinnar Kerwadi 92 & 10 25 ha (JBIC-II) KSFMBCP 14 Gopshitta Ghadsai Hankon 353 20 ha (JBIC-II) KSFMBCP 15 Gopshitta Ghadsai Hankon 353 P-II 25 ha (JBIC-II)

Observations of the evaluation team are given plantation-wise in table 10.4b below:

Table 10.4b: Summary of evaluation of individual plantations of Karwar (T) Division Plantati Whether Status Sl Range / Main Species Plantatio Spacing Micro Plnt Year Extent on maintain of No Village planted n type adopted plan journal model ed VFC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Written up 1 Kadra/ Virje 10 ha Cane Yes Pit 4X5m Yes Yes Yes to date Written up 2 Joida/ Nagari 20 ha Acacia Yes Pit 3X3m Yes Yes Yes to date Kindal, Matti, Written up 3 Joida/ Nagari 25 ha Yes Pit 3X3m Yes Yes Yes Bharangi, Neral to date Acacia, Honge, Ankola/ Honne Written up 4 Nellurkanchin 25 ha Yes Pit 2.5X2.5m Yes No No Tapasi, Cashew, to date balli 2007-08 Banni Ankola/ Written up 5 25 ha Acacia, Cashew Yes Pit 2.5X2.5m Yes Yes Yes Harwada to date Ramanguli/ Cashew, Halasu, Written up 6 25 ha Yes Pit 5X5m Yes Yes Yes Halwalli Mavu, Wate, etc to date Matti, Nandi, Written 7 Kadra/ Virje 25 ha Yes Pit 2.5X2.5m Yes Yes Yes Kindal, up to date

140

Neraletc Mastikatta/ Matti, Nandi, 8 Written up Hebbul 25 ha Kindal, Yes Pit 7X7m Yes Yes Yes to date (Rajanguli) Neraletc Badam, Ankola/ Partially 9 0.75 ha Gulmavu, Yes Pit 2.5X2.5m No No No Ankola written Halasuetc Written up 10 Joida/ Diggi 20 ha Cane Yes Pit 4X4m Yes * * to date Written up 11 Karwar/ Kove 20 ha Acacia sp Yes Pit 2.5X2.5m Yes Yes Yes to date Mastikatta/ Neral, Kindal, Written up 12 25 ha Yes Pit 2.5X2.5m Yes Yes Yes Kawalalli Hole mattietc to date Acacia, Karwar / Antwala, Written up 13 25 ha Yes Pit 2.5X2.5m Yes Yes Yes Kerwadi Mango,Nandi, to date Neraletc Gopshitta/ Acacia, Honge, Written up 14 20 ha Yes Pit 2.5X2.5m Yes Yes Yes Hankon Murugalmisc to date Gopshitta/ Matti, Nandi, Written up 15 25 ha Yes Pit 3.5X3.5m Yes Yes Yes Hankon Kindal to date * Information was not available Qualitative aspects of the plantations are given in table 10.4c below: Table 10.4c: Qualitative aspects of individual plantations of Karwar (T) Division Estimated Extent Selection of Sl Selection Choice of Protection Survival total General Year Range/ Village (Ha/ plantation No of site Species aspects % survival condition Km) model

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 Kadra /Virje 10 ha Improper Proper Proper * 57.50 575 Average 2 Joida / Nagari 20 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 70.68 1413 Good 3 Joida/ Nagari 25 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 96 2400 Very Good Ankola/ 4 25 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 67.22 1681 Good Nellurkanchinballi 5 Ankola/ Harwada 25 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 36.47 912 Poor Ramanguli/ 6 25 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 41.25 1031 Average Halwalli Need VFC 7 Kadra /Virje 25 ha Proper Proper Proper 33.25 831 Poor attention Mastikatta/ 8 25 ha Proper Proper Proper Improper 83.54 2089 Very Good Hebbul (Rajanguli)

9 2007-08 Ankola/ Ankola 0.75 ha Proper Proper Proper Improper 13.33 10 Failure 10 Joida / Diggi 20 ha Proper Proper Proper Improper 38.75 775 Poor 11 Karwar/ Kove 20 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 35.63 713 Poor Mastikatta/ 12 25 ha Improper Improper Proper Improper 28.50 713 Poor Kawalalli Need VFC 13 Karwar / Kerwadi 25 ha Proper Proper Proper 90.50 2263 Very Good attention Need VFC 14 Gopshitta/ Hankon 20 ha Proper Proper Proper 40.28 806 Average attention Need VFC 15 Gopshitta/ Hankon 25 ha Proper Proper Proper 26.75 6695 Poor attention Weighted average of seedling survival = 52.78% * Information was not available

141

Survival of the 15 evaluated plantations varies from 13.33 to 96%. Out of these plantations, three were very good, two were good, three were average, six were poor and one was a failure which constitutes 20%, 13.33%, 20%, 40% and 6.66% respectively of the 319.75 ha plantation sampled. B. Public distribution of seedlings: Information was not available. C. Other works: Information was not available.

5. Sirsi (T) Division A. Performance of departmental plantations: During 2007-08, Sirsi (T) division raised 147 plantations over an area of 2870 ha. Out of which 15 plantations were evaluated over an area of 319 ha under six different schemes KSFMBC, TFC, DDF, GUA, FDA-NAP and Other Plantation. The sampling intensity was 11.11% by area and 10.2% by the number of works. List of plantations surveyed is given in table 10.5a below:

TABLE 10.5a: List of individual plantations selected for evaluation in Sirsi (T) Division Sl. Location/ Name of the Year Range Hobli Village Extent No. Sy No Scheme 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 Banavasi * Narur 227 25 ha 05-DDF 2 Siddapur * Siddapur town * 5 ha 10-GUA Byagadde 03- other 3 Sirsi * 38 32 ha Baggisar plantation 03- other 4 Hulekal * Kudragod 89 20 ha plantation 5 Janmane * Neggu 130 10 ha 20-TFC 6 Kyadgi * Illimane LXVIII-8 20 ha 20-TFC 7 Siddapur * Malavalli 70 32 ha FDA-NAP 8 Siddapur * Muttagi FS No. 51 20 ha KSFMBC-M-I 9 Kyadgi * Hulakurthi FS No. 54 20 ha KSFMBC-M-II 2007-08 Uppalekoppa FS No. 248 & 10 Sirsi * 25 ha KSFMBC-M-III somnhalli 12 11 Janmane * Heggarni FS No. 213 20 ha KSFMBC-M-III 12 Sirsi * Arehalla FS No. 26P IV 25 ha KSFMBC-M-IV FS No. 13 Banavasi * Kirwatti 30 ha KSFMBC-M-IV 71,72,73 FS No. 167, 14 Hulekal * Tepgi-Negar 20 ha KSFMBC-M-V 162 15 Janmane * Heggarni FS No. 67, 98 15 ha KSFMBC-M-V * Information was not available

142

Observations of the evaluation team are given plantation-wise in table 10.5b below:

Table 10.5b: Summary of evaluation of individual plantations for Sirsi (T) Division Whether Status Sl. Range/ Main Species Plantation Plantatio Spacing Micro Plnt. Year Extent maintain of No. Village planted model n type adopted plan journal ed VFC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 Banavasi, Narur 25 ha Acacia Yes Pit 2.5X 2.5m Yes * * Maintained Siddapur, Nelli, Bilwar, 2 5 ha Yes Pit * Yes * * Maintained Siddapur town Honne Sirsi, 3 ByagaddeBaggis 32 ha Acacia Yes Pit 0.5X 0.75m Yes * * Maintained ar Hulekal, 4 20 ha Acacia Yes Pit 2.5X 2.5m Yes * * Maintained Kudragod 5 Janmane, Neggu 10 ha Acacia Yes Pit 5X5m Yes * * Maintained

6 2007-08 Kyadgi, Illimane 20 ha Nerale Yes Pit 7.5X7.5m Yes * * Maintained Siddapur, 7 32 ha Acacia Yes Pit * Yes * * Maintained Malavalli Natural Siddapur, regeneration 8 20 ha Yes Pit * Yes * * Maintained Muttagi Thallis & natural seeds Kyadgi, 9 20 ha Mixed local sps Yes Pit 5X5m Yes * * Maintained Hulakurthi Sirsi, Honne, Tare, 10 UppalekoppaSo 25 ha Yes Pit 0.5x1m Yes * * Maintained Bobbi, Halasu mnhalli Janmane, Teak, mixed 4X4m 11 20 ha Yes Pit Yes * * Maintained Heggarni local sps 2.5X2.5m Sirsi, Acacia & 12 25 ha Yes Pit 0.5X0.75m Yes * * Maintained Arehalla mixed local sps Acacia, Banavasi, 13 30 ha Casurina & Yes Pit 2.5X2.5m Yes * * Maintained Kirwatti Misc. Hulekal, Local evergreen Not 14 20 ha Yes Pit * Yes * * Tepgi- negar sps maintained Janmane, Local evergreen 15 15 ha Yes Pit 4X4m Yes * * * Heggarni sps * Information was not available

Qualitative aspects of the plantations are given in table 10.5c below:

Table 10.5c: Qualitative aspects of individual plantations of Sirsi (T) Division Selection Selection of Sl. Range/ Choice of Protection Survival Estimated General Year Extent of Plantation No. Village Species aspects % total survival condition site model 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Banavsi, 1 25 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 60 1500 Average Narur Siddapur, 2 5 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 10 50 Failure

Siddapur town Sirsi, 2007-08 3 ByagaddeBag 32 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 80 2560 Good gisar

143

Repair to ACF Roads, Bridges 5 Thithimathi Ponnampet Thithimathi Quarters at and Building Good Thithimathi maintenance Repairs to KSRP 6 Makutta Napoklu Chelavara KSFMBC Good Shed Construction of 7 Mundrot Napoklu Naladi temporary foot Roads and Bridges Good bridges Construction of 8 Makutta Napoklu Matre temporary foot Roads and Bridges Good bridges Bridges and Repairs to FRH at 9 Makutta Virajpet Makutta Building Good Makutta maintenance Nature Excavation of EPT 10 Thithimathi Ponnampet Bhadragola Conservation wild at Chennagi Good life Section Excavation of EPT Nature 11 Thithimathi Ammathi Chennagi Good at Chennagi Section conservation Fencing at GTD 12 Thithimathi Ponnampet Thithimathi 01-Timber Good Thithimathi * Information was not available.

D. Madikeri (WL) Division

A. Performance of departmental plantations: During 2007-08 Madikeri (WL) Division raised two plantations over an area of 100 ha. Out of this, one plantation was evaluated over an area of 50 ha under the scheme CSS-IDWH. The sampling intensity was 50% by area

and 50% by the number of works. Details of plantations evaluated are given in table 11.4a.

Table 11.4a: Details of plantation selected for evaluation in Madikeri (WL) Division Sl. Location/ Name of the Year Range Hobli Village Extent No SyNo Scheme 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Pushpagiri 1 2007-08 Suntikoppa Kumbargadige 1/2 50ha CSS-IDWH Wildlife Range

Observations of the evaluation team are given plantation-wise in table 11.4b below:

Table 11.4b: Summary of observations on the selected plantation in Madikeri (WL) Division Plantat Spaci Main Model Status Sl. Range/ ion ng Mainte Micro Plnt. Year Extent Species of of No Village type adopt nance plan Journal planted Plnt VFC Trench ed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Pushpagiri Wildlife, Written 1 50ha Bamboo Yes Pit 5X5m Yes NA NA Kumbarga up to date 007-08 2 dige

155

Qualitative aspects of the plantation are given in table 11.4c below:

Table 11.4c: Qualitative aspects of the selected plantations in Madikeri (WL) Division Selection of Sl Range/ Selection of Choice of Protection Survival Estimated General Year Extent plantation No Village site Species aspects % total survival condition model 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Pushpagiri 1 Wildlife, 50ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 12.97 648.5 Failure Kumbargadige 2007-08

Weighted average of the seedling survival = 12.97%

The plantation of 50 ha was a total failure.

B. Public distribution of seedlings: Information was not available. C. Other works: Table 11.4d gives the details of 14 other works evaluated. Quality of

other works was found to be good.

Table 11.4d: List of other works evaluated in Madikeri (WL) Division Sl Name of the Year Range/ Hobli Village Name of the work No Scheme Remarks 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Construction of Makutta / 1 Makutta Storage shed at CSS-IDWH Good Virajpet Makutta Pushpagiri/ Creation of Water Project Elephant- 2 Kumbaragadige Good Suntikoppa Pond at Marigudi 139-Major Works Construction of CSS-IDWH- Talacauvery/ 3 Ayangeri Gully Checks Talacauvery Central- Good Bhagamandala CPT-53-800 cum 139-Major Works CSS-Project Makutta/ Creation of Water 4 Perumbadi Elephant-139-Major Good Virajpet Pond at Gallpare Works CSS-IDWH- Talacauvery/ Improvement of 5 Bhagamandala Talacauvery Central- Good Bhagamandala Water Tank 139-Major Works

CSS-IDWH- Srimangala/ Creation of Brahmgiri State- 6 Badagakeri Good Hudikeri Patrolling Path Central -139-Major 2007-08 Works Development of Srimangala/ Maintenance of 7 Birunani Protected Area-139- Good Hudikeri Trekking Path Major works CSS-IDWH- Makutta / Maintenance of Brahmgiri State- 8 Makutta Good Virajpet Road Central -139-Major Works CSS-IDWH- Pushpagiri/ Pushpagiri State- 9 Karnageri Creation of Cairns Good Suntikoppa Central -139-Major Works Srimangala/ Maintenance/ CSS-IDWH- 10 Birunani Good Hudikeri Improvement of Brahmgiri State-

156

Staff Quarters Central - 139-Major Works Construction of CSS-IDWH- Srimangala/ High level Brahmgiri State- 11 Teralu Good Hudikeri Causeway with Central - 139-Major Culvert pipe Works Construction of CSS-IDWH- Srimangala/ High level Brahmagiri State- 12 Makutta Good Virajpet Causeway with Central -139-Major Culvert pipe Works Repair/Maintenanc Talacauvery / Eco-Tourism-139- 13 Cherangala e of Talacauvery Good Bhagamandala Major Works Forest Rest House Construction of CSS-IDWH- DCF WL Division 14 Pushpagiri Suntikoppa Pushpagiri Center- Good MadikeriDept 139 Major Works Quarters

4. General observations on the works of Kodagu Circle

A. Plantations: High mortality was observed in 2007 plantation at Dubare of Madikeri Divison and 2007 plantation at Marigundi of Madikeri Wildlife Division. The reasons attributed are excessive root competition and damage caused by wild animals respectively. Selection of site in all but one plantation was proper (2007-08 plantation at Bettathur of Sampaje Range being the only exception). Choice of species: Choice of species was proper in nine cases (82%) and improper in two cases (18%). The evaluation team was of the opinion that Casuarina is not a suitable species in 2007 plantation at Bettathur in Madikeri division where as bamboo, Cassia fistula, neral and nandi were not suitable in Bhadragola plantation of Virajpet division.

Plantation journal: Record keeping needs to be improved. Plantation journals pertaining to five plantations were updated and those of the other five were partially written. Plantation journals pertaining to school forestry was not available.

VFC status: VFCs were formed in eight cases where the KSFMBC project was implemented

B. Distribution of seedlings: The forest department has contributed a lot in promoting agroforestry in the region. Silver oak is the most sought after species particularly by the coffee planters. It accounts for 92% of the seedlings that were distributed. The remaining 8% comprised of native species like mahogany, neral and hebbalasu. Some of the farmers have requested for the supply of balanji (Acrocarpus fraxinifolius) seedlings. Out of the fourteen plots that were visited, block planting was done in twelve plots and bund planting

157

in two plots. Generally the aftercare is good with an average survival of 88.45%. Highest survival percentage is 96 and lowest is 65.

C. Other works evaluated: As per the annual expenditure on other works, SMC works accounted for about 46% of the budget allocation, followed by EPT (25%). The remaining 29% accounted for building maintenance, fire lines, construction of building, road formation and maintenance, fencing, thinning, culverts and causeways, anti poaching camps etc. As per the information provided by the respective DCFs in the form-G, 273 other works were executed. It includes soil and moisture conservation, excavation of elephant proof trenches, maintenance of roads, fire lines, view lines and buildings etc. Soil and moisture conservation works accounted for 35% (96 nos) followed by fire line 21% (58 nos), building maintenance 14% (37nos) and EPT 12% (33nos).

Soil and moisture conservation: Ninety six works were executed. Thirteen works were taken up for evaluation. Works found to be of good quality. They were executed as per the sanctioned estimates on appropriate sites. However, recording of measurements in the MB needs to be a bit more exhaustive. In certain cases (eg: gully plugs at Naladi) measurements are recorded collectively instead of measuring individual structures.

Elephant proof trenches: Elephant proof trenches were excavated to mitigate man elephant conflict that is widely prevalent in the region causing much public ire. Thirty three works were executed of which four works were evaluated. All works are as per the sanctioned estimates and the quality of work in general is good. However, over the years trenches are overgrown with weeds and may prove ineffective if not maintained.

Repair and maintenance of departmental buildings: Thirty seven works were taken up during the year. Four works were evaluated. The works were of petty nature like removing and resetting of tiles, repairs to roof, wood work and annual maintenance. The works are need based and the quality of repair is generally good.

Buildings: About 11.000 lakhs was provided for the construction of buildings. Five works were taken up. Two works were evaluated. Quality of material used and quality of construction in both the cases is good.

Thinning: One teak plantation raised in 1949 at Kajoor in Madapura section of Somavarapet range was taken up for thinning. It yielded 695 logs measuring 77.113 cum. The work was executed is as per the sanctioned estimate.

158

Fire lines: More attention is to be given to protect the valuable forests from frequent forest fire especially in the drier forests of Virajpet division: 11.000 lakhs was allocated for fire line clearing and fire tracing works. Fifty eight works were taken up. Six works were evaluated. The fire lines are being maintained subsequently.

Construction of culverts, causeways/foot bridges: Temporary foot bridges using locally available material (bamboo/reeds, wooden rafters etc) were constructed across many streams that meander in the forests of Mundrot and Makutta ranges. The bridges facilitate the movement of field staff from one block to another. Four such works were taken up. All the four works were evaluated. Generally the quality of works is good. However, these bridges are of temporary nature and may last a season or two at most.

The execution of works like view line clearance, road formation and maintenance, clearance of demarcation lines etc., are need based and are as per sanctioned estimates. The quality work is generally good.

-o0o-

159

11. KODAGU CIRCLE

Circle summary

Kodagu Circle consists of four divisions namely (1) Madikeri (SF) Division (2) Madikeri (T) Division (3) Virajpet (T) Division and (4) Madikeri (WL) Division. During 2007-08, Kodagu Circle raised 33 plantations over an area of 786 ha. Out of this, the evaluation committee selected 11 plantations over an area of 313 ha under three schemes for evaluation. The sampling intensity was 39.82% by area and 33.33% by the number of works except Madikeri (T) Division. The weighted average of survival percentage of the territorial divisions is 59.04; social forestry division is 92 and wildlife division is 12.97. Division-wise details are given below:

1. Madikeri (SF) Division

A. Performance of departmental plantations: During 2007-08, Madikeri (SF) Division raised 12 plantations over an area of 16 ha. Out of this one plantation was evaluated over an area of 3 ha under the scheme KSFMBC for evaluation. The sampling intensity was 18.75% by area and 8.33% by the number of works. Details of plantations surveyed is

given in table 11.1a below:

Table11.1a:Plantation selected for evaluation in Madikeri (SF) Division Sl. Location/ Name of the Year Range Hobli Village Extent No SyNo Scheme 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2007-08 Madikeri Madikeri Bettathur * 3ha KSFMBC-06 * Information was not available.

Observations of the evaluation team are given in table 11.1b below:

Table 11.1b: Summary of evaluation of individual plantation in Madikeri (SF) Division Main Model Plantation Status Sl. Range/ Spacing Whether Micro Plnt Year Extent Species of type of No Village adopted maintained plan journal planted Plnt Trench VFC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Mahogany, Madikeri, 1 2007-08 3ha Nelli, Silver Yes Pit 7X7m Yes * * * Gaalibeedu oak, Honge * Information was not available.

149

Qualitative aspects of the plantations are given in table 11.1c below:

Table 11.1c: Qualitative aspects of individual plantation of Madikeri (SF) Division Extent Selection of Sl. Selection of Choice of Protection Survival Estimated General Year Range (Ha/ plantation No site Species aspects % total survival condition Km) model 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Madikeri, 1 2007-08 3ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 92 276 Very Good Gaalibeedu Weighted average of seedling survival = 92%

The plantation is maintained in good condition. B. Public distribution of seedlings: Information was not available. C. Other works: Information was not available.

2. Madikeri (T) Division

A. Performance of Departmental plantations: Information on the total number of plantations raised in Madikeri (T) Division was not available. However, 6 plantations over an area of 160 ha raised under the scheme KSFMBC scheme in 2007-08 were evaluated. List of plantations surveyed is given in table 11.2a below:

Table 11.2a: List of plantations selected for evaluation in Madikeri (T) Division Sl. Location Name of the Year Range Hobli Village Extent No /SyNo Scheme 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 Kushalnagar Kushalnagar Dubare Nil 50 ha KSFMBC-01 2 Somawarpet Somawarpet VFC Yadavare * 25 ha KSFMBC-03 3 Shanivarasanthe * Badubanahalli 50/1 10 ha KSFMBC-05 4 Madikeri Madikeri Katakeri 3/2 25 ha KSFMBC-02 5 2007-08 Madikeri Bhagamandala Kopatti 2/6 25 ha KSFMBC 6 Sampaje Madikeri Bettathur * 25ha KSFMBC-06 * Information was not available.

Observations of the evaluation team are given plantation-wise in table 11.2b below:

Table 11.2b: Summary of evaluation of individual plantations in Madikeri (T) Division Plantati Plantatio Whether Status Sl Main Species Spacing Micro Plnt Year Range/ Village Extent on n type maintain of No planted adopted plan journal model Trench ed VFC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Bamboo, Kushalnagar, Pit + Partially 1 50ha Honne, Yes * Yes Yes Yes Dubare Trench written Nandi, Matti Somwarapet, Antwala, Pit + Partially 2 25ha Yes 3.28X3.28m Yes Yes Yes VFC Yadavare Thare, etc Trench written

2007-08 Shanivar Nerale, 10ha Written up 3 santhe, Honge, Big Yes Pit 9X9m Yes Yes Yes to date Badubanahalli bamboo

150

Garcinia, Madikeri, 25ha Written up 4 Halasu, Yes Pit * Yes Yes Yes Katakeri to date Hebbalsuetc Bhaga mandala, 25ha Pit + Written up 5 Cane Yes 5X5m Yes No No Kopatti Trench to date Gaali, Sampaje, Panapuli, Written up 6 25ha Yes Pit 2.5X2.5m Yes Yes Yes Bettathur Mahogany, to date kulurmavu * Information was not available.

Qualitative aspects of the plantations are given in table 11.2c below:

Table 11.2c: Qualitative aspects of individual plantations in Madikeri (T) Division Selection of Sl Selection Choice of Protection Survival Estimated General Year Range/ Village Extent plantation No of site Species aspects % total survival condition model 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Kushalnagar, 1 50 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 20 1000 Failure Dubare Somwarapet, 2 25 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 50 1250 Average VFC Yadavare Shanivarsanthe, 10 ha 3 Proper Proper Proper Proper 85 850 Very Good Badubanahalli Madikeri, 25 ha

4 2007-08 Proper Proper Proper Proper 72.5 1813 Good Katakeri Bhaga mandala, 25 ha 5 Proper Proper Proper Proper 60 1500 Average Kopatti Sampaje, 6 25 ha Improper Proper Improper Proper 33.1 828 Poor Bettathur Weighted average of seedling survival = 52.46%

Survival percentage of the six evaluated plantations varies from 20 to 85%. Out of these plantations one was very good, one was good, two were average, one was poor and one was a failure which constitutes 16.66%, 16.66%, 33.33%, 16.66% and 16.66% respectively of the total evaluated plantation area of 160 ha. B. Public distribution of seedlings: The team randomly evaluated 7,490 seedlings distributed to 11 farmers. Survival was found to be very good in nine cases and good in two cases. Table 11.2d gives the details:

151

Table 11.2d: Public distribution of seedlings evaluated in Madikeri (T) Division No. of Sl. Range/ Name of the Species Survival General Year Hobli Village seedlings No Taluk Farmer Planted % condition Planted 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 Madikeri Kasaba Galibeedu Thimmaiaha 250 Silver oak 65 Good Silver oak, 2 Madikeri Kasaba Makkandur C.P Pramod 1000 90 Very Good Mahagony 3 Madikeri Kasaba Katakeri Harish H.B 700 Silver oak, 93 Very Good Koru Silver oak, 4 Madikeri Suntikoppa K.D Ponnappa 440 90 Very Good (Boyekeri) Mahagony, 5 Madikeri Kasaba Karnangeri Pradeep 300 Silver oak 90 Very Good Silver oak, Mahagony, 6 Madikeri Madikeri Mekeri RathnakarRai 1500 80 Good Neral, 2007-08 Hebbalasu 7 Madikeri Madikeri Biligere M.B Boppaiah 100 Silver oak 90 Very Good 8 Kushalnagar Kushalnagar Cheltalli K..A, Muttanna 800 Silver oak 95 Very Good 9 Kushalnagar Kushalnagar Valnoor Ponnappa 1000 Silver oak 95 Very Good Nanjaryapatta 10 Kushalnagar Kushalnagar Mohan 800 Silver oak 95 Very Good na Negalli- 11 Somawarpet Somawarpet C.R Chennappa 600 Silver oak 90 Very Good Karkulli Average survival = 88.45%

C. Other works: Table 11.2e gives the details of 13 other works evaluated. Out of these, six were good, six were satisfactory and in 1 case execution of silvicultural thinning has been delayed.

Table 11.2e: List of other works evaluated in Madikeri (T) Division Sl Name of the Year Range/ Hobli Village Name of the work Remarks No Scheme 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Cutting collection Execution of and transportation Timber-139-Major silviculture 1 Somawarpet Madapura of teak small works thinning has Timber been delayed Excavation of Deep KSFMBC-139- 2 Kushalnagar Dubare Satisfactory Trench at Dubare Major Works Excavation of Deep KSFMBC-139- 3 Kushalnagar Dubare Satisfactory Trench at Herur Major Works Madikeri, Soil and Moisture 4 Galibeedu KSFMBC Satisfactory Kasaba Construction Works

2007-08 Construction of KSFMBC-139- 5 Sampaje Sampaje boulder banks Good Major Works (Gully cheques) Timber 139- Major 6 Somawarpet Madikeri Soil Conservation Good Works Forest protection New fire line Regeneration & 7 Sampaje Sampaje Satisfactory Creation Cultural Operation- 139-Major works

152

Maintenance of Fire 8 Kushalnagar Dubare KSFMBC Good line Timber 139- Major 9 Somawarpet Madapura Fire line Good Works Creation of New 10 Madikeri Galibeedu Cultural Operation Good fire line Elephant proof Timber 139- Major Quality of the 11 Somawarpet Madapura trench works Works work is good Karnataka Elephant proof Sustainable Forest Quality of the 12 Shanivarsante Gangavara trench works Management & Bio work is good Diversity Karnataka Quality of the Kaisaravall Soil conservation Sustainable Forest 13 Shanivarsante work is i PF Trench Management & Bio satisfactory Diversity

3. Virajpet (T) Division

A. Performance of departmental plantations: During 2007-08, Virajpet (T) Division raised 19 plantations over an area of 670 ha. Out of this, 3 plantations were evaluated over an area of 100 ha under KSFMBC and 12th Finance Commission schemes. The sampling intensity was 14.92% by area and 15.79% by the number of works. List of plantations

surveyed is given in table 11.3a below:

Table 11.3a: List of plantations selected for evaluation in Virajpet (T) Division Sl. Location/ Name of the Year Range Hobli Village Extent No Sy No Scheme 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 Thithimathi Ponnampet Bhadragola * 25ha KSFMBC 2 Makutta * Thottipala 211/18 25ha KSFMBC 08

3 2007- Mundrotu Naladi Naladi 8 50ha 12th Finance * Information was not available.

Observations of the evaluation team are given plantation-wise in table 11.3b below:

Table 11.3b: Summary of evaluation of individual plantations in Virajpet (T) Division Extent Plantati Plantatio Whether Status Sl. Range/ Main Species Spacing Micro Plnt. Year (Ha/ on n type maintain of No Village planted adopted plan journal Km) model Trench ed VFC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Eucalyptus, Thithimathi, Partially 1 25 ha Bamboo, Yes Pit * Yes Yes No Bhadragola written Dindal etc.

Makutta, Mixed Partially 2 25 ha Yes Pit 7X7m Yes Yes No

2007-08 Thottipala evergreen sps written Mundrot, Mixed Partially 3 50 ha Yes Pit 7X7m Yes No No Naladi evergreen sps written * Information was not available.

153

Qualitative aspects of the plantations are given in table 11.3c below:

Table 11.3c: Qualitative aspects of individual plantations in Virajpet (T) Division Selection of Sl. Selection of Choice of Protection Survival Estimated General Year Range/ Village Extent plantation No site Species aspects % total survival condition model 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Thithimathi/ 1 25 ha Proper Proper Improper Proper 24.49 612.25 Poor Bhadragola Makutta/ 2 25 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 83 2075 Very Good Thottipala 2007-08 Mundrot/ 3 50 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 77.50 3875 Good Naladi Weighted average of seedling survival = 65.62%

Survival percentage of the three evaluated plantations varies from 24.49 to 83%. Out of these plantations, one is very good, one is good and one is poor which constitute 33.33% each of the total evaluated plantation area of 100ha.

B. Public distribution of seedlings: The team randomly evaluated 5346 seedlings distributed to three farmers as per table 11.3d. Survival was found to be very good:

Table 11.3d: Public distribution of seedlings evaluated in Virajpet (T) Division No. of Sl Range/ Name of the Species Survival General Year Village seedlings No Hobli Farmer Planted % condition Planted 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Virajpet / 1 Karada Thomas 4500 Silver oak 95 Very Good Napoklu Virajpet/ 2 Mayamudi C.C .Uttappa 486 Silver oak 96 Very Good Ponnampet 2007-08 Virajpet/ 3 Mayamudi C.M. Appayya 360 Silver oak 92 Very Good Ponnampet Average survival = 94.33%

C. Other works: Table 11.3e gives the details of 12 other works evaluated. Quality of other works was found to be good.

Table 11.3e: List of other works evaluated in Virajpet (T) Division Sl Name of the Year Range Hobli Village Name of the work No Scheme Remarks 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 Mundrot Napoklu Naladi Gully Plugs TFC Good Excavation of 2 Thithimathi Ammathi Chennenakote Percolation Tanks at KSFMBC-SCP Good Chennanakote Excavation of 3 Thithimathi Ammathi Chennenakote Percolation Tanks at KSFMBC-SCP Good 2007-08 Chennanakote Repair to RFO Roads, Bridges 4 Thithimathi Thithimathi Thithimathi Quarters at and Building Good Thithimathi maintenance

154

Repair to ACF Roads, Bridges 5 Thithimathi Ponnampet Thithimathi Quarters at and Building Good Thithimathi maintenance Repairs to KSRP 6 Makutta Napoklu Chelavara KSFMBC Good Shed Construction of 7 Mundrot Napoklu Naladi temporary foot Roads and Bridges Good bridges Construction of 8 Makutta Napoklu Matre temporary foot Roads and Bridges Good bridges Bridges and Repairs to FRH at 9 Makutta Virajpet Makutta Building Good Makutta maintenance Nature Excavation of EPT 10 Thithimathi Ponnampet Bhadragola Conservation wild at Chennagi Good life Section Excavation of EPT Nature 11 Thithimathi Ammathi Chennagi Good at Chennagi Section conservation Fencing at GTD 12 Thithimathi Ponnampet Thithimathi 01-Timber Good Thithimathi * Information was not available.

D. Madikeri (WL) Division

A. Performance of departmental plantations: During 2007-08 Madikeri (WL) Division raised two plantations over an area of 100 ha. Out of this, one plantation was evaluated over an area of 50 ha under the scheme CSS-IDWH. The sampling intensity was 50% by area

and 50% by the number of works. Details of plantations evaluated are given in table 11.4a.

Table 11.4a: Details of plantation selected for evaluation in Madikeri (WL) Division Sl. Location/ Name of the Year Range Hobli Village Extent No SyNo Scheme 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Pushpagiri 1 2007-08 Suntikoppa Kumbargadige 1/2 50ha CSS-IDWH Wildlife Range

Observations of the evaluation team are given plantation-wise in table 11.4b below:

Table 11.4b: Summary of observations on the selected plantation in Madikeri (WL) Division Plantat Spaci Main Model Status Sl. Range/ ion ng Mainte Micro Plnt. Year Extent Species of of No Village type adopt nance plan Journal planted Plnt VFC Trench ed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Pushpagiri Wildlife, Written 1 50ha Bamboo Yes Pit 5X5m Yes NA NA Kumbarga up to date 007-08 2 dige

155

Qualitative aspects of the plantation are given in table 11.4c below:

Table 11.4c: Qualitative aspects of the selected plantations in Madikeri (WL) Division Selection of Sl Range/ Selection of Choice of Protection Survival Estimated General Year Extent plantation No Village site Species aspects % total survival condition model 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Pushpagiri 1 Wildlife, 50ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 12.97 648.5 Failure Kumbargadige 2007-08

Weighted average of the seedling survival = 12.97%

The plantation of 50 ha was a total failure.

B. Public distribution of seedlings: Information was not available. C. Other works: Table 11.4d gives the details of 14 other works evaluated. Quality of

other works was found to be good.

Table 11.4d: List of other works evaluated in Madikeri (WL) Division Sl Name of the Year Range/ Hobli Village Name of the work No Scheme Remarks 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Construction of Makutta / 1 Makutta Storage shed at CSS-IDWH Good Virajpet Makutta Pushpagiri/ Creation of Water Project Elephant- 2 Kumbaragadige Good Suntikoppa Pond at Marigudi 139-Major Works Construction of CSS-IDWH- Talacauvery/ 3 Ayangeri Gully Checks Talacauvery Central- Good Bhagamandala CPT-53-800 cum 139-Major Works CSS-Project Makutta/ Creation of Water 4 Perumbadi Elephant-139-Major Good Virajpet Pond at Gallpare Works CSS-IDWH- Talacauvery/ Improvement of 5 Bhagamandala Talacauvery Central- Good Bhagamandala Water Tank 139-Major Works

CSS-IDWH- Srimangala/ Creation of Brahmgiri State- 6 Badagakeri Good Hudikeri Patrolling Path Central -139-Major 2007-08 Works Development of Srimangala/ Maintenance of 7 Birunani Protected Area-139- Good Hudikeri Trekking Path Major works CSS-IDWH- Makutta / Maintenance of Brahmgiri State- 8 Makutta Good Virajpet Road Central -139-Major Works CSS-IDWH- Pushpagiri/ Pushpagiri State- 9 Karnageri Creation of Cairns Good Suntikoppa Central -139-Major Works Srimangala/ Maintenance/ CSS-IDWH- 10 Birunani Good Hudikeri Improvement of Brahmgiri State-

156

Staff Quarters Central - 139-Major Works Construction of CSS-IDWH- Srimangala/ High level Brahmgiri State- 11 Teralu Good Hudikeri Causeway with Central - 139-Major Culvert pipe Works Construction of CSS-IDWH- Srimangala/ High level Brahmagiri State- 12 Makutta Good Virajpet Causeway with Central -139-Major Culvert pipe Works Repair/Maintenanc Talacauvery / Eco-Tourism-139- 13 Cherangala e of Talacauvery Good Bhagamandala Major Works Forest Rest House Construction of CSS-IDWH- DCF WL Division 14 Pushpagiri Suntikoppa Pushpagiri Center- Good MadikeriDept 139 Major Works Quarters

4. General observations on the works of Kodagu Circle

A. Plantations: High mortality was observed in 2007 plantation at Dubare of Madikeri Divison and 2007 plantation at Marigundi of Madikeri Wildlife Division. The reasons attributed are excessive root competition and damage caused by wild animals respectively. Selection of site in all but one plantation was proper (2007-08 plantation at Bettathur of Sampaje Range being the only exception). Choice of species: Choice of species was proper in nine cases (82%) and improper in two cases (18%). The evaluation team was of the opinion that Casuarina is not a suitable species in 2007 plantation at Bettathur in Madikeri division where as bamboo, Cassia fistula, neral and nandi were not suitable in Bhadragola plantation of Virajpet division.

Plantation journal: Record keeping needs to be improved. Plantation journals pertaining to five plantations were updated and those of the other five were partially written. Plantation journals pertaining to school forestry was not available.

VFC status: VFCs were formed in eight cases where the KSFMBC project was implemented

B. Distribution of seedlings: The forest department has contributed a lot in promoting agroforestry in the region. Silver oak is the most sought after species particularly by the coffee planters. It accounts for 92% of the seedlings that were distributed. The remaining 8% comprised of native species like mahogany, neral and hebbalasu. Some of the farmers have requested for the supply of balanji (Acrocarpus fraxinifolius) seedlings. Out of the fourteen plots that were visited, block planting was done in twelve plots and bund planting

157

in two plots. Generally the aftercare is good with an average survival of 88.45%. Highest survival percentage is 96 and lowest is 65.

C. Other works evaluated: As per the annual expenditure on other works, SMC works accounted for about 46% of the budget allocation, followed by EPT (25%). The remaining 29% accounted for building maintenance, fire lines, construction of building, road formation and maintenance, fencing, thinning, culverts and causeways, anti poaching camps etc. As per the information provided by the respective DCFs in the form-G, 273 other works were executed. It includes soil and moisture conservation, excavation of elephant proof trenches, maintenance of roads, fire lines, view lines and buildings etc. Soil and moisture conservation works accounted for 35% (96 nos) followed by fire line 21% (58 nos), building maintenance 14% (37nos) and EPT 12% (33nos).

Soil and moisture conservation: Ninety six works were executed. Thirteen works were taken up for evaluation. Works found to be of good quality. They were executed as per the sanctioned estimates on appropriate sites. However, recording of measurements in the MB needs to be a bit more exhaustive. In certain cases (eg: gully plugs at Naladi) measurements are recorded collectively instead of measuring individual structures.

Elephant proof trenches: Elephant proof trenches were excavated to mitigate man elephant conflict that is widely prevalent in the region causing much public ire. Thirty three works were executed of which four works were evaluated. All works are as per the sanctioned estimates and the quality of work in general is good. However, over the years trenches are overgrown with weeds and may prove ineffective if not maintained.

Repair and maintenance of departmental buildings: Thirty seven works were taken up during the year. Four works were evaluated. The works were of petty nature like removing and resetting of tiles, repairs to roof, wood work and annual maintenance. The works are need based and the quality of repair is generally good.

Buildings: About 11.000 lakhs was provided for the construction of buildings. Five works were taken up. Two works were evaluated. Quality of material used and quality of construction in both the cases is good.

Thinning: One teak plantation raised in 1949 at Kajoor in Madapura section of Somavarapet range was taken up for thinning. It yielded 695 logs measuring 77.113 cum. The work was executed is as per the sanctioned estimate.

158

Fire lines: More attention is to be given to protect the valuable forests from frequent forest fire especially in the drier forests of Virajpet division: 11.000 lakhs was allocated for fire line clearing and fire tracing works. Fifty eight works were taken up. Six works were evaluated. The fire lines are being maintained subsequently.

Construction of culverts, causeways/foot bridges: Temporary foot bridges using locally available material (bamboo/reeds, wooden rafters etc) were constructed across many streams that meander in the forests of Mundrot and Makutta ranges. The bridges facilitate the movement of field staff from one block to another. Four such works were taken up. All the four works were evaluated. Generally the quality of works is good. However, these bridges are of temporary nature and may last a season or two at most.

The execution of works like view line clearance, road formation and maintenance, clearance of demarcation lines etc., are need based and are as per sanctioned estimates. The quality work is generally good.

-o0o-

159

12. MANGALORE CIRCLE

Circle summary

Mangalore Circle comprises of five divisions namely (1) Mangalore (SF) Division (2) Udupi (SF) Division (3) Mangalore (T) Division (4) Kundapura (T) Division and (5) Karkala (WL) Division. During 2007-08, Mangalore Circle raised 373 plantations over an area of 3299.62 ha. Out of this, the evaluation team selected 54 plantations over an area of 395.28 ha under 18 different schemes for evauation. The sampling intensity was 11.95% by area and 14.47 by the number of works. The weighted average survival of the territorial divisions was 71.23% and social forestry division were 74.31%. Wildlife works in Karkala Division was found to be good. There are no plantation works in this division. Division-wise details are given below:

1. Mangalore (SF) Division A. Performance of departmental plantations: During 2007-08 Mangalore (SF) division raised 144 plantations over an area of 391.82 ha. The evaluation committee selected 16 plantations over 47.62 ha raised under eight different schemes namely SGRY, Social forestry, 12th finance, KSFMBC, TSP, SCP and GP fund. The sampling intensity was 11.11% by the number of works and 12.15% by area. List of plantations surveyed is given in table 12.1a below:

Table 12.1a: List of plantations selected for evaluation in Mangalore (SF) Division Sl. Location/ Year Range Hobli Village Extent Name of the Scheme No Sy No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 Mangalore Hosabetta Beluvayi 26/1, 26/3 2 ha SGRY (ZP) 2 Mangalore Daregudda Daregudda 28/2 1ha SGRY (ZP) 3 Mangalore Shirthadi Shirthadi * 1ha SGRY (ZP) Puttige- 4 Mangalore * 576 3ha SGRY (TP) paradipal 5 Bantwala Vittla Alike * 2ha SGRY (ZP) 6 Bantwala Bantwala Uli R/s 4km Social forestry scheme 7 Subramanya Panja Kambar Kambar RF 8 ha 12th Finance 8 Belthangady Belthangady Kaliya 35/1 5ha SGRY(ZP) 9 Belthangady Kokkada Hathyadka 131, 186, 187 0.75ha KSFMBC 10 2007-08 Belthangady Belthangady Parenky Adkar164/1c2 1ha TSP 11 Belthangady * Shirlal * 1.37ha SCP 12 Belthangady Belthangady Vodiluala Panejalu 2.50ha G.P. fund(Kuvettu) Village Development 13 Puttur Kadaba Alankara 231/2 4.75ha Fund 14 Puttur Kadaba Alankara 231/2 1.75ha Social forestry 15 Sullia Sullia Balile 159 4.50 ha SGRY(ZP) 16 Puttur Kadaba Koila 233, 299/2 5ha SGRY(ZP) * Information was not available

160

Observations of the evaluation team are given plantation-wise in table 12.1b below:

Table 12.1b: Summary of evaluation findings of individual plantations in Mangalore (SF) Division Y Main Planta Whether Status Sl e Range/ Plantati Spac- Micro Plantation Extent species tion maintaine of No a Village on type ing Plan Journal planted model d VFC r 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Teak and Mangalore Written up to 1 2ha Grafted Yes Pit 2 X 2m Yes Yes Yes Beluvayi date cashew Teak and Mangalore, Written up to 2 1ha Grafted Yes Pit 2 X 2m Yes Yes Yes Daregudda date cashew Mangalore, Grafted Written up to 3 1ha Yes Pit 2 X 2m Yes Yes Yes Shirthadi cashew date Acacia & Written up to 4 Mangalore 3ha Casuarina Yes Pit 2 X2 m Yes No No date

Bantwala, Grafted Written up to 5 2ha Yes Pit 7X7m * No No Alike cashew date Mixed Bantwala, Written up to 6 4 km local Yes Pit 6 X6 m Yes No No Uli date species Subramanya 2.5X2. Written up to 7 8 ha Acacia Yes Pit Yes Yes Yes Kambar 5m date Belthangady 2.5X2. Written up to 8 5 ha Acacia Yes Pit No No No Kaliya 5m date Teak , Belthangady Written up to 9 2007-08 0.75ha Acacia & Yes Pit * Yes No No Hathyadka date cashew Belthangady Grafted Written up to 10 1ha Yes Pit 7 X 7m Yes No No Parenky cashew date Belthangady Grafted Written up to 11 1.37ha Yes Pit 7 X 7m Yes No No Shirlalu cashew date Belthangady 2.5X2. Written up to 12 2.50ha Acacia Yes Pit Yes No No Vodiluala 5m date Grafted Puttur, 2.5X2. 13 4.75ha cashew, * Pit * * * * Kadaba 5m Acacia Grafted Puttur, Pit & Written up to 14 1.75ha cashew, Yes 6 X 6m Yes No No Alankara Trench date Acacia Grafted Sullia, 15 4.50ha cashew Yes Pit * * * * * Balile Misc Puttur, 2.5X2. Written up to 16 5ha Acacia Yes Pit Yes Yes Yes Koila 5M date * Information was not available

161

Qualitative aspects of the plantations is given in table 12.1c below:

Table 12.1c: Qualitative aspects of individual plantations of Mangalore (SF) Division Extent Selection of Choice Estimate Sl Ye Range/ Selection Protectio Survival General (Ha/ plantation of d total No ar Village of site n aspects % condition Km ) model Species survival 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Mangalore, 1 2 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 95.80 192 Good Beluvayi Mangalore, 2 1 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 80.00 80 Good Daregudda Mangalore, 3 1 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 90.00 90 Good Shirthadi 4 Mangalore 3 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 88.40 177 Good Mangalore, 5 2 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 87.50 175 Good Alike Mangalore, 6 4 km Proper Proper Proper Proper 84.60 338 Good Uli Subramanya, 7 8 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 80.00 640 Good Kambar Belthangady, 8 5 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 92.50 463 Good Kaliya Belthangady, 9 0.75ha Proper Proper Proper Proper * * *

2007-08 Hathyadka Belthangady, 10 1.00ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 74.00 74 Good Parenky Belthangady, 11 1.37ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 52.72 72 Average Shirlal Belthangady, 12 2.50ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 66.25 165 Good Vodiluala Puttur, 13 4.75ha * * * * 86.60 411 Good Kadaba Puttur, 14 1.75ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 86.60 151 Good Alankara Sullia, 15 4.50ha * * * * * * * Balile Puttur, 16 5ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 81.40 407 Good Koila Weighted average of seedling survival = 72.15(%) * Information was not available

The overall seedling survival rate varies from 52.72 to 95.80%. Out of the 16 plantations evaluated, eight (50%) were very good, five (31.25%) were good and one (6.25%) was average. Under SGRY scheme, eight plantations were evaluated and percentage of survival varies from 80% to 95.80%. Acacia, grafted Cashew and Casuarinas have come up well. Under Social Forestry scheme two plantations were evaluated with mixed species having 84.6% and 86.6% survival. Under TSP one cashew plantation was evaluated with 74% survival. Under SCP one grafted cashew plantation was evaluated with 52.7% survival. Under GP fund one Acacia plantation was evaluated with 66.25 %

162

survival. Under Village Development Fund one Acacia plantation was evaluated with 86.6% survival. Under 12th Finance Scheme one plantation was evaluated with 80.00% survival. Acacia and grafted cashew are particularly doing well.

B. Public distribution of seedlings: The team randomly evaluated 9534 seedlings distributed to 30 farmers. Survival was found to be very good in seven case and good in 22 cases. Table 12.1d gives

the details:

Table-12.1d: Public distribution of seedlings evaluated in Mangalore (SF) Division No of Sl. Ye Name of the Survival Hobli Village seedlings Species planted Remarks No. ar farmer % distributed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Higher Primary 1 Bantwala Ammunge 290 Mixed local species 75 Good School Om Prakruti 2 Bantwala Ammunge 15 Mixed local species 90 Very Good Dhama Government 3 Bantwala Navoor 600 Mixed local species 75 Good Primary School Dharmastala 4 Bantwala Navoor Gramabhivruddi 1500 Mixed local species 80 Very Good 2007-08 Yojane New Mangalore Mangalore 5 Mangalore Port trust 500 Mixed local species 76 Good Town Mangalore 6 Mangalore Panambur BASF Mangalore 430 Mixed local species 79 Good 7 Sullia Bellare Shivaraya 803 Mixed local species 80 Good 8 Puttur Aryapu Dr.Sathish 434 Mixed local species 75 Good 9 Puttur Aryapu Shnbhakara.B 120 Mixed local species * * Ramachandra 10 Puttur Aryapu 155 Mixed local species 80 Good Borkar 11 Puttur Aryapu A.P.Rai 210 Sandal, Teak 70 Good Teak, Sandal Wood, 12 Puttur Kabaka Krishna Bhat 53 80. Good Casuarina K. Honnappa 13 Puttur Kabaka 20 Teak 90 Very Good Gowda 14 Kadaba Charvaka Suresh 277 Mixed local species 78 Good 15 Venoor Aladangady Naveen Kumar 104 Teak 90 Very Good 16 Venoor Aladangady Reshma.S 121 Mixed local species 76 Good 17 Venoor Aladangady Antony Lobo 350 Teak, Cashew 85 Very Good 2007-08 Govt P.U.College, 18 Venoor Aladangady 300 Teak 78 Good Aladangady Belthangad St. Antony 19 Charmady 171 Teak 80 Good y Church Belthangad 20 Maladi Shivappa 329 Mixed local species 75 Good y 21 Venoor Badakodi Yuvaraj 330 Mixed local species 76 Good Tenka 22 Venoor Leelavathi Shetty 39 Mixed local species 76 Good Karandoor Tenka 23 Venoor Kalyani 44 Mixed local species 75 Good Karandoor

163

Tenka 24 Venoor Devaraju 35 Mixed local species 80 Good Karandoor Tenka 25 Venoor Krishnappa 53 Mixed local species 80 Good Karandoor Tenka 26 Venoor Philomena 25 Mixed local species 80 Good Karandoor Tenka 27 Venoor Kamala 27 Mixed local species 90 Very Good Karandoor Tenka 28 Venoor Shashiya 37 Mixed local species 90 Very Good Karandoor Tenka 29 Venoor Sarojini 27 Mixed local species 80 Good Karandoor 2007-08 Panchalingesh Teak, Jatropa, 30 Bantawala Vitla 2135 85 Very Good wara Temple Mahagony Average survival % = 77.46 * Information is not available

C. Other works: Information was not available.

2. Udupi (SF) Division

A. Performance of departmental plantations: During 2007-08 Udupi (SF) Division raised 37 plantations over an area of 77.3 ha. The evaluation team selected eight plantations covering 27.91 ha under four schemes namely SGRY, JBIC, TSP, and WGDP. The sampling intensity was 21.62 by number of works and 36.11% by area. List of plantations evaluated is given in table 12.2a.

Table 12.2a: List of plantations selected for evaluation of Udupi (SF) Division Sl. Location/ Extent Name of the Year Range Hobli Village No Sy. No (Ha/km) Scheme 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 Udupi Kota Kota 214 1ha JBIC 2 Udupi Brahmavara Kunjal 130 4.5ha SGRY 3 Udupi Brahmavara Kukihalli 105 2 ha WGDP 4 Karkala Karkala Mundkur * 1 km SGRY 5 Karkala Karkala Miyyar 580/3 15 ha TSP 6 2007-08 Karkala Karkala Karkala * 2 ha JBIC 7 Karkala Karkala Marne 469/2 2 ha WGDP 8 Kundapoor Byndoor Siddapura 450, 386 0.405 ha JBIC * Information is not available

Table 12.2b summarises the findings of the evaluation committee:

Table 12.2b: Summary of evaluation of individual plantations of Udupi (SF)Division Plantat Status Sl Range/ Main species Plantati Spaci- Mainte Micro Plnt Year Extent ion of No Village planted on type ng nance Plan Journal model VFC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Udupi, Mixed local Written 1 1ha Yes Pit 6X6m Yes * *

-08 Kota species up to date 2007

164

Udupi, Mixed local 2.5X2. Written 2 4.5ha * Pit * * * Kunjal species 5m up to date Udupi, Mixed local 2.5X2. Written 3 2ha Yes Pit * * * Kukihalli species 5m up to date Karkala, Mixed local 2.5X2. 4 1km Yes Pit Yes NA NA Written Mundkur species 5m Karkala, Acacia, 2.5X2. 5 15ha Yes Pit Yes Yes Yes Written Miyyar Cashew 5m Karkala, Mixed local 10 X Written 6 1ha Yes Pit Yes Yes Yes Karkala species. 10m up to date Karkala, 2.5X2. Written 7 2ha Acacia Yes Pit Yes NA NA Ajekar 5m up to date Kundapur, 0.405 Mixed local 2.5X2. Written 8 Yes Pit * No No Siddapura ha species 5m up to date * Information is not available

Table 12.2c summarises the qualitative aspects of the plantations evaluated:

Table 12.2c: Qualitative aspects of individual plantations of Udupi (SF) Division Selection of Choice Estimate Sl Ye Range/ Selection Protectio Survival General Extent plantation of d total No ar Village of site n aspects % condition model Species survival 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Udupi, 1 1ha Proper Proper Proper * 100.00 100 Very Good Kota Udupi, 2 4.5ha * * * * 98.00 441 Very Good Kunjal Udupi, 3 2ha * * * * 83.00 166 Very Good Kukihalli Karkala, Poor 4 1km Proper Proper Proper Proper 22.50 23 Mundkur Karkala,

5 2007-08 15ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 70.00 1050 Good Miyyar Karkala, 6 2ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 90.50 181 Very Good Karkala Karkala, 7 2ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 61.88 124 Good Ajekar Kundapoor, 8 0.405ha * * * * 17.00 7 Failure Siddapura Weighted average of seedling survival = 74.92 % * Information was not available

Survival percentage varies from 17 to 100. Out of these plantations four (50%) were very good, two (25%) were good, one (12.5%) was poor and one (12.5%) was failure. Under WGDP scheme two plantations were evaluated and percentage of survival percentage was found to be 61.88 and 83 respectively. Under SGRY scheme two plantations were evaluated and survival percentage was 22.5 and 98 respectively. Lack of protection and biotic interference may be a reason for poor (22.5%) survival in the roadside plantations. Acacia plantations have 98.5% survival. Under JBIC scheme three plantations were evaluated and survival percentage varies from 17 to 100. Due to

165

effective protection and care by the school authority, 100% school forestry was successful. Under TSP, one Acacia and cashew mixed plantation was found to have a survival of 70%.

B. Public distribution of seedlings: Only one farmer was surveyed and seedlings performance was evaluated. Table 12.2d summarises the results:

Table 12.2d: Public distribution of seedlings evaluated in Udupi (SF)Division No. of Main SL. Range/ Name of the Survival General Year Village seedlings species No Taluk Farmer percentage condition Planted planted 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 Acacia, 1 2007-08 Karkala Miyyar Raju naik 800 90.00 Very Good Cashew

C. Other works: Information was not available.

3. Kundapura (T) Division

A. Performance of departmental plantations: During 2007-08, Kundapura Division raised 85 plantations over an area of 1612.5 ha of which 12 plantations covering 163.50 ha were selected for evaluation under seven schemes namely KSFMBC, GUA, 12th Finance, Compensatory Afforestation, CSS, SFDF and Other plantations. Sampling intensity was 14.12% by works and 10.14% by area. List of plantations evaluated is given in table 12.3a.

Table 12.3a: List of plantations selected for evaluation in Kundapura (T) Division Sl. Location/ Year Range Hobli Village Extent Name of the Scheme No Sy. No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 Kundapura Vandse Bellala 168 30 ha KSFMBC Model-2 2 Kundapura Vandse Aloor 101 10 ha SFDF-03-OP CSS Mangrove 3 Byndoor Byndoor Kergal 1 10 ha Model –7 KSFMBC 4 Byndoor Byndoor Yelijith 223 25 ha Model-5-NTFP Shankar 5 Bandse Ajri 159 20 ha KSFMBC Model-4 narayana Marpady 6 Moodbidre Moodbidre Nanjimale RF 5 ha GUA Pranthya 2007-08 Nanjimale RF 7 Venoor Venoor Andinje 20 ha KSFMBC Model-3 95/1 8 Venoor Venoor Kudyadi 49/1 10 ha 03- Other pln. MFP 9 Karkala Karkala Kasbha 341/1 10 ha 12th Finance 10 Karkala Ajekar Magne 305/1p2 10 ha KSFMBC Model-4 11 Hebri Ajekar Hebri 214 10 ha KSFMBC Model-2 80 Badaga Compensatory 12 Udupi Udupi * 3.5 ha bettu Afforestation * Information not made available by the evaluation team

166

Table 12.3b furnishes the observations of the evaluation team.

Table 2.3b: Summary of evaluation of individual plantations of Kundapur (T) Division Plantati Status Sl. Range/ Main species Plantation Whether Micro Plnt Year Extent on Spacing of No Village planted type maintained plan journal model VFC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Kundapura, Local evergreen 1 30 ha Yes Pit 3.5X 3.5m Yes Yes Yes Yes Bellala species Kundapura, Local evergreen 2 10 ha Yes Pit 5X5m Yes Yes Yes Yes Aloor species Byndoor, Rizophora 3 10 ha Yes Pit 1X1m Yes Yes Yes Yes Kergal mucronata Byndoor, Local evergreen 7X7m & 4 25 ha Yes Pit & Trench Yes Yes Yes Yes Yelijith species 2.2X 2.2 m Shankaranaray Local mixed 5 ana, 20 ha Yes Pit 2.5X 2.5m Yes Yes Yes Yes species Ajri

2007-08 Moodbidre, Local evergreen 6 Marpadyprant 5 ha Yes Pit 10X10m Yes NA NA Yes species haya Venoor, Local evergreen 7 20 ha No Pit 2X2m * * * * Andinje species Venoor, Local evergreen 8 10 ha Yes Pit 5X5m Yes * * Yes Kudyadi species Karkala, Local mixed 9 10 ha Yes Pit 2.5 X 2.5m Yes Yes Yes Yes Kasbha specie Karkala, Local evergreen 2.5X 2.5m 10 10 ha Yes Pit & Trench Yes * * * Marne spcies. & 7X7m Hebri, Local mixed 5X5m 11 10 ha Yes Pit & Trench Yes * * Yes Hebri specie. Udupi, 80 Local mixed 5X5m Written up 12 3.5 ha Yes Pit & Trench Yes Yes Yes Badagabettu specie to date * Information is not provided by the evaluation team

167

Table 12.3c gives the qualitative aspects of the plantations.

Table 12.3c: Qualitative aspects of individual plantations in Kundapura (T) Division Selection of Sl Range/ Selection of Choice of Protection Survival Estimated General Year Extent plantation No Village site Species aspects % total survival condition model 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Kundapura, 1 30 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 75.00 2250 Good Bellala Kundapura, 2 10 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 87.50 875 Very Good Aloor Byndoor, 3 10 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 70.00 700 Good Kergal Byndoor, 4 25 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 64.00 1600 Good Yelijith S narayana, 5 20 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 69.06 1381 Good Ajri Moodbidre, 6 Marpady 5 ha Proper Proper Proper * 17.60 88 Failure pranthaya

2007-08 Venoor, 7 20 ha * *8* * * 47.81 Average Andinje 956 Venoor 8 10 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 82.50 825 Very Good Kudyadi Karkala, 9 10 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 38.44 384 Average Kasbha Karkala, 10 10 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 73.44 734 Good Marne Hebri, 11 10 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 74.50 745 Good Hebri Udupi, 12 3.5 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 70.00 245 Good 80 Badagabettu weighted average of seedling survival in the plantation = 66% * Information was not available

Survival percentage of plantations visited varies from 17.6 to 87.5. Out of this, seven were good, two plantations were very good, two were good, two were average and one was failure, which constitutes to 58.3%, 16.66%, 16.66% and 8.3% respectively of the plantations in 163.50 ha of evaluated area. Under 12th Finance one plantation was evaluated and found to have 38.44% survival. Regeneration of sandal and Terminalia paniculata was quite encouraging due to the protection given to the plantations. Under KSFMBC six plantations were evaluated and percentage of success varies from 47.81% to 75%. Low survival in some plantations was due to heavy root competition with the existing vegetation and dense tree canopy cover. Under KFDF-OP two plantations were evaluated and survival was found to be 82.5% and 87.5% respectively. The plantations are in very good condition. However, in one plantation raised under the high tension electric line, saplings were chopped off by the KPTCL. Rhizophora is doing well in the Mangrove plantations.

168

Survival was close to 70%. Under Compensatory Plantation one plantation was evaluated and found to have 70% survival. Under GUA the survival rate is very low - only 17.6% probably due to lack of care and biotic interference. Only plants planted in school premises are doing well.

B. Public distribution of seedlings: The evaluation team did not get the necessary data from the division concern and therefore did not do the evaluation. The team visited only one plantation in Karkala Range and found 100% survival as indicated in table 12.3d.

Table 12.3d: Public distribution of seedlings evaluated in Kundapur (T) Division No. of Sl. Name of the Species Year Range Hobli Village seedlings Survival % No Farme r Planted Planted 2007- 1 Karkala Ajekar Hirgana Chitraprabhu 2000 Teak 100 08

C. Other works: The evaluation team visited 15 out of the 19 selected other works, particularly SMC works and found 12 works as good and 3 works as satisfactory. List of works inspected are given in table 12.3e.

Table 12.3e: List of other works evaluated in Kundapura (T) Division Sl. Name of the Year Range Hobli Village Scheme Remarks No work 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Building Building 1 Byndor Byndor Yadhre Good Maintenance Maintenance CCS-Integrated Creation of 2 Byndor Byndor Kalthadu Forest Good Fireline Protection 3 Byndor Byndor Heranjal Logging Work 01- Timber Good CCS-Integrated Creation of 4 Byndor Byndor Kalthadu Forest Good Fireline Protection 5 Byndor Byndor Navunda Logging Work 01 Timber * 6 Byndor Byndor Navunda Logging Work 01 Timber * 7 Byndor Byndor Vilijith SMC KSFMBC * 2007-08 CSS-Integrated Fireline 8 Byndor Byndor Kalthadu Forest * Maintenance Protection Building Building 9 Byndor Byndor Yadhre Good Maintenance Maintenance Shankaran Shankaranara 10 Ajri Gully checks KSFMBC Good arayana yana Roads, Bridges Shankaran Shankaranara Shankarnara Satis- 11 White Wash & Building arayana yana yana factory Maintenance

169

Extraction of Shankaran Shankaranara Dangerous trees 12 Siddapura 01- Timber Good arayana yana in siddapura Village Constructions 13 Venoor Belthangady Naravi Land & Timber Good of Store Repairs to SDA Building 14 Karkala Karkala Satisfactory Quarters Maintenance Repairs of water supply pipeline Building 15 Karkala Ajekar * Satisfactory to forest Maintenance quarters Repairs to Forest guard 16 Hebri Brahamawar Bairan pally Building Good quarters at Bairampally Formation of 17 Hebri Brahamawar Shirur staggered KSFMBC Good trenches Mundradi Building 18 Hebri Ajekar Mudradi Good Guard quarters maintenance YedthadyKa 11 Forest 19 Udupi * Fireline Good door Protection * Information is not available

4. Mangalore (T) Division

A. Performance of departmental Plantations: During 2007-08, Mangalore (T) Division raised 107 plantations over an area of 1218 ha of which 18 plantations covering 156.25 ha were selected for evaluation under five schemes namely KSFMBC, 12th Finance, Compensatory Afforestation, KFDF and Other plantation. The sampling intensity was

16.82% by works and 12.83% by area. List of plantations surveyed is given in table 12.4a.

Table 12.4a: List of plantations selected for evaluation in Mangalore (T) Division Sl. Location/ Year Range Hobli Village Extent Scheme No Sy No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Mangrove 1 Mangalore Surathkal Panambur Panambur Beach 2.75 ha Development Pgm Devasya- Devasyapadoor 2 Bantwal Bantwal 10 ha KSFMBCP Model-4 padoor (kuntalapalke) 50 Sangabettu 115/1, Mangrove 3 Bantwal Bantwal Sangabettu 5 ha 238/1e, 110/1 Development Pgm 4 Bantwal Vitla IRA IRA 177, 365/5 2 ha 12th Finance 5 Belthangady Kokkada Puduvettu 267 15 ha JBIC Asst KSFMBCP 2007-08 Machina& 6 Belthangady Belthangady 199 & 17 5 ha KFDF 03 Odilnala Compensatory 7 Belthangady Belthangady Nada 98/1 5 ha plantation Udane locality of JBIC 8 Uppinangady Uppinangady Shirady 15 ha Kadambila RF Model-3

170

Kolnadka of Nidle FDF 03 Other 9 Uppinangady Kokkada Nidle 5 ha 297 plantation 10 Puttur Sullia Jalsur Adkar 12.5 ha KSFMBC Model-4 Other Plantation 11 Puttur Sullia Jalsur Gontadka 5 ha Model-4 12 Puttur Uppinangady Bajathur Periyadka 5 ha 12th Finance 13 Panja Uppinangady Kunthuru * 5 ha DDF Model-2 JBIC Ass. KSFMBC 14 Panja Uppinangady Konalu * 20 ha Model-2 15 Sullia Sullia N.Kemraje Haidangare 336/1a1 15 ha JBIC Model 2 16 Sullia Sullia Sampaje Doddadka 134/1 4 ha 12th Finance Model – 4 17 Subrahmanya Panja Anekidu 120 20 ha JBIC Model-2 18 Subrahmanya Panja Kombaru 48/1 5 ha JBIC Model-3

Table 12.4b gives the quantitative evaluation findings about the plantations:

Table 12.4b: Summary of evaluation of individual plantations of Mangalore (T) Division Status Sl Range/ Main species Model Pit/ Spaci- Mainte Micro Plnt Year Extent of No Village planted of pltn. Trench ng nance Plan Journal VFC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Mangalore, Written up 1 2.75 ha Casurina Yes Pit 2X2m Yes No No Panambur to date Bantwal, Mixed local 2.5X Written up 10 ha Yes Pit Yes Yes Yes 2 Devasyapadoor species 2.5m to date Bantwal, 2.5X No Written up 3 5 ha Acacia Yes Pit Yes No Sangabettu 2.5m to date Bantwal, Mixed local 2.5X No Written up 4 2 ha Yes Pit Yes No IRA species 2.5m to date Belthangady, Evergreen Written up 5 15 ha Yes Pit 7X7m Yes No No Puduvettu species to date Belthangady, 2.5X Written up 6 Machina& 5 ha Acacia Yes Pit Yes No No 2.5m to date Odilnala Belthangady, 2.5X No Written up 7 5 ha Acacia Yes Pit Yes No Nada 2.5m to date Cane & Uppinangady, Written up 8 15 ha Mixed local Yes Pit * Yes Yes Yes Shirady to date species Uppinangady, 2.5X2.5 No 9 5 ha Acacia Yes Pit Yes No * Nidle m

2007-08 Puttur, Mixed local 2.5X2.5 Written up 10 12.5 ha Yes Pit Yes Yes Yes Jalsur species m to date Puttur, Mixed local 2.5X Written up 11 5 ha No Pit Yes Yes Yes Jalsur species 2.5m to date Puttur, Acacia& 2.5X2.5 No Written up 12 5 ha Yes Pit Yes No Bajathur Honne m to date Panja, Mixed local Pit & * 13 5 ha * 6X6m * * * Kunthuru species Trench Panja, Mixed local Pit & Written up 14 20 ha Yes 5X5m & Yes Yes Yes Konalu species Trench to date Sullia, Written up 15 15 ha Cane Yes Pit 5X5m Yes Yes Yes N.Kemraje to date Sullia, Mixed local 2.5X Written up 16 4 ha Yes Pit Yes Yes Yes Sampaje species 2.5m to date Subrahmanya, Mixed local Written up 17 20 ha Yes Pit 5X5m Yes Active Yes Ainekidu species to date Subrahmanya, Mixed local 3.5X Written up 18 5 ha Yes Pit * Active Yes Kombaru species 3.5m to date *Information was not available

171

Table 12.4c gives the qualitative observations of the evaluation team on the plantations.

Table12.4c: Qualitative aspects of individual plantations of Mangalore (T) Division Selection of Survival Sl Range/ Selection of Choice of Protection Survival General Year Extent plantation % X No Village site Species aspects % condition model Extent 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Mangalore, 1 2.75 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 57.20 157 Average Panambur Bantwal, 2 10 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 77.18 772 Good Devasyapadoor Bantwal, 3 5 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 100.00 500 Very Good Sangabettu Bantwal, 4 2 ha * Proper Proper Proper 74.37 149 Good IRA Belthangady, Very Good 5 15 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 96.72 1451 Puduvettu Belthangady, Very Good 6 Machina& 5 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 90.00 450 Odilnala Belthangady, 7 5 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 93.75 469 Very Good Nada Uppinangady, 8 15 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 84.16 1262 Very Good

Shirady Uppinangady, 9 5 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 95.60 478 Very Good

2007-08 Nidle Puttru, 10 12.5 ha * Proper Proper Proper 71.40 893 Good Jalsur Puttur, 11 5 ha Proper * Proper Proper 65.60 328 Good Jalsur Puttur, 12 5 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 81.20 406 Good Bajathur Panja, 13 5 ha Improper Proper Proper * 86.00 430 Very Good Kunthuru Panja, 14 20 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 65.00 1300 Good Konalu Sullia, 15 15 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 75.00 1125 Good N.Kemraje Sullia, 16 4 ha * * * * 7.50 30 Failure Sampaje Subrahmanay, 17 20 ha Improper Improper Proper Proper 75.00 1500 Good Ainekidu Subrahmanya, 18 5 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 52.00 260 Average Kombaru weighted average of survival percentage of these plantations = 76.54% * Information was not available

Survival percentage of 18 evaluated plantations varies from 7.50 to 100. Out of these plantations seven (38.88%) are very good, eight (44.44%) were good, two (11.11%) were average and one (5.55%) was a failure. Under KSFMBC / JBIC scheme eight plantations were evaluated and percentage of success varies from 65% to 96.72%. Under Mangrove Development Programme one plantation was evaluated and percentage of survival was

172

found to be 57.2. In case of Casuarina and Acacia plantation survival was close to 100%. Under 12th Finance three plantations were evaluated and survival rate varies from 7.5% to 81.2%. Low survivals are due to wrong selection of site, thick shade of the existing tree canopy and heavy root competition. Under KFDF (OP) three plantations were evaluated. Survival rate was of 65.6% in case of mixed plantation and 95.6% in case of Acacia plantation. Under Compensatory Plantation scheme one Acacia plantation was evaluated and found to have 93.75% survival. Under DDF scheme one gap plantation was evaluated with mixed species with 86% survival rate. By and large, Acacia and Casuarina plantations have come up well in Mangalore division. Other species doing well are Mahagony and Dhoopa.

B. Public distribution of seedlings: The team was expected to evaluate 10 farmer’s fields but they visited only four fields. Based on the information provided, the average survival was found to be 29%. Table 12.4d provides the details.

Table 12.4d: Public distribution of seedlings evaluated in Mangalore (T) Division No. of Sl. Main species Survival Year Range Hobli Village Name of the farmer seedlings No planted % Remarks planted 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mixed local 1 Sullia Panemangaluru Kurnadu M/s Infoysis Mudipu 1500 * species * Mavu, Badam, 2 * Mangalore (B) Kotekar Pushpanada Ullal 39 * Hebbalasu * 3 * Gurupura Kilinjaru Dr.K.Z.P.H.P .School 100 * * Shantaram Shetty Spathodia, 4 * Gurupura Kudupu 2047 * * Nursing School Mahagony

5 * Vitla Balthila B.Pathuma 25 Punerpuli * * 6 * Kokkada Neriya N.Raghava Hebbar 80 Mahagony * * 7 2007-08 Subrahmanya Ponja Guthigar Chinnappa Gowda 800 Teak 90.00 Very Good P.Vishwanatha Mango, Teak, 8 * Uppinangadi Bannur 228 65.00 Good Shetti Halasu Mango, Teak, 9 * Uppinangadi Padnur Gopalkrishna banari 1000 70.00 Good Halasu Mango, Teak, 10 * Vittal Punacha Xavior monthero 872 65.00 Good Halasu * Information is not available.

C. Other works: Table 12.4e gives the details of other works evaluated. The SMC works

have been carried out in proper location and the work quality is good with desired result.

173

Table 12.4e: Lists of other works evaluated in Mangalore (T) Division

Sl. Year Range Hobli Village Name of the work Scheme Remarks No

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Electrification to the 1 * Uppinangady * Ecotourism Good gundia rest house Repair & 2 Uppinangady Uppinangady Sisibagilu Maintenance of Ecotourism Good GundiaNisargadhama 3 * Puttur * Building Repairs Maintenance Good Road & 4 * Sullya Sullya Repair of ACF Qtrs. Good Bridges 5 * Sullya Sullya Repair of RFO Qtrs. Bandwalvecha Good Water percolation 6 * Uppinangady Shirady JBIC Good pits Building repair forest Building 7 Puttur Puttur Arlapadavu Good Qtrs. repairs

2007-08 Special repairs to Lands & 8 Mangalore Mangalore Attawara Good ACF, FMS chambers building Digging of water 9 Beltangady Beltangady Sanandoor KSFMBC Good harvesting structure Water harvesting 10 * Kokkada Niriya KSFMBC Good structure 11 Puttur Bellore Kodiyala SMC works KSFMBC Good 12 Puttur Puttur Panaje SMC works KSFMBC Good Extraction of trees from roadside pltn 13 Puttur Kokkada Kaliya 01 Timber Good from guruvayankere to gurukatte * Information is not available

5. Karkala (WL) Division: Only other wildlife works were evaluated as no plantations were done in the protected areas. Table 12.5 gives the details of works evaluated and the findings of the team. Works were found to be generally good.

Table 12.5: List of wildlife works evaluated in Karkala Wildlife Division Sl. Year Range Village Name of the work Scheme Remarks No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Maintenance of FG Quarters 1 Karkala Andar KNP Central Good Andar 1 No Maintenance of Forester quarters, Someshwara 2 Someshwara Hebri Good seethandi central Someshwara 3 Someshwara Kuchus Fire line clearance Good scheme const. of new tank of Siddeshwara

4 2007-08 Kollur Kollur MKB central Good bare of Meginavally RF Desilting of existing water tank in 5 Kollur Kollur MKB central Good saprakere of Meginavalley RF Formation of Birds butterfly 6 Kollur Kollur MKB central Good viewing trail of Madibare RF

174

Construction of laterite stone wall 7 Kollur Kollur MKB central Good at a anejari nature camp Idur Maintenance of patrolling path of 8 Kollur PAD Good Kunjadi Jannalane RF Const. of cairns D.line of 9 Kollur Kollur MKB Good Meginavalley RF Laterite masonary board & fixing Nature 10 Kollur Kollur Good stone in smritivana conservation Maintenance of patrolling path of 11 Kollur Jadkal PAD Good madibare RF Nature 12 Kollur Kollur Const. of Smritivana Good conservation -o0o-

175

13. MYSORE CIRCLE

Circle summary Mysore Circle consists of six divisions namely (1) Mandya (SF) Division (2) Mysore (SF) Division (3) Hunsur (T) Division (4) Mandya (T) Division (5) Mysore (T) Division and (6) Mysore Wildlife Division. During 2007-08, Mysore Circle raised136 plantations covering an area of 3739.5 ha out of which the evaluation committee selected 28 plantations covering an area of 515 ha under six schemes. The sampling intensity was 13.77% by area and 17.25 by the number of works. The weighted average of survival percentage of territorial division was 58.68 and social forestry division was 34.96. Division-wise details are presented below.

1. Mandya (SF) Division

A. Performance of departmental plantations: Out of the list of 34 plantations of 2007-08 spread over 160 ha (listed furnished by the DCF (SF), Mandya), eight plantations in 40 ha raised under KSFMBC and Social Forestry schemes across seven ranges were selected by the evaluation committee and evaluated. It amounts to 23.53% of sampling by the number of works and 25% by area. Details of plantations evaluated are given in the table 13.1a below.

Table 13.1a: List of plantations selected for evaluation of Mandya (SF) Division Sl. Location/ Year Range Hobli Village Extent Scheme No. Sy. No 1 Malavalli * Bachanahalli School 4ha KSFMBC-6 Edga Ground Social 2 Mandya * Ajadnagara 1ha Mandya Forestry Social 3 Pandavapura * Vaddarahalli 80 12ha Forestry 4 S.R. Patna * Arakere GHPS 2ha KSMBC 5 Nagamangala * Kottabetta Vasati School 1ha KSFMBC-6

2007-08 Bettadammana Social 6 Maddur * Beemakere 10ha gudda Forestry Social 7 Maddur * Besagarahalli College 1ha Forestry Social 8 K.R.Pet * Tagaduru 77 9ha Forestry * Information was not available

Observations of the evaluation team are given plantation-wise in table 13.1b below:

176

Table 13.1b: Summary of evaluation of individual plantations of Mandya (SF) Division Plantati Whether Sl. Range/ Plantation Spaci- Main species Status Micro Plnt Year Extent on maintain No Village type ng planted of VFC plan journal model ed Malavalli/ Mixed local Written up 1 4ha Yes Pit 5 X5m Yes 8 * Bachanahalli species to date Mandya/ Not 2 1ha No Pit 2 X 2m Teak, Silver Yes No No Ajadnagara Written Pandavapura/ Mixed local Partially 3 12ha Yes * * Yes NA NA Vaddarahalli species written S.R. Patna/ Teak, Silver, Not 4 2ha No Pit 2 X 2m Yes No No Arakere Sissoo Written Nagamangala/ 2.5 X Mixed local Not

5 2007-08 1ha Yes Pit Yes * NA Kottabetta 2.5m species Written Maddur/ Mixed local Written up 6 10ha Yes Trench 3X3m Yes NA NA Beemakere species to date Maddur/ 2.5 X Mixed local Not 7 1ha Yes Pit Yes NA NA Besagarahalli 2.5m species Written K.R.Pet/ 2.5 X Written up 8 9ha Yes Trench Honge Yes NA NA Tagaduru 2.5m to date * Information was not available

Qualitative aspects of the plantations are given in table 13.1c below:

Table 13.1c: Qualitative aspects of individual plantations of Mandya (SF) Division Selection of Choice Sl. Range/ Extent Selection Protection Survival General Year Plantation of Estimated No Village of site aspects % condition model Species total survival Malavalli/ 4ha 23.25 Poor 1 Proper Proper Proper Improper 93 Bachanahalli Mandya/ 1ha 29.75 Poor 2 Proper Proper Proper Proper 30 Ajadnagara Pandavapura / 12ha 95 Very Good 3 Proper Proper Proper Proper 1140 Vaddarahalli S.R. Patna/ 2ha 40 Poor 4 Proper Proper Proper Proper 80 Arakere Nagamangala/ 1ha Proper Improper 42 Average

5 2007-08 Proper Proper 42 Kottabetta Maddur/ 10ha 50 Average 6 Proper Proper Proper Improper 500 Beemakere Maddur/ 1ha 25 Poor 7 Proper Proper Proper Improper 25 Besagarahalli K.R.Pet/ 8 9ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 70 630 Good Tagaduru Weighted average seedling survival = 63.50%

Survival percentage of eight evaluated plantations varied from 23.25 to 95. Out of these plantations, one was very good, one was good, two were average and four were poor which constitutes to 12.5%, 12.5%, 25% and 50% respectively of the total evaluated plantations of 40 ha.Trench mound plantations showed better survival percentage. Among species, honge

177

performed well. The poor performance of the plantations is due to cattle grazing and poor soil quality.

B. Public distribution of seedlings: Out of the total list of farmers pertaining to seedlings distribution made available by the DCF (SF), Mandya, seedlings on 72 farmer’s fields spread over the district were evaluated. Teak, eucalyptus and silver oak were planted on both dry and irrigated land. Survival percentage varies from 0 to 100. Failures were due to lack of protection measures. General opinion of the farmers on RSPD scheme is favourable. They feel that forest department should provide the seedlings of their choice.

Table 13.1d: Public distribution of seedlings evaluated in Mandya (SF) Division Name of No. of Main Sl. Range/ Survival Year Hobli Village the seedlings species Remarks No. Taluk % farmer planted planted 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Gangalu, Chandregala, Overall performance Yaliyuru, Teak & 1 Mandya * * 4850 15 to 80 is good. Nilgiri is Manganahalli, Nilagiri doing better Tirumalapura, Hulivahana. Kuratti, Maramahalli, Teak, Overall performance Hulakere, Ellenahalli, * Nilagiri, is good. In 02 cases 2 Pandavapura Attiganahalli, * 8850 0 to 90 Silver oak, plants failed to Chikkade, Casuarina survive Bollenahalli. Srinivasa Agrahara, * T.M.Hosuru, Teak & 3 S.R.Patna * 2600 30 to 80 Good Belegola, Nilagiri Gobbaragala Gajanuru, Teak,

2007-08 Average. In two * Chottanahalli, Nilagiri, 4 Malavalli * 7550 7 to 50 cases there was a Muttanahalli, Nitturu, Silver oak, total failure Kurubanapura Casuarina Baydrahalli, Herubanahalli, Teak, * Mulakatte, 5 Nagamangala * 4400 Nilagiri, 10 to 100 Good Devaramadahalli, Silver oak. Yarakanaghatta, Thiruganahalli Kadamenasu, Nayakanahalli, Teak, * 6 K.R.Pet Nagaraghatta, * 4500 Nilagiri, 20 to 80 Good Bommanahalli, Slver oak. Murukanahalli

178

Naganadoddi, Basaganahalli, Taramanakatte, Marasinganahalli, K.Honnalagere, Karadakere, Teak, * Good, except in six 7 Maddur K.K.Halli, Kesturu, * 9550 Nilagiri, 0 to 80 cases Chikka Aukanahalli, Silver oak. Aukanathapura, Hemmanahalli, Gejjalagere, Sadalolu, Chinnasandra, Thoppananahalli * Information is not available

C. Other works: The evaluation team visited six randomly selected works out of the list of eight other works provided by the DCF (SF) Mandya. List mainly includes construction and

repairing of buildings. The works were found to be good.

Table 13.1.e: List of other works evaluated in Mandya (SF) Division Sl. Range/ Year Hobli Village Name of the work Scheme Remarks No Taluk 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Malavalli & Maintenance of 1 Malavalli * Buildings Good Simsha office buildings Seed Storage 2 Mandya * Basaralu Buildings (ZP) Good building Maintenance of 3 Pandavapura * Pandavapura Buildings (ZP) Good office buildings Seed storage 4 S.R. Patna * Karighatta Buildings (ZP) Good

2007-08 building Construction of 5 Nagamangala * Nagamangala office building Buildings (ZP) Good compound Seed storage 6 K.R.Pet * Hemagiri Buildings (ZP) Good building * Information is not provided by the evaluation team.

2. Mysore (SF) Division: A. Performance of departmental plantations: Out of the 10 of plantations over 88 ha, one plantation over 10 ha at Ilavala was evaluated by the team. It amounts to 10% by the number of works the 11.36% by area. Plantation details are given in table 13.2a below:

Table 13.2a: Details of plantation selected for evaluation in Mysore (SF) Division Sl. Location/ Year Range Hobli Village Area Scheme No. Sy. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Novadaya School, 1. 2007-08 Mysore SF Ilavala * 10 ha KSFMBC M-6 DMG hally * Information was not available Observations of the evaluation team are given plantation-wise in table 13.2b below:

179

Table 13.2b: Evaluation findings about the selected plantations of Mysore (SF) Division Plantat Main Status Sl. Range/ Plantation Spa- Whether Micro Plnt Year Area ion species of No Village model cing maintained plan journal type planted VFC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Mysore, Silver oak 2007- Novadaya Hippe, Partially 1 10 ha Yes Pit 10X10m Yes * * 08 School, DMG Nerale, written hally Acacia * Information was not available

Qualitative aspects of the plantation are given in table 13.2c below:

Table 13.2c: Qualitative aspects of selected plantation evaluated in Mysore (SF) Division Selection of Choice Sl. Range/ Selection Protection Survival Survival General Year Area Plantation of No Village of site aspects % % Extent condition model Species 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Mysore , 2007- Novadaya 1 10 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 78 780 Good 08 School, DMG hally

Performance of silver oak and acacia were found to be better. Some parts of the plantation were affected due to fire in 2010.

B. Public distribution of seedlings: Out of the seedlings distributed to 384 villages in seven taluks in the division, evaluation of 32 farmer’s fields spread over 32 villages was done. Survival % varied from 10 to 90. Teak, silver oak and nilagiri showed better result. Majority of the farmers planted under dry land conditions. Out of the farmers field visited 5 (14.71%) were very good, 8 (23.53%) were good, 8 (23.53%) were average, 8 (23.53%) were poor, 2 (5.88%) were failure. In one plantation seedlings were not planted. Reasons were not forthcoming. Details of the evaluation are given in table 13.2d.

Table 13.2d: Public distribution of seedlings evaluated in Mysore (SF) Division No. of Main Sl Range/ Name of the Survival General Year Village seedlings species No. Taluk Farmer % condition planted planted 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Chikkananjamma No records Teak 1 T. Narasipura kukkur ( Nagaraju S/o Late 80 Good available Silver oak Nanjaiah Chikkamadaiah 2 T. Narasipura Megadahalli 230 Teak 85 Very Good S/o Gopi V.T. Srinivasu No records Teak 3 2007-08 T. Narasipura Talakadu 85 Very Good S/o Venkatappa available Acacia 4 Nanjangud Hariharapura Mahadevaiah 1000 Teak 30 Poor 5 Nanjangud Kodinarsipura Ramesh S. 2000 Eucalyptus 75 Good

180

Eucalyptus 6 Nanjangud Saragur Chikkaranganaik 300 Casuarina 33 Poor Cherry 500 (one Eucalyptus, Linganna felling has acacia 7 Nanjangud Sinduvallipura (Sold to Reddy 80 * been carried Teak & Farm) out) others Teak 8 Nanjangud Sinduvallipura Kantaharaju 600 33 Poor Silveroak Teak 9 Mysore Beerihundi Marigowda K. * 90 Very Good Silveroak Teak Lakshmaiah 130 Teak 10 K.R. Nagara Basavarajpura Silveroak 30 Poor S/o Dasaiah 150 silver Turkebevu 11 K.R. Nagara Doddakoppalu Umesh Seedlings not planted Eucalyptus Silveroak Vijayakumar S/o 12 K.R. Nagara Hosalli 368 Tuekebevu 65 Good Ankegowda Sandal Teak Teak Jayamma D/o 13 K.R. Nagara Lalanahally 156 Cherry 15 Failure Ningaiah Bamboo Nilgiri M.N.Venkatesh S/o 14 K.R. Nagara Malepettlu 520 Silveroak 45 Average Annaiah Teak Teak Udayakumar Silveroak 15 Hunsur Ankatanahally 600 40 Poor S/o Kodgi Honge Nilgiri Teak Silveroak 16 Hunsur Bannikuppe Mahadevaswamy 350 Halsu 40 Poor Mavu Nilgiri Teak Silver 17 Hunsur Bilikere Siddegowda 500 22 Poor Hunse Bevu Teak 18 Hunsur Hanchy Sukandamani 1000 Silveroak 50 Average Eucalyptus Teak, Silveroak 19 Hunsur Mardu Joseph 1000 80 Good Hunse Bevu Teak Rudraiah 20 Hunsur Kirujaji 1000 Nilgiri 52 Average (K.C.Babu) Turkebevu Shankaregowda Nilgiri 21 Hunsur Ramanahally 100 10 Failure S/o Javaragowda Bevu Ravichandra S/o 22 H D Kote Alanahally 570 Teak 50 Average Basappa

2007-08 Teak 23 H D Kote Beemanahally R.P.Shivashakar 400 80 Good Acacia

181

Dasegowda S/o 24 H D Kote Chikkeruru 500 Teak 10 Failure Belligowda Shekarappa Teak, 25 H D Kote Devalapura 300 80 Good S/o Marappa Silveroak Hegganur Manchaiah 26 H D Kote 150 Teak 50 Average (Chennipura) S/o Seeraiah S.Krishna Teak 27 H D Kote K.Belthur 350 40 Average S/o Siddanaik Silveroak Parashivamurthy Teak 28 H D Kote Manuganahally 300 90 Very Good S/o Mallappa Silveroak 29 H D Kote Matakere H.S.Ravi 550 Teak 95 Very Good Teak M.P.Nagaraju s/o 30 H D Kote Mullur 500 Silveroak 80 Good Puttappa Acacia Cheluvanaiak 31 H D Kote Ramanahally 250 Teak 30 Poor S/o Cheluvanaiak 32 H D Kote Saragur Brahmadevaiah 300 Teak 50 Average 33 H D Kote Seermalli Kathrigowda 200 Teak 45 Average Teak, 34 H D Kote Tharanimunti * * Seeme * * Thangadi Average survival = 54.38% * Information was not available

C. Other works: Information was not available. 3. Hunsur (T) Division

A. Performance of departmental Plantations: Out of the 34 plantations spread over 1749 ha, seven plantations over 177 ha were evaluated and the details are given in table 13.3a below. These plantations were raised in three ranges viz., Hunsur, Periyapatna and K.R. Nagar. It amounts to 20.59% of sampling by the number of works and 10.12% by area.

Table 13.3a: List of plantations selected for evaluation in Hunsur (T) Division Sl. Location/ Year Range Hobli Village Extent Scheme No. Sy. No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Anechowkuru 1 Periyapatna * CPT-6 50ha KSFMBC RF 2 Hunsur Bilikere Dharmapura Dharmapura Beat 10ha KSFMBC 3 KR Nagar Hosaagrahara Matada kaval RF Matadakaval RF 50ha KSFMBC Hunsur BEAT KSFMBC- 4 Hunsur Hangodu Kalabetta RF 13ha Kalabetta RF TSP Canal bank

2007-08 CGS-NAP- 5 Hunsur Kasaba Kalabetta RF (Harangi right 25ha FDA bank) 6 Periyapatna Kasaba Anechowkru RF CPT-7 20ha TFC Matada kaval Matadakaval 7 KR Nagar Hosaagrahara 9ha DDF DC-II (Agrahara section) * Information was not available Observations of the evaluation team are given plantation-wise in table 13.1b below:

182

Table 13.3b: Summary of evaluation of individual plantations of Hunsur (T) Division Sl. Range/ Plantatio Plantatio Main species Whether Status Micro Plnt Year Extent Spacing No Village n model n type planted maintained of VFC plan journal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Periyapatna/ Seed Bamboo & Partially 1 Anechowkuru 50ha Yes Yes Yes Yes dibbling * Sandal written RF Hunse, Nelli, Hunsur/ 10mX10 Partially 2 10ha Yes Pit Honge, Nerale, Yes Yes Yes Dharmapura m written Bidiru KR Nagar/ Honge, Hunse, 10mX10 Partially 3 Matada kaval 50ha Yes Pit Nelli, hippe, m written RF Bevu Yes Yes Yes Honge, Hunsur/ 10mX10 Bamboo, Partially 4 13ha Yes Pit Yes Yes Yes

2007-08 Kalabetta RF m Simaruba, written nerale Hunsur/ Eucalyptus, & Partially 5 25ha No Trench 2m No * * Kalabetta RF cassia sp. written Periyapatna/ 10mX10 Nerale, Honge, Partially 6 Anechowkuru 20ha Pit * * m Katthi * written RF Yes KR Nagar/ Eucalyptus & Partially 7 Matadakaval 9ha Yes Trench 4mX4m Yes Yes Yes simaruba written DC-II * Information was not available

Qualitative aspects of the plantations are given in table 13.3c below: Table 13.3c: Qualitative aspects of individual plantations of Hunsur (T) Division Extent Selection of Estimated Sl. Range/ Selection Choice of Protection Survival General Year (Ha/ plantation total No. Village of site species aspects % condition km) model survival 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Periyapatna/ 1 50ha Proper Proper Proper Proper Nil 0 Failure Anechowkuru RF

Hunsur/ 2 10ha Proper Proper 85 Very Good Dharmapura Proper Proper 850 KR Nagar/ 3 50ha Average Matadakaval RF Proper Proper Proper Improper 49 2450 Hunsur/ 4 13ha Good Kalabetta RF Proper Proper Proper Proper 76 988 2007-08 Hunsur/ 5 25ha Failure Kalabetta RF Improper Proper Proper Improper 10 250

Periyapatna/ 6 20ha Improper Improper * * Nil 0 Failed Anechowkuru RF KR Nagar/ 7 9ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 86 774 Very Good Matadakaval DC-II Weighted average of survival percent = 47.59% * Information was not available

183

The survival of seven evaluated plantations varied from 0 to 85%. Out of these plantations two were very good, one was good, one was average and three were failures which constitutes to 28.57%, 14.29%, 14.29% and 42.86% respectively. In 50 ha area treated under model-1 of KSFMBC project at Anechowkur CPT-6, only seed dibbling of bamboo and sandal was done. The area is infested by Lantana and Eupatorium species. Sandal and bamboo regeneration were not observed. However, natural regeneration of other species like tare, mathi, dindal, honne, beete was seen in the area. The 20 ha plantation raised under TFC in Anechowkur CPT-7 also failed due to heavy biotic interference from adjoining tribal colonies and also due to damage by wild animals. In case of 10 ha NTFP plantation raised at Dharmapura, the survival % found to be 90. Simarouba, honge and hunse are coming up well. The local VFC is active. The growth in the 50 ha plantation at Matadakaval RF was suppressed as the plantation was raised under older nilagiri plantation. However, honge and hippe show better growth. Due to good protection and timely planting, the growth in 13 ha plantation raised in Kalbetta shows better result (76.66% survival). The local VFC was also found to be active. The poor stocking (21.2%) in 25 ha canal bank plantation was due to biotic interference, particularly illicit cutting.

B. Public distribution of seedlings: Seedlings were distributed to 18 villages in three taluks. Mainly silver oak, nilgiri and teak seedlings were distributed. Due to the non- availability of detailed individual farmer’s records, evaluation could be done in only four cases in K.R. Nagar and Hunsur taluks. Survival % of distributed seedlings varied from 60 to 90. Details are furnished in table 13.3d below:

Table 13.3d: Public distribution of seedlings evaluated in Hunsur (T) Division No. of Sl. Range/ Name of the Species Survival General Year Hobli Village seedlings No. Taluk Farmer planted % condition Planted 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Teak & 1 Hunsur * Niluvagilu Thimmegowda 400 70 Good Silveroak Yashodhara Teak & 2 Hunsur * M.Raju 1300 60 Average pura Silveroak Teak , G.R.Rajeshekar S/o

3 2007-08 K.R Nagar * Gandhanahally 750 Silveroak & 100 Very Good Ramegowda Eucalyptus Madhuvana Malegowda S/o 4 K.R Nagar * 800 Niligiri 70 Good hally Chikkamalegowda Average survival of seedlings = 75% * Information was not available

184

C. Other works: The evaluation team evaluated 19 randomly selected works out of the list of other works provided by DCF (T) Hunsur. The works evaluated were SMC works, excavation of CPT, building maintenance, maintenance of fire lines etc., carried out in the division during 2007-08. Ten works were found satisfactory and one was found good. Eight works were ephemeral works which could not be verified in the field. Details of evaluated

works are given in the table 13.3e below. Quality of all the works was found to be good.

Table 13.3e: Other works of Hunsur (T) Division Sl. Range/ Name of the Year Hobli Village Scheme Remarks No Taluk work 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Water storage 1 Periyapatna * Gulledha halla KSFMBC-SCP Satisfactory pit Handiguddaa, Water storage 2 Periyapatna * KSFMBC Satisfactory Harnahalli hobli pit: 2829 cum Digging of 3 Periyapatna * Bidirukatte hadi KSFMBC Satisfactory percolation tank Excavation of 4 Periyapatna * Arenahalli KSFMBC-139 Satisfactory CPT Water storage 5 Periyapatna * Kampalapura KSFMBC-SCP Satisfactory pit Excavation of 6 Periyapatna * Kampalapura KSFMBC-139 Satisfactory CPT Water storage 7 Periyapatna * Thirumala pura DDF Satisfactory pit Ephemeral 8 Periyapatna * Mummudikaval Fireline cration PFF work. Could not be found Ephemeral 9 Periyapatna * Anechowkuru Fireline cration JFPM work. Could not be found

2007-08 Ephemeral Fireline 10 Periyapatna * Chankul kaval JFPM work. Could Maintenance not be found Ephemeral Creation of 11 Periyapatna * Dodda harave JFPM work. Could Fireline CPT-04 not be found Repair of 12 Periyapatna * Town limit TFC Good Drivers quarters Ephemeral Creation of new 13 Periyapatna * Anechowkuru KSFMBC-139 work. Could Fire line not be found Ephemeral Fire line 14 Periyapatna * Bettadapura KSFMBC-139 work. Could Maintenance not be found Excavation of 15 Periyapatna * Honnapura CPT & barbed NAP-FDA Satisfactory wire fencing Formation of 16 Periyapatna * Maddiyur NAP-FDA Satisfactory new tank

185

creation of 17 KR Nagar * Matada kaval percolation KSFMBC Satisfactory pond Ephemeral Kallabetta RF 18 Hunsur * Fire line work PFF work. Could area not be found Ephemeral Fire line 19 Hunsur * MR hosahalli PFF work. Could Maintenance not be found * Information was not available

4. Mandya (T) Division

A. Performance of departmental plantations: Out of the 41 plantations spread over 1142 ha, seven plantations over 163 ha were evaluated under three schemes KSFMBC, NAP-FDA and TFC as shown in the table 13.4a. These plantations were raised across seven ranges viz., Mandya, Nagamangala, Pandavapura, K R Pet, S R Patna, Maddur and Malavally.

Table 13.4a: List of plantations selected for evaluation in Mandya (T) Division Sl. Location/ Name of the Year Range Hobli Village Extent No. Sy. No scheme 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 S.R. Patna * Karighatta 49 20ha KSFMBC-5 2 K.R Pet * Maradahalli 28 20ha KSFMBC-5 3 Maddur * Aretippur 107 28ha NAP-FDA 4 Mandya * Hulikere 197 20ha KSFMBC-02

5 2007-08 Malavalli * Manchanahalli 142 30ha NAP-FDA 6 Pandavapura * Anawala 79 25ha KSFMBC-04 7 Nagamangala * H. N Kavalu * 20ha TFC *Information was not available

Observations of the evaluation team are given plantation-wise in table 13.4b below:

Table 13.4b: Summary of evaluation of individual plantations of Mandya (T) Division Main Sl. Range/ Plantation Plantation Spac- Whether Status of Micro Plnt Year Extent species No Village model type ing maintained VFC Plan journal planted 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 S R Patna/ Hunase, Bevu Written up 1 20ha Yes Pit 10m Yes * * Karighatta , Honge to date K R Pet/ Mixed local Written 2 20ha Yes Pit 10m Yes NA NA Maradahalli species upto date Maddur/ Nelli, Honge, Partially 3 28ha Trench 5m * * * Aretippur Eucalyptus written 2007-08 Mixed local Written 4 Mandya/ Hulikere 20ha Yes Pit 5m Yes Yes Yes species upto date Malavalli/ Mixed local Partially 5 30ha Yes Trench 4m * * * Manchanahalli species written

186

Neelgiri, Pandavapura/ Pit & 10m & Partially 6 25ha Yes Mixed local Yes Yes Yes Anawala Trench 5m written species Nagamangala/ H. Pit & 10m & Nilgiri, Written 7 20ha Yes Yes NA NA N Kavalu Trench 4m Honge, Nerale upto date * Information was not available

Qualitative information about the plantations is furnished in table 13.4c.

Table 13.4c: Qualitative aspects of individual plantations of Mandya (T) Division Selection of Estimated Sl. Range/ Extent Selection of Choice of Protection Survival General Year Plantation total No Village (Ha/km) site Species aspects % condition model survival 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 S R Patna/ 1 20ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 85 1700 Very Good Karighatta K.R Pet/ 2 20ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 87.25 1745 Very Good Maradahalli Maddur/ 3 28ha Proper Proper Proper Improper 30 840 Poor Aretippur Mandya/ 4 20ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 35.6 712 Poor Hulikere 2007-08 Malavalli/ 5 30ha Proper Proper Improper Improper 12.5 375 Failure Manchanahalli Pandavapura/ 6 25ha 93 1943 Very good Anawala Proper Proper Proper Proper Nagamangala/ 7 20ha 77 1260 Good H. N Kavalu Proper Proper Proper Proper Weighted average of seedling survival = 56.52%

Of the 7 plantations evaluated three (42.85%) were very good, one (14.26%) was good, 2 (28.57%) were poor and one (14.28%) was a failure. The survival of seven evaluated plantations varied from 12.5 to 93%. The 25 ha plantations raised in Anawala of Pandavapura range showed the highest survival of 93%. The poor stock in other plantations was mainly due to poor soil conditions, cattle browsing and fire. Nilagiri and honge are generally performing well.

B. Public distribution of seedlings: The evaluation of farm forestry works could not be done as there was no record available for distribution of seedlings to the farmers in range offices. On enquiry the DCF, Mandya informed that the seedlings were mostly used for afforestation works under different schemes. Hence, action has to be initiated to recover the cost involved from the officers concerned for their failure to supply seedlings to farmers.

C. Other works: The evaluation team visited 12 randomly selected works out of the list of 39 other works provided by DCF (T) Mandya. The works evaluated are SMC, repairing of

187

building, maintenance of fire lines etc., of 2007-08.Ten works were found to be satisfactory, one was good and one was ephemeral and therefore could not be verified.

Table 13.4d: List of other works evaluated in Mandya (T) Division Sl. Range/ Year Hobli Village Name of the work Scheme Remarks No Taluk 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Building repairs of ACF Building 1 Mandya * Mandya town Satisfactory Quarters, Mandya maintenance Building repairs of staff 2 Mandya * Mandya town Land & Building Satisfactory Quarters, Mandya SMC works B. 3 Mandya * B. Honnenahally KSFMBC- 04 Satisfactory Honnenahally SMC works Hulikere 4 Mandya * Hulikere KSFMBC- 01 Satisfactory upper block 5 S R Patna * Karighatta Percolation tank KSFMBC- 05 Satisfactory 6 S R Patna * Arakere Percolation tank KSFMBC- 04 Satisfactory 7 2007-08 K. R. Pet * Maradahalli SMC Works KSFMBC- 05 Satisfactory 8 K. R. Pet * GRT Gudda Sunken pond KSFMBC- 04 Satisfactory 9 Malavalli * Javanagahalli Shallow trench KSFMBC- 04 Satisfactory 10 Malavalli * Voddaradoddi Sunken pond KSFMBC- 01 Satisfactory Ephemeral works. 11 Malavalli * BBSF Maintenance of fire line IFP Could not be found. Excavation of 12 Nagamangala * H. N Kavalu DDF Good percolation trench 13

5. Mysore (T) Division

A. Performance of departmental plantations: Out of the list of 14 plantations spread over 535.5 ha, four plantations over 105 ha were evaluated mainly under KSFMBC scheme. It amounts to 28.57% sampling by the number of works and 19.61% by area. The details of plantations evaluated are given in the table 13.5a below. These plantations were raised in four ranges viz., Mysore, Nanjangud, H.D.Kote and Saragur.

Table 13.5a: List of plantations selected for evaluation of Mysore (T) Division Sl. Location Name of the Year Range Hobli Village Extent No. /Sy. No scheme 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Chatanahally 1 Mysore Jayapura (Arasanakere 185 30ha KSFMBC M-4 VFC) 2 Nanjangud Kavalande Konanur VFC 171 25ha KSFMBC M-2

3 2007-08 H.D.Kote Chakodanahalli Sollepura VFC 9 25ha KSFMBC M-5 4 Saragur Kandalike Thanimanti VFC 172, 173 25ha KSFMBC M-4

188

Observations of the evaluation team are given plantation-wise in table 13.5b below:

Table 13.5b: Summary of evaluation of individual plantations of Mysore (T) Division Plantati Sl. Range/ Plantation Spac- Main species Whether Status Micro Plnt Year Extent on No Village type ing planted maintained of VFC Plan Journal model 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Mysore/ Acacia, Chatanahally Pit& Nilagiri & Partially 1 30ha Yes 4X4m No Yes Yes (Arasanakere Trench Mixed local written VFC) species Nanjangud/ Mixed local Partially 2 25ha Yes Pit 5X5m No Yes Yes Konanur VFC species written H.D.Kote/ Mixed local

3 2007-08 Sollepura 25ha Yes Pit 5X10m No No Yes Partially species VFC written Acacia, Saragur/ Pit & 10X10m Cassia and Partially 4 Thanimanti 25ha Yes No Yes Yes Trench & 4X4m other local written VFC specis

Qualitative aspects of the plantations are given in table 13.5c below:

Table 13.5c: Qualitative aspects of individual plantations of Mysore (T) Division Selection of Estimated Sl. Range/ Selection Choice of Protection General Year Extent Plantation Survival % total No Village of site Species aspects condition model survival 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Mysore/ Chatanahally 1 30ha Proper Proper Improper Proper 51.2 1536 Average (Arasanakere VFC) Nanjangud/ Failure 2 25ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 0 0 Konanur VFC H.D.Kote/ 3 2007-08 25ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 21.36 534 Poor Sollepura VFC Saragur/ 4 Thanimanti 25ha Improper Proper Improper Proper 93.84 2346 Very Good VFC Weighted average of seedling survival = 42.06%

On the four plantations visited, one (25%) was very good, one (25%) was average, one (25%) was poor and one (25%) was a failure. The survival percent in the four evaluated plantations varied from 0 to 93.84. The 25 ha plantation in Kavalande (Konanur VFC) of Nanjangud Range completely failed due to grazing by cattle and damage by wild animals. In case of 30 ha plantation raised in Jayapura of Mysore Range, acacia saplings started drying up after 5 years of planting. Comparatively, Eucalyptus showed better result. The poor growth in 25 ha NTFP plantation raised at Sollepura VFC area of H D Kote range is due to damage by elephants. Mostly stunted growths of Nelli seedlings were seen. Even though, the 25 ha

189 plantation raised at Thanimanti VFC area showed 93.84% survival, growth rate of the other species except Cassia not good.

B. Public distribution of seedlings: As per record, 1.57 lakh seedlings were raised for public distribution during 2007-08 in five ranges in the division. The evaluation of farm forestry works could not be done due to non-availability of list of individual farmer’s details in range offices.

C. Other works: The evaluation team visited five randomly selected works out of the list of 46 other works given by DCF (T) Mysore. The works evaluated are SMC, repairing of building, EPT works etc., carried out in the division during 2007-08. Details of works evaluated are given in the table 13.5d below. Quality of works was found to be good.

Table 13.5d: List of other works evaluated in Mysore (T) Division Sl. Range/ Year Hobli Village Name of the work Scheme Remarks No. Taluk 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 Nanjangud * Konnanur SMC KSFMBC M-5 Good 2 Nanjangud * Konnanur SMC KSFMBC M-2 Good 3 H.D.Kote * Munnaganahally SMC KSFMBC M-2 Good Repairs to FRH, 4406-Land & 4 Mysore * Mysore Good

2007-08 Mysore Building Repairs to compound 4406-Land & 5 Mysore * Mysore Good wall in Mysore. Building * Information was not available

6. Mysore (WL) Division A. Performance of departmental Plantations: Out of three plantations of 65 ha raised during 2007-08 in Mysore Wildlife division, the evaluation committee selected one plantation of 20 ha raised at B Kodagahalli of Melukote Wildlife Range under the 12th Finance Commission grants. This amounts to 33.3% by number of works and 30.77% by area. List of plantation chosen for evaluation is given in table 13.6a below:

Table 13.6a: Details of the plantation selected for evaluation in Mysore (WL) Division Sl. Location/ Year Range Hobli Village Area Scheme No. Sy. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Twelfth Finance 1. 2007-08 Melukote * B.Kodagahalli 4 20ha Commission-200 Maint. * Information was not available

190

Observations of the evaluation team are given in table 13.6b.

Table 13.6b: Observations on the selected plantation of Mysore (WL) Division Status Sl. Range/ Area Model Pit/ Main species Mainten Micro Plant Year Spacing Of No Village of pltn Trench planted ance plan Journal VFC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Honge, Nelli, Melukote, B. 1 2007-08 20ha Yes Pit 10mX10m Nerale, Yes * * Updated Kodagahalli Bamboo * Information was not available

Qualitative aspects of the plantation evaluated are given in table 13.6c below:

Table 13.6.c: Qualitative aspects of the plantation evaluated in Mysore (WL) Division Selection of Choice Total Sl. Range/ Selection Protection Survival General Year Area Plantation of estimated No Village of site aspects % condition model Species survival 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Melukote , 1 2007-08 20ha Proper * Proper Proper 68.42 1368 Good B.Kodagahalli * Information was not available

The survival percentage of evaluated plantation is 68.42, but the growth is poor due to poor site quality and browsing by wild animals like deer and rabbit. All the species are struggling to grow.

B. Public distribution of seedlings: There was no seedlings distribution program under RSPD in the division during 2007-08.

C. Other works: The DCF Wildlife, Mysore submitted list of 179 other works such as SMC, construction of rubble stone wall, dibbling of seeds, maintenance of roads, erection of watch tower etc. Out of these 179 works, 75 works were carried out in Melukote Wildlife range and 104 works were done in Mysore Wildlife range. Of this, 28 works of different kinds were evaluated in both the ranges. All the 28 works evaluated were found to be good quality. It amounts to sampling of 15.64% of works.

Table 13.6d: List of other works evaluated in Mysore (WL) Division Sl. Year Range Village Name of the work Scheme Remarks No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Excavation of percolation SWS & NP A.C. Giri trenches at Kerubanakallu 1 Nagamangala Byaladakere (State Share ) -139 Good halla in Adichunchanagiri MW Peacock Sanctuary

2007-08 Construction of Check dam SWS & NP AC Giri 2 Nagamangala Byaladakere at Kirubanakallu halla of (Central Share ) -139 Good Adichunchangiri Peacock MW

191

Sanctuary Sinking of Bore well and erecting hand pump at SWS & NP AC Giri 3 Nagamangala Vaddarahalli Vaddarahalli Thore village (Central Share ) -139 Good of Adichunchagiri Peacock MW Sanctuary Construction of Rubble Stone Wall from Aladamara SWS & NP Melukote 4 Pandavapura Huligere to Marballi road at Beat no WLS (State Share ) - Good 1 of Melukote Wildlife 139 MW Sanctuary Construction of Causeway SWS & NP Melukote across Anebiddahall at Beat 5 Pandavapura Singapura WLS (State Share ) - Good No-4 in Melukote Wildlife 139 MW Sanctuary Construction of Gully Checks at Hunasakatte and SWS & NP Melukote 6 Pandavapura Huligere Handikatte halla Beat No.1 WLS (Central Share ) Good of Melukote wildlife -139 MW Sanctuary Excavation of Cattle Proof SWS & NP Melukote Trenching in Beat No-4 of 7 Pandavapura Singapura WLS (Central Share ) Good Meulkote Wildlife -139 MW Sanctuary Construction of Rubble Stone Wall from SWS & NP Melukote Chittalammanakere kodi to 8 Pandavapura Hemmadahalli WLS (Central Share ) Good Jagathikallu at Beat No.3 of -139 MW Melukote wildlife Sanctuary Excavation of Cattle Proof Trenching in Beat No-5 SWS & NP Melukote from Karigowdana katte to 9 Pandavapura B.Kodagahalli WLS (State Share ) - Good Giriyakkanahalla to of 139 MW melukote Wildlife Sanctuary Maintenance of Forest Road from K.R. Pet road to SWS & NP Melukote 10 Pandavapura B.Kodagahalli Jenukallubette and WLS (Central Share ) Good Garikalbett in Melukote -139 MW Wildlife Sanctuary Formation of new tank in SWS & NP Melukote Malanakatte Beat No -4 of 11 Pandavapura Hemmadahalli WLS (Central Share ) Good Melukote Wildlilfe -139 MW Sanctuary Construction of Fuel SWS & NP Melukote Efficiency Chulas in and 12 Pandavapura Sheerabillenahalli WLS (Central Share ) Good around Melukote Wildlife -139 MW Sanctuary SWS & NP Melukote Water supply to FRH at 13 Pandavapura Melkote WLS (Central Share ) Good Melukote -139 MW Construction of pavement from forester’s office to CSS RBS (Central 14 Srirangapatna Karimanti boating stand at Good Share) 139 MW Ranganathittu Bird Sanctuary

192

Construction of protection wall along the Cauvery CSS RBS (Central 15 Srirangapatna Karimanti river from hanging bridge to Good Share) 139 MW Hone tree at Ranganathittu Bird Sanctuary Construction of Paragola at Ranganathittu Bird 16 Srirangapatna Karimanti PADF 139 MW Good Sanctuary (Near Old Bird watch tower) Construction of Drainage near interpretation centre 17 Srirangapatna Karimanti PADF 139 MW Good area at Ranganathittu Bird Sanctuary Providing flooring, water facilities to the existing 1" floor root area and provide 18 Srirangapatna Karimanti sanitary fitting to existing PADF 139 MW Good resting place at Ranganathittu Bird Sanctuary Laying solid cement blocks (kerbstone) all along the pathway of both sides from 19 Srirangapatna Karimanti entrance to boating stand Ecotourism Good area (via new lotus pond) at Ranganathittu Bird Sanctuary Maintenance of existing rubble stone pipe culvert (Irish bridge) at DWS & NP.RBS 20 Srirangapatna Arakere Good Gendehosahally Island of (State Share) Ranganathittu Bird Sanctuary Creation of Entrance arch to 2007-08 the Gendehosahally DWS & NP.RBS 21 Srirangapatna Arakere (Ranganathittu Bird Good (Central Share) Sanctuary) Bird Centre near Shanthi Koppalu village Landscape work in office surrounding area at DWS & NP.RBS 22 Srirangapatna Karimanti Good Ranganathittu Bird (Central Share) Sanctuary Excavation of (Sunkan pond) (Percolation trenches) in Parasgikatte area of ABT (State Share) 23 Hunsur Gangenahally Good Gangenahally beat at 139 MW Arbhithittu Wildlife Sanctuary Construction of Causeway across Parangikatte halla at ABT (Central Share) 24 Hunsur Gangenahally Gangenahally beat of Good 139 MW Arabhithittu Wildlife Sanctuary Sinking Borewell and handpump at Jeenahally ABT (Central Share) 25 Hunsur Jeenahally Good village of Arabhithittu 139 MW Wildlife Sanctuary

193

Formation of Trecking path for ecotourism in 26 Hunsur Kuppe Kolabatta Kolagahatta Gagenahalli PADF 139 MW Good beat Arabhithittu Wildlife Sanctuary Maintenance of Road from DWS & NP - Halepura to Mavinamarada 27 Hunsur Halepura Arabhithittu (Central Good Circle in Arabhithittu Share) 139 MW Wildlife Sanctuary Construction of Fuel Efficiency Chulas to DWS & NP - 28 Hunsur Kuppe benificiaries of Surrounding Arabhithittu (Central Good Village of Melukote Share) 139 MW Wildlife Sanctuary

-o0o-

194

14. SHIMOGA CIRCLE

Circle summary

Shimoga Circle consists of five divisions namely (1) Shimoga (SF) Division (2) Bhadravathi (T) Division (3) Sagar (T) Division, (4) Shimoga (T) Division (5) Shimoga (WL) Division. During 2007-08, Shimoga Circle raised 231 plantations over an area of 5259.47 ha. Out of this the evaluation committee selected 42 plantations over an area of 657.99 ha under 12 schemes. The sampling intensity is 12.51% by area and 18.18% by the number of works. The weighted average of survival percentage of territorial divisions is 61.23, social forestry division is 23.39 and wildlife division is 33.1. Division-wise evaluation results are presented below.

1. Shimoga (SF) Division

A. Performance of departmental plantations: During 2007-08, Shimoga (SF) Division raised 14 plantations over an area of 44 ha. Out of which 11 plantations were evaluated over an area of 11.99 ha under KSFMBC scheme. The sampling intensity is 27.25% by area and 78.57% by the number of works. List of plantations surveyed is given in table 14.1a

below:

Table 14.1a: List of plantations selected for evaluation in Shimoga (SF) Division Sl Location/ Name of the Year Range Hobli Village Extent No Sy No scheme 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 Shimoga Harnahally Hubbanahalli 39 1 ha KSFMBC-08 2 Shimoga Harnahally Hubbanahalli 7 0.91 ha KSFMBC-08 3 Shimoga Harnahally Hubbanahalli * 0.5 ha KSFMBC-08 4 Shimoga Harnahally Hubbanahalli 23 1.62 ha KSFMBC-08 5 Shimoga Harnahally Hubbanahalli * 1.82 ha KSFMBC-08 6 Shimoga Harnahally Hubbanahalli 5, 15/2 0.61 ha KSFMBC-08 7 Shimoga Harnahally Hubbanahalli 11/1 0.4 ha KSFMBC-08

8 2007-08 Shimoga Harnahally Hubbanahalli 11,18 2.02 ha KSFMBC-08 9 Shimoga Harnahally Hubbanahalli 11 0.81 ha KSFMBC-08 164 and 10 Shimoga Harnahally Hubbanahalli 0.3 ha KSFMBC-08 178 TatturVaddig 11 Soraba Anvatti 53, 57 2 ha KSFMBC-08 ere * Information was not available.

195

Observations of the evaluation team are given plantation-wise in table 14.1b below: Table 14.1b: Summary of evaluation of individual plantations of Shimoga (SF) Division Model Wheth Main Plantat Status Sl. Range/ of Spacing er Micro Plnt. Year Extent Species ion of No Village Planta adopted maintai plan journal planted type VFC tion ned 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Grafted mango, Teak, Shimoga/ Written up 1 1 ha Eucalyptus, Yes Pit * Yes * * Hubbanahalli to date Casurina, Acacia Grafted Shimoga/ mango, Teak, Written up 2 0.91 ha Yes Pit * No No No Hubbanahalli Eucalyptus, to date Acacia Grafted Shimoga/ mango, Teak, Written up 3 0.5 ha Yes Pit * Yes No No Hubbanahalli Eucalyptus, to date Acacia Grafted Shimoga/ 4 1.62 ha mango, Teak, Yes Pit * Yes No No Maintained Hubbanahalli Eucalyptus Shimoga/ Nilagiri,Teak, 5 1.82 ha Yes Pit * * * * * Hubbanahalli Mango

Eucalyptus, Shimoga/ Teak, Written up 6 2007-08 0.61 ha Yes Pit * Yes Yes Yes Hubbanahalli Grafted to date mango Eucalyptus, Shimoga/ Teak, Written 7 0.4 ha Yes Pit * Yes Yes * Hubbanahalli Grafted up to date mango Eucalyptus, Shimoga/ Teak, Written up 8 2.02 ha Yes Pit * Yes No * Hubbanahalli Grafted to date mango Shimoga/ Written 9 0.81 ha Eucalyptus Yes Pit * Yes Yes * Hubbanahalli\ up to date Shimoga/ Written 10 0.3 ha Eucalyptus Yes Pit * Yes Yes * Hubbanahalli up to date Grafted Sagar/ Tattur 11 2 ha mango, Yes Pit 10X10m Yes No Yes * Vadigere others * Information was not available.

Qualitative aspects of the plantations are given in table 14.1c below:

Table 14.1c: Qualitative aspects of individual plantations of Shimoga (SF) Division Extent Selection of Sl. Range/ Selection of Choice of Protection Survival Estimated General Year (Ha/ plantation No Village site Species aspects % total extent condition Km ) model 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Shimoga/ 1 1 ha Proper Proper Proper Improper 35 35 Poor 08 20 07- Hubbanahalli

196

Shimoga/ 2 0.91 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 5 5 Failure Hubbanahalli Shimoga/ 3 0.5 ha Improper Proper Proper Improper 15 8 Failure Hubbanahalli Shimoga/ Improper 4 1.62 ha Proper Improper Improper 2 3 Failure Hubbanahalli Shimoga/ 5 1.82 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 2.50 5 Failure Hubbanahalli Shimoga/ 6 0.61 ha Improper Improper Improper Improper 5 3 Failure Hubbanahalli Shimoga/ 7 0.4 ha Proper Improper Improper Improper 38 15 Poor Hubbanahalli Shimoga/ 8 2.02 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 48 97 Average Hubbanahalli Shimoga/ 9 0.81 ha Improper Improper Improper Improper 7 6 Failure Hubbanahalli Shimoga/ 10 0.3 ha Improper Improper Improper Improper 9 3 Failure Hubbanahalli Sagar/ Tattur 11 2 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 60 120 Average Vadigere Weighted average of seedling survival = 23.39%

Survival rates in the 11 evaluated plantations vary from 2 to 60%. Out of these plantations, two were average, two were poor and seven are failure which constitutes to 18.18%,

18.18% and 63.63% respectively of the total evaluated plantation area of 11.99 ha. B. Public distribution of seedlings: Information was not available. C. Other works: Information was not available.

2. Bhadravathi (T) Division

A. Performance of departmental plantations: During 2007-08, Bhadravathi (T) Division raised 32 plantations over an area of 1027 ha. Out of this seven plantations were evaluated over an area of 165 ha under two different schemes namely KSFMBC and 12th Finance. The sampling intensity is 16.06% by area and 21.87% by the number of works. List of

plantations surveyed is given in table 14.2a below:

Table 14.2a: List of plantations selected for evaluation in Bhadravathi (T) Division Sl. Name of the Year Range Hobli Village Sy. No Extent No. Scheme 1 Bhadravathi Kudligere Voravinakere 3 25 ha KSFMBC-3 2 umbalebyle Kasaba Hunsekatte 14 25 ha KSFMBC-3 3 Shantisagar Kasaba Malligenalli 27 25 ha KSFMBC-5 4 Chengiri Ubrani Pennasamudra 43, 44 25 ha KSFMBC-3

5 2007-08 Ajjampura Ajjampura Rangapura 34 25 ha KSFMBC-4 6 Lakkavalli Lakkavalli Tanigebyle 17 and 21 15 ha 12th Finance 7 Tarikeri Lingadahalli Nadibatlu 70,72 25 ha KSFMBC-3

197

Observations of the evaluation team are given plantation-wise in table 14.2b below:

Table 14.2b: Summary of evaluation of individual plantations of Bhadravathi (T) division Model Main Plantat Whether Sl. Range/ of Spacing Status Micro Plnt Year Extent Species ion maintaine No Village Plantati adopted of VFC plan journal planted type d on 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Bhadravathi/ Mixed local 1 25 ha Yes Pit 3.5X3.5m Yes Yes Yes * Voravinakere species Mixed local umbalebyle / Written up 2 25 ha species + Yes Pit 5X5m Yes Yes Yes Kasaba to date Bamboo Shantisagar/ Mixed local Written up 3 25 ha Yes Pit 7X7m Yes Yes Yes Malligenahalli species to date Chennagiri/ Mixed local Written up 4 25 ha Yes Pit 3.5X3.5m Yes Yes Yes Pennasamudra species to date 2007-08 Ajjampura/ Mixed local Written up 5 25 ha Yes Pit * Yes Yes * Rangapura species to date Mixed local Lakkavalli/ Written up 6 15 ha species Yes Pit 1.5X1.5m Yes Yes * Tanigebyle to date Bamboo Tarikeri/ Mixed local Written up 7 25 ha Yes Pit 3.5X3.5m Yes Yes Yes Nadibattalu species to date * Information was not available.

Qualitative aspects of the plantations are given in table 14.2c below:

Table 14.2c: Qualitative aspects of individual plantations of Bhadravathi (T) Division

Selection Choice Protecti Estimated Sl. Range/ Selection of Survival General Year Extent of on total No Village of site Plantation % condition Species aspects extent model

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Bhadravathi/ 1 25 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 78.20 1955 Good Voravinakere umbalebyle / 2 25 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 51.00 1275 Average Kasaba Shantisagar/ 3 25 ha Proper Proper * Proper 66.00 1650 Good Kasaba Chennagiri/ 4 25 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 68.00 1700 Good Pennasamudra 2007-08 Ajjampura/ 5 25 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 66.00 1650 Good Rangapura Lakkavalli/ 6 15 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 75.60 1134 Good Tanigebyle Tarikeri/ 7 25 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 81.00 2025 Very Good Nadibattalu Weighted average of seedling survival = 69.02% * Information was not available.

198

Survival Percentage of the seven evaluated plantations varies from 51 to 81%. The weighted average of survival percentage for these plantations is 69.02. Out of these plantations, one was very good, five were good and one was average, which constitutes to 14.28%, 71.43 % and 14.28% respectively of the total evaluated plantation area of 165 ha. Though survival percentage is satisfactory the plants are not promising and growth is affected due to heavy biotic interference and suppression of growth of plants due to root competition.

B. Public distribution of seedlings: The team randomly evaluated 550 seedlings distributed to one farmer. Survival was found to be good. Table 14.2d gives the details:

Table 14.2d: Distribution of seedlings of Bhadravathi (T) Division No. of Main Sl. Name of the Survival Year Range Hobli Village seedlings Species General No. Farmer percentage Planted Planted Condition 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Teak, 1 2007-08 * Kudligere Bisulumane Krishnegowda 550 Acacia, 78.00 Good Honge * Information was not available.

The survival percentage of plantation is 78 and its condition is good.

C. Other works: Table 14.2e gives the details of 22 other works evaluated. Out of these

four are good, 16 are satisfactory and two could not be verified.

Table 14.2e: List of other works evaluated in Bhadravathi (T) Division Sl. Name of the Year Range Hobli Village Scheme Remarks No work 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Creation of 1 Shantisagar Holehonnur Kallapura KSFMBC M-02 Satisfactory waterholes Creation of 2 Shantisagar Holehonnur Kallapura waterholes in KSFMBC M-02 Satisfactory BL-II Creation of 3 Shantisagar Holehonnur Kallapura water holes KSFMBC M-02 Good BL-III Creation of 4 Shantisagar Holehonnur Kallapura waterholes KSFMBC M-02 Satisfactory 2007-08 BL-IV Extraction of 5 Changiri Ubrani KUSF. Pepo big bamboos at 01 Timber Satisfactory KUSF Protection camp 6 Changiri Ubrani Jolda 01 Timber Satisfactory pcp watchers Repairs to ACF 070 Roads and 7 Changiri Kasaba Chengiri Satisfactory (FMS) Quarters bridges

199

Gully checks 8 Lakkavalli Lakkavalli Karkuchi KSFMBC-III Good and waterholes Gully checks 9 Lakkavalli Lakkavalli Yerebyle KSFMBC-4 Satisfactory and water holes 10 Tarikere Amrutpura G.Mallenahalli SMC Works KSFMBC –M-II Satisfactory SMC Work at 11 Tarikere Amrutpura G.Mallenahalli KSFMBC – M-II Satisfactory Vitlapura Special repair 12 Bhadravati Kasaba Bhadravati to DCF office at 01 Timber Satisfactory uppar colony Paving foot 13 Bhadravati Kasaba Bhadravati path to DCF 01 Timber Good office Creation of 14 Bhadravati Kudligere Varavinkere KSFMBC Satisfactory waterholes B-I Creation of 15 Bhadravati Kudligere Varavinkere KSFMBC M-III Satisfactory waterholes B-II Creation of 16 Bhadravati Kudigere Varavinkere waterholes KSFMBC M-03 Satisfactory BL-III Extraction of Bamboo 17 Umbalebayle Kaithotlu Umbalebayle Bamboo at Satisfactory extraction umbalebyle Ephemeral KasabaandNi Maint. Of Fire 18 Umbalebayle Umbalebayle C.S.S.I work. Could dige line 25km not be found Ephemeral Maint. Of Fire 19 Umbalebayle Kasabanidige Lakkinakoppa Fire protection work. Could line 25km not be found 20 Umbalebayle Kasaba Chandranahalli SMC Works KSFMBC M-01 Satisfactory SMC Works at 21 Umbalebayle Kasaba Siddeshwara KSFMBC M-02 Satisfactory yaraganalli Const. Of 22 Bhadravati Kasaba Bhadravati compound wall 01-Timber Good DCF residential qrtrs

3. Sagar (T) Division

A. Performance of departmental plantations: During 2007-08, Sagar (T) Division raised 97 plantations over an area of 2098 ha. Out of this 10 plantations over an area of 225 ha were evaluated under five different schemes KSFMBC, 12thFinance, KFDF, Cultural Operations and Compensatory Afforestation. The sampling intensity is 10.72% by area and 10.31% by the number of works. List of plantations surveyed is given in table 14.3a below:

Table 14.3a: List of plantations selected for evaluation in Sagar (T) Division Sl Location/ Year Range Hobli Village Extent Name of the Scheme No Sy. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 Sagar Avinahalli Avinahalli 31 25 ha KSFMBC-04 th

2 -08 Kargal Karuru Kattinakaru 82, 87 15 ha 12 finance commission 2007

200

3 Sagar Anandapuram Byrapura 4, 5, 85 30 ha KSFMBC-03 cultural operation-139 4 Sorab Chandragutti Badadabylu 329 10 ha major works 5 Anavatti Anavatti Thallur M.F 273, 7, 31 10 ha K.F.D.F 03- others 6 Shikaripur Udagavi Teerthahalli 7, 8 15 ha KFDF (OP) 7 Shiralkoppa Udugani Hulaginakoppa 30 20 ha Comp. Afforestation 8 Ambligola Kasaba Korlikoppa 24, 25, 69 25 ha KSFMBC -03 9 Hosanagara Kerehalli karakki 11 25 ha KSFMBC -05 164 and 10 Nagara Nagara Manjagalale 50 ha KSFMBC -01 178

Observations of the evaluation team are given plantation-wise in table 14.3b below:

Table 14.3b: Summary of evaluation of individual plantations of Sagar (T) Division Model Whether Status Sl. Main Species of Plantation Spacing Micro Plnt. Year Range/ Village Extent maintaine of No planted Plantati type adopted plan journal d VFC on 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Acacia & 2.5 X 2.5m Partially 1 Sagar/ Avinahalli 25 ha mixed local Yes Pit Yes Yes Yes and 3X 3m Written species Acacia & Kargal/ Written up to 2 15 ha mixed local Yes Pit 2.5X2.5m Yes Yes Yes Kattinakaru date species Choradi/ Not 3 30 ha Teak Yes Pit 3 X 3m Yes Yes Written Byrapura fully Acacia, Not Sorab/ 4 10 ha Balangi, Yes Pit 2.5X2.5m properly No No Maintained Badadabylu Honne, Neral carried out Acacia & Not Anavatti/ Thallur 5 10 ha mixed local Yes Pit 2.5X2.5m properly No No Maintained

M.F species carried out

2007-08 Eucalyptus, Shikaripura/ Teak, Acacia Partially 6 15 ha Yes Pit 2.5X2.5m Yes Yes Yes Teerthahalli & mixed local Written species, Acacia & Shiralkoppa/ 7 20 ha mixed local Yes Pit 2X2m Yes Yes No Maintained Hulaginakoppa species Teak, Ambligola/ Not Written up to 8 25 ha Shivani, Yes Pit 5X2.5m Yes Yes Korlikoppa fully date Neralu Hosanagara/ Evergreen Written up to 9 25 ha Yes Pit 7X7m Yes Yes Yes karakki species date Nagara/ Evergreen Written up to 10 50 ha Yes Pit 5X5m Yes Yes Yes Manjagalale species date

201

Qualitative aspects of the plantations are given in table 14.3c below:

Table 14.3c:Qualitative aspects of individual plantations of Sagar (T) Division Selection Extent Survival Sl. Range/ Selection of Choice of Protection Estimated General Year (Ha/ % No Village of site plantation Species aspects total extent condition Km ) model 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Sagar/ 1 25 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 92.30 2308 Very Good Avinahalli Kargal/ 2 15 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 84.33 1265 Very Good Kattinakaru Choradi/ 3 30 ha Improper Improper Improper Improper 10.30 309 Failure Byrapura Sorab/ Improper 4 10 ha Improper Improper Improper 14.69 147 Failure Badadabylu Anavatti/ 5 10 ha Improper No Improper Improper 39.06 391 Poor Thallur M.F Shikaripura/ 6 15 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 46.60 699 Average

2007-08 Teerthahalli Shiralkoppa/ 7 Hulagina 20 ha Improper No Improper Improper 44.53 891 Average koppa Ambligola/ 8 25 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 83.00 2075 Very Good Korlikoppa Hosanagara/ 9 25 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 85.00 2125 Very Good karakki Nagara/ 10 50 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 83.75 4188 Very Good Manjagalale Weighted average of seedling survival = 63.98%

Survival rates of the 10 evaluated plantations varies from 10.3 to 92.3%. Out of these plantations, five were very good, two were average, one was poor and two were failure, which constitutes to 50%, 20 %, 10% and 20% respectively of the total evaluated plantation area of 225 ha. Teak plantation has been done in dense forest where root competition and dense canopy have suppressed their growth. In other plantations, acacia is generally found

doing very well. The SMC works have been carried out satisfactorily.

B. Public distribution of seedlings: The team randomly evaluated 500 seedlings distributed to three farmers. Survival was found to be very good in all the cases. Table

14.3d gives the details:

Table 14.3d: Public distribution of seedlings evaluated in Sagar (T) Division No. of Sl. Name of the Species Survival General Year Range Hobli Village seedlings No Farmer Planted percentage condition Planted 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 * Avinahalli Avinahalli T.V. Malleshappa 60 Acacia 95 Very Good 7- 08 2 200 * Avinahalli Avinahalli Lingappa 40 Acacia 90 Very Good

202

3 * Chandragutti Chandragutti Wahabkhan 400 Acacia 100 Very Good Average survival = 95% * Information was not available.

C. Other works: Table 14.3e gives the details of 24 other works evaluated. Quality of

other works was found to be good.

Table 14.3e: List of other works evaluated in Sagar (T) Division evaluated

Sl no Year Range Hobli Village Name of the work Scheme Remarks 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 Sagar Avinahalli Avinahalli Desilting of tank KSFMBC-04 Good Non residential office 2 Kargal Bahrangi Bailigalluru KSFMBC Good building at kargal Const. of Raja cottage at 3 Kargal Bahrangi Kargal Ecotourism Good Jog falls Const. of Rorarcottage at 4 Kargal Bahrangi Kargal Ecotourism Good Jog falls Const. of Rocket cottage at 5 Kargal Bahrangi Kargal Ecotourism Good Jog falls Const. of Rani cottage at 6 Kargal Bahrangi Kargal Ecotourism Good Jog falls 7 Kargal Kararu Kattinakaru Contour trenches 12th Finance Good 8 Kargal Kararu Kattinakaru Const. of Nursery pond KSFMBC Good 9 Kargal Kararu AramaneKoppa Const. of Nursery pond KSFMBC Good 10 Kargal Kararu Heggadde Const. of Nursery pond KSFMBC Good 11 Sorab Chandragutti Eduru Soil conservation work KSFMBC-1 Good 2007-08 12 Sorab Chandragutti Eduru Soil conservation work KSFMBC Good 13 Sorab Chandragutti Kuntagala Soil conservation work KSFMBC Good 14 Anavatti Anavatti Hurali Soil conservation work KSFMBC Good 15 Anavatti Anavatti Hurali Soil conservation work KSFMBC Good 16 Anavatti Anavatti Hurali Soil conservation work KSFMBC Good 17 Shiralkoppa Talagund Kortigeri Soil conservation work KSFMBC Good 18 Shiralkoppa Talagund Kortigeri Soil conservation work KSFMBC Good 19 Shiralkoppa Udugani Muthagi Soil conservation work KSFMBC Good 20 Ambligola * Korlikoppa Gully checks * Good 21 Ambligola * Korlikoppa Tank * Good 22 Ambligola * Korlikoppa Gully checks * Good 23 Ambligola * Korlikoppa Gully checks * Good 24 Hosanagara Kerehalli Karakki Soil conservation work KSFMBC-5 Good * Information was not available.

4. Shimoga (T) Division

A. Performance of departmental plantations: During 2007-08, Shimoga (T) Division raised 74 plantations over an area of 1840.87 ha. Out of which 11 plantations were evaluated over an area of 206 ha under seven different schemes KSFMBC, 12thFinance,

203

KFDF, DDF, JBIC, NAP-FDA and COP. The sampling intensity is 11.19% by area and 14.86% by the number of works. List of plantations surveyed is given in table 14.4a below:

Table 14.4a: List of plantations selected for evaluation in Shimoga (T) Division Sl. Location/ Name of the Year Range Hobli Village Extent No. Sy No Scheme 1 Thirthahally Mandagadde Cowdally 42 15 ha 12th Finance 2 Agumbe Agumbe Thallur 246 20 ha KFDF 3 Ayanur Harnhalli Gejjenahalli 80,81 12 ha 02 COP 4 Shankar Nidige Basavapura 2 14 ha DDF 5 Ayanur Hemavathi Konagavalli 56,85 20 ha NAP/FDA 6 Rippanpet Kerehalli Masaruru 88,89,90 10 ha JBIC-2

7 2007-08 Rippanpet Kerehalli Masaruru 88,89,90 15 ha JBIC-2 8 Ayanur Kumsi Singanahalli 61,38,12 25 ha KSFMBC-3 9 Agumbe Agumbe Alagere 41,48,16 25 ha KSFMBC-3 10 Mandgadde Muthuru Shedgar 65 25 ha KSFMBC-4 11 Shankar Holalur Beeranakere 45 25 ha KSFMBC-5

Observations of the evaluation team are given plantation-wise in table 14.4b below:

Table 14.4b: Summary of evaluation of individual plantations of Shimoga (T) Division Model Plantati Whether Sl. Range/ Extent Main Species of Spacing Status Micro Plnt Year on maintain No Village planted Plantati adopted of VFC plan journal type ed on 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Acacia and Thirthahally/ Partially 1 15 ha mixed local Yes Pits 2.5X2.5m Yes * * Cowdally Written species Agumbe/ Partially 2 20 ha Acacia Yes Pits 2.5X2.5m Yes * * Thallur Written Ayanur/ Written 3 12 ha Acacia Yes Pits 2.5X2.5m Yes No * Gejjenahalli, Up to date Shankar/ Acacia, Teak, Partially 4 14 ha Yes Pits 2.5X2.5m Yes * * Basavapura Eucalyptus Written Ayanur/Konag 5 20 ha Acacia Yes Pits 3X3m Yes Yes * * avalli Rippanpet/ Mixed local Written 6 10 ha Yes Pits 5X5m Yes Yes Yes Masaruru species Up to date 2007-08 Rippanpet/ Mixed local Written 7 15 ha Yes Pits 5X5m Yes Yes Yes Masaruru species Up to date Teak, Beate, Ayanur/ Written 8 25 ha Honne, Shivam, Yes Pits 3.5X3.5m Yes Yes Yes Singanahalli Up to date Nandi, Mathi Agumbe/ Mixed local Partially 9 25 ha Yes Pits 2X2m Yes Yes Yes Alagere species Written Agumbe/ Acacia, Mixed Partially 10 25 ha Yes Pits 3X3m Yes Yes Yes Shedgar local species Written Mixed local 11 Shankar 25 ha Yes Pits 7X7m Yes Yes * * species * Information was not available.

204

Qualitative aspects of the plantations are given in table 6.2c below:

Table 14.4c: Qualitative aspects of individual plantations of Shimoga (T) Division Selection of Sl. Selection Choice of Protection Survival Estimated General Year Range/Village Extent Plantation No of site Species aspects % total extent condition model 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Thirthahally/ 1 15 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 84 1260 Very Good Kowdalli 2 Agumbe/ Thallur 20 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 86 1720 Very Good Avanur/ 3 12 ha Proper Improper Proper 41 492 Average Gejjenahalli Shankar/ 4 14 ha Proper Proper Improper Improper 83 1162 Very Good Basavapur 5 Ayanur/Konagavalli 20 ha Proper Proper Improper Proper 70 1400 Good 6 Rippanpet/ Masaruru 10 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 84 840 Very Good

7 2007-08 Rippanpet/ Masaruru 15 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 92 1380 Very Good Ayanur/ 8. 25 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 89 2225 Very Good Singahalli Agumbe/ 9 25 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 67 1675 Good Alagere 10 Agumbe/ Shedgar 25 ha Proper Proper Improper Proper 72 1800 Good Shankar/ Plantation 11 25 ha * * * * 0 0 Holalur encroached Weighted average of seedling survival = 67.74% * Information was not available.

Survival rates of the 11 evaluated plantations vary from 41 to 92%. Out of these plantations six are very good, three are good, one is average, one is a failure which constitute to 54.54%, 27.27%, 9.09%and 9.09% respectively of the total evaluated plantation area of 206 ha. Under Cultural Operation, one plantation was evaluated with 41% survival. This is mainly due to biotic interference. However acacia is not doing well due to poor soil condition and scanty rains. But the natural regeneration of local species appears to be improving due to protection. One plantation was completely encroached by villagers. No action is taken so far.

B. Public distribution of seedlings: The evaluation team randomly evaluated 50 seedlings distributed to one individual farmer. Survival was found to be average. Table 14.4d gives the details:

205

Table 14.4d: Public distribution of seedlings evaluated in Shimoga (T) Division No. of Sl. Name of the Species Survival Year Range Hobli Village seedlings General No. Farmer Planted percentage Planted Condition 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Malleshappa 1 2007-08 * Holaluru Holaluru 50 Teak 60 Average Ningappa Patluru Average survival = 60% * Information was not available.

C. Other works: Table 14.4e gives the details of 8 other works evaluated. Quality of other

works was good in four cases and satisfactory in four cases.

Table 14.4e: List of other works evaluated in Shimoga (T) Division Sl. Year Range Hobli Village Name of the work Scheme No Remarks 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Ephemeral Creation of new fire 1 Ayanur Hornalli Ayanur IFP work. Not line found now Work long Extraction and over. Not 2 Ayanur Hornalli Ayanur Depot deliveries of Timber 01 Timber possible to logs evaluate now 3 Ayanur Hornalli Sidlipura Formation of Tank KSFMBC -04 Good

4 2007-08 Ayanur Hornalli Yerekoppa Formation of Tank KSFMBC-05 Good 5 Mandagadde Mandagadde Mandagadde Const. of Tank (NB) KSFMBC -03 Satisfactory Const of cattle proof Kuvempu 6 Thirthahalli Mathuru Kuppalli Satisfactory guard SandeshaVana 7 Thirthahalli Kasaba Betkonur Formation of New tank KSFMBC -02 Satisfactory 8 Mandagadde Mandagadde Kongalkoppa Const. of nursery shed 01 Timber Satisfactory

5. Shimoga (WL) Division A. Performance of departmental plantations: During 2007-08, Shimoga (WL) Division raised 14 plantations over an area of 250 ha. Out of which three plantations were evaluated over an area of 50 ha under the scheme FDA. The sampling intensity is 21.24% by area and

78.57% by the number of works. List of plantations surveyed is given in table 14.5a below:

Table 14.5a: List of plantations selected for evaluation in Shimoga (WL) Division Sl Location/ Name of the Year Range Hobli Village Extent No Sy. No. Scheme 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1 Sacrebylu WL Mandagadde Thalale 8 20 ha FDA 2 Kargal WL Bharangi Muppane 42 10 ha FDA

2007-08 Sharawathi WL 3 Bharangi Kattinakaru 240 20 ha FDA kogar

206

Observations of the evaluation team are given plantation-wise in table 14.5b below:

Table 14.5b: Summary of evaluation of individual plantations of Shimoga (WL) Division Model Spaci Wheth Main Plantat Status Sl. Range/ of ng er Micro Plnt. Year Extent Species ion of No Village Planta adopt maintai plan journal planted type VFC tion ed ned 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Sacrebylu Not 1 20 ha Bamboo Yes Pit 4X4m No No No WL, Thalale Written Kargal WL, Mixed local Not Not 2 10 ha Yes Pit 3X3m No No

Muppane species functioning Written Sharawathi Mixed local 2007-08 Not Partially 3 WL kogar, 20 ha species + Yes Pit 3X3m Yes No functioning Written Kattinakaru Bamboo

Qualitative aspects of the plantations are given in table 14.5c below:

Table 14.5c: Qualitative aspects of individual plantations of Shimoga (WL) Division Selecti Selection of Choice Sl. Range/ Protection Survival Estimated General Year Extent on of plantation of No. Village aspects % total extent condition site model Species 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Sacrebylu 1 20 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 57.48 1150 Average WL, Thalale Kargal WL, 2 Muppane 10 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 17.50 175 Failure

2007-08 Sharawathi 3 WL kogar, 20 ha Proper Proper Proper Proper 16.50 330 Failure Kattinakaru Weighted average of seedling survival = 33.1%

survival rates of the three evaluated plantations varies from 16.5 to 57.48%. Out of these plantations, one was average and two were failures which constitute 33.33% and 66.66% respectively of the total evaluated plantation area of 50 ha. The SMC works have been carried out well in proper locations and has helped in conserving moisture. This has greatly benefited the wildlife.

B. Public distribution of seedlings: Information was not available. C. Other works: Information was not available.

-o0o-

207

15. PROJECT TIGER MYSORE

Circle summary

FDPT Mysore has jurisdiction over two wildlife divisions namely Nagarhole Tiger Reserve, Hunsur and Bandipur Tiger Reserve, Bandipura. No afforestation works were taken up during the year 2007-08 in the circle. An estimated 2140 wildlife conservation related works were carried out in the year. The evaluation team inspected these works and furnished the following division wise reports.

1. Nagarhole Tiger Reserve, Hunsur: In 2007-08, the division executed an estimated 490 work of which the evaluation team visited 49 (10%) works in three taluks namely Virajpet, Hunsur and H.D. Kote. Type of works carried out during the year relate mainly to repairing of building, maintenance of road, maintenance view line, EPT works under different schemes. All the works were found to be good (100%) and well maintained. List of works evaluated is given in table 15.1a. There is no information on rising of departmental plantations or distribution of seedlings to the public.

Table 15.1a: List of other works evaluated in Nagerhole Tiger Reserve Sl no Year Taluk Hobli Village Name of the work Scheme Remarks 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 Virajpet * Nalkeri Maintenance of Road DPA Good Special repairs and 2 Virajpet * Nalkeri maintenance of reception DPA Good centre Ephemeral work. 3 Virajpet * Nalkeri Maintenance of view line DPA Quality can’t be checked 4 Virajpet * Nalkeri Maintenance of Road CSS-PT Good Special repairs and 5 Virajpet * Nalkeri Ecotourism Good maintenance of Paragola Ephemeral work. 6 Virajpet * Nalkeri Maintenance of fire line CSS-PT Quality can’t be

checked

2007-08 Creation and deepening of 7 Virajpet * Nalkeri CSS-PT Good Neralemarada Kolache Special Repairs of Cauvery 8 Virajpet * Nalkeri DPA Good lodge Special Repairs of 9 Virajpet * Nalkeri CSS-PT Good Dormitory-01 Providing tiled flooring for 10 Virajpet * Nalkeri CSS-PT Good Dormitory - 02 Special repairs to guard 11 Virajpet * Nalkeri CSS-PT Good quarters-02 Repairs to store room 12 Virajpet * Nalkeri CSS-PT Good attached to cauvery lodge

208

Ephemeral work. 13 Hunsur * Veeranahosahally Maintenance of view line DPA Quality can’t be checked Improvement of 14 Hunsur * Bharathvadi Madapanakatte, CSS-PT Good Bharathvadi EDC Village Improvement of Jaragalkere 15 Hunsur * Nagapura block-3 CSS-PT Good of Nagapura block-3 Creation of water hole at 16 Hunsur * Veeranahosahally CSS-PT Good avarekayigudda, Hebbala Construction of culverts at 17 Hunsur * Veeranahosahally CSS-PT Good Achuhalla Construction of Causeway 18 Hunsur * Veeranahosahally CSS-PT Good at Bheemanahalla, Hebbala Providing and fixing aluminium doors to existing 19 Hunsur * Ashokapuram DPA Good aluminium partition to the CCF (PT) Mysore Ephemeral work. 20 Hunsur * Veeranahosahally Maintenance of fire line DPA Quality can’t be checked Ephemeral work. 21 Virajpet * Nitturu Maintenance of view line DPA Quality can’t be checked Providing water facility to Good 22 Virajpet * Nitturu Kallahalla Forest Guest CSS-PT house Drilling of Borewell at Good 23 Virajpet * Nitturu DPA Paradakada APC Construction of -Soak pit and Synthetic water tank Good 24 Virajpet * Nitturu CSS-PT platform to the staff Karmadu Excavation of EPT around Good 25 H.D Kote * Antharasanthe DPA KV line Good 26 H.D Kote * Antharasanthe Maintenance of Road CSS-PT Good 27 H.D Kote * Antharasanthe Maintenance of Road DPA Renovation of Forest Guest 28 H.D Kote * Antharasanthe DPA Good House Ephemeral work. 29 H.D Kote * Antharasanthe Maintenance of view line DPA Quality could not be checked 30 H.D Kote * Antharasanthe Improvement of Tiger Tank CSS-PT Good 31 H.D Kote * Antharasanthe Improvement of water holes CSS-PT Good Ephemeral work. 32 H.D Kote * DB Kuppe Maintenance of view line DPA Quality could not be checked Special repairs and 33 H.D Kote * Gundre maintenance of Field staff, CSS-PT Good RCC roof building Construction of Anti 34 H.D Kote * Kuduresathalli CSS-PT Good coaching shed Special repairs and 35 H.D Kote * Bhogeshwara DPA Good maintenance of APC shed

209

Excavation of EPT around 36 H.D Kote * DB Kuppe DPA Good Mosalebetta-APC 37 H.D Kote * Udboor Repairs to FG Qtrs DPA Good 38 H.D Kote * Masthigudi Repairs to FW Qtrs DPA Good Construction of forest check 39 H.D Kote * Bavali DPA Good post building Repairs to Forest Rest 40 H.D Kote * Kymara CSS-PT Good House Ephemeral work. 41 H.D Kote * Maintenance of view line DPA Quality could not be checked 42 H.D Kote * Agasanahurdi Repairs to forest guard Qtrs DPA Good 43 H.D Kote * Kaadbaalkatte Creation of new -Tank CSS-PT Good Special repairs and 44 Hunsur * Hunsur maintenance of DCF office DPA Good and Qtrs, Hunsur Providing and laying bitumen coat to the tiled 45 Hunsur * Hunsur CSS-PT Good roof of wireless room at DCF Office Desilting and bund 46 Virajpet * Kunchikatte formation to kunchikatte in CSS-PT Good malagi EDC Desilting and bunt 47 Virajpet * Karekatte formatiom to Karekatte of CSS-PT Good Muddenahally EDC Desilting and bunt 48 Virajpet * Kachuvinahally formation to Kalamanty CSS-PT Good Tank Ephemeral work. 49 Virajpet * * Maintenance of view line CSS-PT Quality could not be checked

2. Bandipur Tiger Reserve, Bandipur: In this division also no plantations were rised during 2007-08. Also no seedlings were distributed to the public. An estimated 1650 other conservation related works were carried out of which the evaluation team inspected 165 (10%) and recorded their observation. List of works and the observations of the evaluation team is given in table 15.2a below:

Sl. Year Taluk Range Village Name of the work Scheme Remarks No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Excavation of New EPT adjoining 1 Gundlupet Maddur Maddur KSFMBC Good Desipura SF Excavation of New EPT adjoining 2 Gundlupet Maddur Maddur KSFMBC Good Desipura SF Excavation of New EPT adjoining 3 Gundlupet Maddur Maddur KSFMBC Good Desipura SF 2007-08 Formation of Trenches for soil and moisture conservation around 4 Gundlupet Maddur Maddur KSFMBC Good Alasthikatte Camp in Karadikallare Betta Beat

210

Formation of Trenches for soil and moisture conservation at 5 Gundlupet Maddur Maddur KSFMBC Good Gurudevarakatte and Dongallare Area in Karadikallare Betta Beat Special Repairs to Guard Quarters 6 Gundlupet Maddur Maddur KSFMBC Good in Maddur Excavation of EPT around 7 Gundlupet Maddur Maddur KSFMBC Good Donigallare Anti-Poaching Camp Laying of Water Pipeline for Biosphere 8 Gundlupet Maddur Maddur Good Nursery in Maddur Reserve Maintenance of Fire Lines from Ephemeral Left side 1st Chain gate to CSS work. Quality 9 Gundlupet Maddur Maddur Hyadasana hatti pickup road and Project Tiger could not be other Eight Fire line checked Ephemeral Maintenance of Fire Lines from CSS work. Quality c 10 Gundlupet Maddur Maddur Check post to Hebballa (both Project Tiger could not be sides) and other Two Fire line checked Formation for New CSS 11 Gundlupet Maddur Maddur Sampigemarada Jedi Tank in Good Project Tiger Alegowdana Katte Beat Widening and Rejuvenation of CSS 12 Gundlupet Maddur Maddur Good Hosakere Tank Project Tiger Improvement of Road from Sige CSS 13 Gundlupet Maddur Maddur Betta to Donigallare via Good Project Tiger Bolayyanakatte Road Improvement Works to Road CSS 14 2007-08 Gundlupet Maddur Maddur from Marigudi Chain Gate to Good Project Tiger Giddanakatte Road Widening and Rejuvenation of CSS 15 Gundlupet Maddur Maddur Huliyammanagudi Colony Village Good Project Tiger Tank Widening and Rejuvenation of CSS 16 Gundlupet Maddur Maddur Good Navilugudi Colony Village Tank Project Tiger CSS 17 Gundlupet Maddur Maddur Special Repairs to RFO Office Good Project Tiger Providing Electrification to RFO CSS 18 Gundlupet Maddur Maddur Good Office Project Tiger Widening and Rejuvenation of CSS 19 Gundlupet Maddur Maddur Good work Alegowdana Katte Project Tiger Special Repairs and Extension 070 Building 20 Gundlupet Maddur Maddur Good work works to Guard Quarters Maintenance 21 Gundlupet Maddur Maddur Special Repairs to RFO Quarters PADF Good work Plastering and flooring works to CSS 22 Gundlupet Maddur Maddur New Anti-poaching Camp at Good work Project Elephant Donigallare Formation of Chammana halla CSS 23 Gundlupet Moolehole Maddur Good new tank Project Elephant Ephemeral Maintenance of Fire Lines from CSS work. Quality 24 Gundlupet Moolehole Maddur Salahatty Road and other Four Project Tiger could not be Fire checked Maintenance of Fire lines from Ephemeral 2007-08 Honnemaradakallu 'D' Line via CSS work. Quality 25 Gundlupet Moolehole Maddur Kerevavi Kanive and other Ten Project Tiger could not be Fire lines checked

211

Ephemeral Maintenance of Fire lines from CSS work. Quality 26 Gundlupet Moolehole Maddur Hebballa to Kerala border and Project Tiger could not be other Two Fire lines checked Improvement of Road from CSS 27 Gundlupet Moolehole Maddur Chippana Halla to Chammana Good Project Tiger Halla Improvement of Road from CSS 28 Gundlupet Moolehole Maddur Good Chammana Halla to Rampura Project Tiger Digging balance EPT around the CSS 29 Gundlupet Moolehole Maddur Good Staff Quarters Project Tiger Digging balance EPT around the CSS 30 Gundlupet Moolehole Maddur Good Staff Quarters at Chammana Halla Project Tiger Widening and Rejuvenation of CSS 31 Gundlupet Moolehole Maddur Good Chippana Halla Tank Project Tiger Widening and Rejuvenation of CSS 32 Gundlupet Moolehole Maddur Good Navilukere Tank Project Tiger Special repairs to Forest Quarters CSS 33 Gundlupet Moolehole Forest at Chammana Halla in Moolehole Good Project Tiger Range during 2007-08. Special repairs to Watcher CSS 34 Gundlupet Moolehole Forest Good Quarters Project Tiger Formation of Trenches for Soil 35 Gundlupet Moolehole Forest KSFMBC Good conservation measures Special repairs to Twin Watchers 36 Gundlupet Moolehole Forest KSFMBC Good Quarters Construction of LLC across CSS 37 Gundlupet Moolehole Forest Good Chippana Halla Project Elephant Construction of Platform and CSS 38 Gundlupet Hediyala Forest flooring at Mandalige Pare Anti- Good Project Tiger poaching Camp Widening and Strengthening of CSS 39 Gundlupet Hediyala Ballurhundi Good Tavare Katte at Ballur Hundi Beat Project Tiger Widening and Strengthening of CSS 40 Gundlupet Hediyala Ballurhundi Good Beladakuppe Kere Project Tiger Maintenance of Fire lines from Ephemeral Bommadevara Gudi to Sule Katte CSS work. Quality 41 Gundlupet Hediyala Forest road and other Twelve road side Project Tiger could not be Fire lines checked Improvement works to road from CSS 42 Gundlupet Hediyala Forest Hunasala to Meenakallare and Good Project Tiger other two roads Improvement works to road from Thottilubavi Halla Chikkavargi to CSS 43 Gundlupet Hediyala Forest Good Marada Pala road and other one Project Tiger road Improvement works to road from CSS 44 Gundlupet Hediyala Forest Meenakallare to Shambu Katte Good Project Tiger Junction and other one road Special repairs works to Forester Quarters at Chikkabargi CSS 45 H D Kote Hediyala Chikkabaragi Good (providing flooring OBD painting Project Tiger 2007-08 etc.,) Special repairs works to Forester CSS 46 H D Kote Hediyala Chikkabaragi Quarters at Chikkabargi Good Project Tiger (Desmantling roof, flooring etc.,)

212

Special repairs works to Forester CSS 47 H D Kote Hediyala Chikkabaragi Quarters at Chikkabargi Good Project Tiger (providing masonry,flooring etc.,) Providing rewiring to Forest CSS 48 H D Kote Hediyala Chikkabaragi Good Guard Quarters at Chikkabargi Project Tiger Providing rewiring to Forest CSS 49 H D Kote Hediyala Chikkabaragi Guard Twin Quarters at Good Project Tiger Chikkabargi Construction of Anti-poaching CSS 50 Gundlupet Hediyala Good Shed Korakaladi Nursery Project Tiger Improvement works to Road from CSS 51 Gundlupet Hediyala Good Tholubavi Halla to Meena Katte Project Tiger Construction of Rubble Stone CSS 52 Gundlupet Hediyala Doranakatte Wall to EPT from Dorana Katte to Good Project Tiger Chojjalamarada Kanna Construction of Culverts at CSS 53 H D Kote Hediyala Aralahally Aralahally to Chikkabargi Chain Good Project Tiger Gate Road Kebbekere I Construction of Culverts at CSS 54 H D Kote Hediyala Aralahally Aralahally to Chikkabargi Chain Good Project Tiger Gate Road Kebbekere II Dismantling works to Forest Rest 55 H D Kote Hediyala Chikkabaragi PADF Good House at Chikkabargi Providing B.B. Masonry and 56 H D Kote Hediyala Chikkabaragi flooring works to Forest Rest PADF House at Chikkabargi Providing Plastering and Roofing 57 H D Kote Hediyala Chikkabaragi PADF works to Chikkabargi IB Could not be Providing Skriting works to verified as 58 H D Kote Hediyala Chikkabaragi PADF Chikkabargi IB recently a local Providing Ceramic tiles and mob demolished 59 H D Kote Hediyala Chikkabaragi Blazed fitter to Bathrooms in PADF the building to Chikkabargi IB protest a human Providing painting works to death by tiger 60 H D Kote Hediyala Chikkabaragi PADF Forest Rest House at Chikkabargi attack Providing water supply works to 61 H D Kote Hediyala Chikkabaragi PADF Forest Rest House at Chikkabargi. Providing Sanitary works to 62 H D Kote Hediyala Chikkabaragi PADF Forest Rest House at Chikkabargi Special Repair works to Forest 63 Nanjanagud Hediyala Hediyala PADF Good Rest House at Hediyala Special Repair works to Forest 64 Nanjanagud Hediyala Hediyala PADF Good Rest House at Hediyala Special Repair works to Forest 65 Nanjanagud Hediyala Hediyala PADF Good Rest House at Hediyala Special Repair works to Kitchen 66 H D Kote Hediyala Chikkabaragi Block of Forest Rest House at KSFMBC Good Chikkabargi

2007-08 Special Repairs to Forest Guard 67 H D Kote Hediyala Chikkabaragi KSFMBC Good Twin Quarters at Chikkabargi Special Repairs to Forest Guard 68 H D Kote Hediyala Chikkabaragi KSFMBC Good Twin Quarters at Chikkabargi Improvement works to road from Chikkabargi Rest House to CSS 69 H D Kote Hediyala Chikkabaragi Good Aralahally Beladakuppe Junction Project Elephant Road

213

Maintenance of Hosakote to CSS 70 H D Kote Moliyur Hosakote Moliyur Road and other Eleven Good Project Tiger Fire lines Maintenance of Moliyur Range CSS 71 H D Kote Moliyur Forest Road to Kallare Road and other Good Project Tiger Nine Fire lines Improvement of Road from Matti CSS 72 H D Kote Moliyur Forest Marada Road cross to Good Project Tiger Hidagalapanchi Tank road Improvement of Road from Hidagalapanchi Camp to CSS 73 H D Kote Moliyur Forest Good Mathimarada Cross and Tiger Project Tiger Road to Sabugare Road Widening and Strengthening of CSS 74 H D Kote Moliyur Forest Basavanagudi Halla tank at Good Project Tiger Devalapura Widening and Strengthening of CSS 75 H D Kote Moliyur Forest Tavaremarada Kolachi in Good Project Tiger Devalapura Beat Formation of Earthen bunds for CSS 76 H D Kote Moliyur Forest Soil Conservation measures at Good Project Tiger Dadadahalli Formation of new waterhole at CSS 77 H D Kote Moliyur Forest Good Ramanayakana Halla Project Tiger Construction of new Anti- CSS 78 H D Kote Moliyur Forest poaching Shed in Huralipura Good Project Tiger Camp Improvement of Road from CSS 79 H D Kote Moliyur Forest Good Kallupalada Hadi to Koli Circle Project Tiger Pitching work to the road from CSS 80 H D Kote Moliyur Forest Good Kalpadi Halla to Koli Circle Project Tiger Repair works to Staff Quarters at 81 H D Kote Moliyur Seegevadi PADF Good Seegevadi. doors Repair works to Staff Quarters at 82 H D Kote Moliyur Seegevadi PADF Good Seegevadi. churki Maintenance of Fire lines from CSS 83 H D Kote AM Gudi Forest Ramapura to Mavinahalla border Good Project Tiger and other Five road side Fire line Construction of low level cause CSS 84 H D Kote AM Gudi Forest Good way across Seegebettada Halla Project Tiger Widening and Strengthening of CSS 85 H D Kote AM Gudi Forest Good Sule Katte Project Tiger Widening and Strengthening of CSS 86 H D Kote AM Gudi Forest Good Kurubana Kolachi Project Tiger Formation of trenches soil and 87 H D Kote AM Gudi Forest KSFMBC Good water conservation measures Widening and Strengthening of CSS 88 H D Kote N Begur Forest Goninarada Kere (Elchi Thal Good

2007-08 Project Tiger Katte) at Moorband Beat Rejuvenation of Siyarana tank at CSS 89 H D Kote N Begur Somadevaramanti Good Somedevara Manti village Project Tiger Rejuvenation of Kenchanahally CSS 90 H D Kote N Begur Kenchanahally Good Tank at Kenchanahally village Project Tiger Improvement of road from CSS 91 H D Kote N Begur Forest Sagdemarada Halla to Good Project Tiger Basavanagudi

214

Formation of water hote at Bogi CSS 92 H D Kote N Begur Forest Good Kere Project Tiger Repairs to Forest Guest House 93 H D Kote N Begur N Begur PADF Good (Painting Works) Construction of Earthen bunds for soil and moisture conservation 94 H D Kote N Begur Forest KSFMBC Good measures in CPT 79 at Moorband beat Improvement works to road from CSS 95 H D Kote Gundre Forest Gundre Shed to Gundre IB and Good Project Tiger other two roads Improvement works to road from CSS 96 H D Kote Gundre Forest Good Gundre Shed to other two roads Project Tiger Ephemeral Maintenance of Fire lines from CSS work. Quality 97 H D Kote Gundre Forest Goolibetta fire line and other five Project Tiger could not be road side fire lines checked CSS 98 H D Kote Gundre Forest Rejuvenation of Katigundi Kere Good Project Tiger Construction of Toe wall of watch CSS 99 H D Kote Gundre Forest Good tower to Uppinagundi tank Project Tiger Formation of small new water 100 H D Kote Gundre Forest KSFMBC Good holes Widening and strengthening of C.S.S 101 Gundlupet Omkar Forest Good Alethal Katte Project Tiger Nagarathnamma Widening and strengthening of C.S.S 102 Gundlupet Omkar Good Colony Nagathamma colony Kere Project Tiger Formation of water hole at C.S.S 103 Gundlupet Omkar Forest Good Kalethalankatte Project Tiger Improvement works at Paladahalla to Adanimunti Road C.S.S 104 Gundlupet Omkar Forest Good & HB Road to Uththaara Circle Project Tiger Road (pitching work) Improvement works at H.B Road C.S.S 105 Gundlupet Omkar Forest Good to Kapanakallare (8 km). Project Tiger Improvement works at C.S.S 106 Gundlupet Omkar Forest Paladahalla to Adanimunti Road Good Project Tiger and H.B Road ((6 km). Road Improvement fromRange C.S.S 107 Gundlupet Omkar Forest Forest Office extension to Good Project Tiger Naganapura Main Road( 6 km). Widening and strengthening of C.S.S 108 Gundlupet Omkar Forest Good Anesathakere of Baragi beat Project Tiger

2007-08 Excavation of New EPT from Palada Halla Anti-Poaching Camp 109 Gundlupet Hediyala Forest KSFMBC Good towards Begur Hediyala Road (650 m). Raising of Fodder and pasture at 110 Gundlupet Omkar Forest KSFMBC Good Paladahalla. Construction of Recharge trenches, Soil and monisture 111 Gundlupet Omkar Forest KSFMBC Good conservation work at Anegundi Halla( 318 Nos) Formation of New Water Holes. 112 Gundlupet Omkar Forest KSFMBC Good (7 Nos) 113 Gundlupet Omkar Kothanahalli Special repair works to twin Staff KSFMBC Good

215

quarters at Kothanahalli in Kurubarahundi Raising of Fodder and pasture at 114 Gundlupet Omkar Forest KSFMBC Good Paladahalla Excavation of New Elephant 115 Gundlupet Omkar Forest Proof Trenches at Mahadeshwara KSFMBC Good Temple towards Kallipura. Maintenance of Fire Lines from Hanchipura Danadadari to C.S.S 116 Gundlupet Omkar Forest Good Tavalnare Camp & other Nine Project Elephant Fire lines -64 Kms Heregowdana Special repairs to Staff Quarters at C.S.S 117 Gundlupet Omkar Good Hundi Heregowdana Hundi Project Elephant Ephemeral Maintenance of Fire Lines from C.S.S work. Quality 118 Gundlupet Omkar Forest Moorband to Ekkonabetta and Project Elephant could not be other Three Fire -18 km. checked Providing Electrification to Staff C.S.S 119 Gundlupet Omkar Kothanahalli Quarters at Kotthanahalli. Good Project Elephant Quarters No.1 Providing Electrification to Staff C.S.S 120 Gundlupet Omkar Kothanahalli Quarters at Kotthanahalli. Good Project Elephant Quarters No.2 Construction of Anti-Poaching C.S.S 121 Gundlupet Omkar Forest Good Camp Shed at Paladahalla. Project Elephant Construction of Anti-Poaching C.S.S 122 Gundlupet Omkar Forest Good Camp Shed at Paladahalla. Project Elephant Conducting Nature Camps on 1st, 3rd, 5th and 7th October 2007 on C.S.S 123 Gundlupet Omkar Forest Good view of wildlife week in Bandipur Project Elephant National Park.. Raising of trench mound plantation of EPT mound and C.S.S 124 H.D.Kote N Begur Sollepura road side in Sollepura Good Project Tiger

2007-08 Rehabilitation area of H.D.Kote Taluk. Maintenance of Road from Yethigehalla to 125 H.D.Kote Nugu Forest DNP Good Kaninganathakkalu in Nugu Wildlife Sanctuary Improvement of roads by re- excavating side drains from Naviladikere junction, 126 H.D.Kote Nugu Forest DNP Good Badagalapurahalla (Via) Panchimala kere in Nugu Wildlife Sanctuary. Improvement of roads by re- excavating Ring Road to 127 H.D.Kote Nugu Forest Batethoadahalla (via Hediyala DNP Good Danadadari) in Nugu Wildlife Sanctuary. Improvement of roads by re- excavating side drains to 128 H.D.Kote Nugu Forest Muthigehundi quarters Bridge to DNP Good Chikkakatte in Nugu Wildlife Sanctuary

129 0 7 - H.D.Kote Nugu Forest Improvement of roads by re- DNP Good

216

excavating side drains from Chikka katte to Yethige halla in Nugu Wildlife Sanctuary . Improvement of roads by re- excavating side drains from 130 H.D.Kote Nugu Forest Yethige halla to Naviladi kere DNP Good road junction in Nugu Wildlife Sanctuary -1.65 Km Widening and Strengthening of 131 H.D.Kote Nugu Forest Gowrigudi katte in Nugu Wildlife DNP Good Sanctuary Widening and Strengthening of 132 H.D.Kote Nugu Forest Hunasemarada katte in Nugu DNP Good Wildlife Sanctury Widening and Strengthening of 132 H.D.Kote Nugu Forest Naviladi katte in Nugu Wildlife DNP Good Sanctuary. Widening and Strengthening of 133 H.D.Kote Nugu Forest Dattaveeragowdana katte in Nugu DNP Good Wildlife Sanctuary. Construction of Rubble Stone wall on damaged EPT at 134 H.D.Kote Nugu Forest DNP Good Badagalapura halla in Nugu Wildlife Sanctuary. Construction of Rubble Stone wall on damaged EPT at 135 H.D.Kote Nugu Forest DNP Good Badagalapura halla in Nugu Wildlife Sanctuary. Construction of Gully checks at 136 H.D.Kote Nugu Forest Mullur Gudda area in Nugu DNP Good Wildlife Sanctuary. Construction of Gully checks at 137 H.D.Kote Nugu Forest Mullur Gudda area in Nugu DNP Good Wildlife Sanctuary. Special repairs to Range Forest 138 H.D.Kote Nugu Nugu Officer Quarters in Nugu Wildlife DNP Good Sanctuary. Special repairs to Staff Quarters 139 H.D.Kote Nugu Nugu No.1 (Twin quarters) in Nugu DNP Good Wildlife Sanctuary. Special repairs to Staff Quarters 140 H.D.Kote Nugu Nugu No.2 (Twin quarters) in Nugu DNP Good Wildlife Sanctuary. Maintenance of fire lines from Ephemeral Kariningana Thaklu to Dongallare work. Quality

141 2007-08 H.D.Kote Nugu Forest DNP and other ten fire lines in Nugu could not be Wildlife Sanctuary. checked Construction of check dams cum Causeways on Yethige halla to 142 H.D.Kote Nugu Forest Muthige Hundi Camp bridge road DNP Good in Nugu Wildlife Sanctuary. Point No. I Construction of check dams cum Causeways on Yethige halla to 143 H.D.Kote Nugu Forest Muthige Hundi Camp bridge road DNP Good in Nugu Wildlife Sanctuary. Point No. II

217

Construction of Gully Checks at 144 H.D.Kote Nugu Forest Lakshmanapura beat in Nugu DNP Good Wildlife Sanctuary. Pitching to the supporting to the 145 H.D.Kote Nugu Forest EPT wall at Yethige halla in DNP Good Nugu Wildlife Sanctuary. Earth work excavation on left side of the Yethige halla check dam 146 H.D.Kote Nugu Forest DNP Good cum causeway in Nugu Wildlife Sanctuary. Repair works to fire watcher 147 H.D.Kote Nugu Forest DNP Good tower at Nugu Wildlife Sanctuary. Drilling of Borewell and erection 148 H.D.Kote Nugu Hosabeerval of Hand Pump at Hosabeerval in DNP Good Nugu Wildlife Sanctuary Painting and rewiring to existing 149 H.D.Kote Nugu Forest sign boards in Nugu Wildlife DNP Good Sanctuary Providing rewiring to Forest 150 H.D.Kote Nugu Nugu Guest House in Nugu Wildlife PADF 139 Good Sanctuary. Conducting Elephant census on C.S.S 151 H.D.Kote Nugu Forest 7th, 8th and 9th of May 2007 in Good Project Elephant Nugu Wildlife Sanctuary. Maintenance of 10" X 16" size seedlings at Yashwanthpura Seedling not C.S.S 152 H.D.Kote Nugu Yeshwanthapura Camp Nursery from 1-4-2007 to available for Project Tiger 30-9-2007 in Nugu Wildlife evaluation Sanctuary. 5000 PB seedlings. Maintenance of 8" X 12" size seedlings at Yashwanthpura Seedling not Camp Nursery from 1-4-2007 to C.S.S 153 H.D.Kote Nugu Yeshwanthapura available for

2007-08 30-9-2007 in Nugu Wildlife Project Tiger evaluation Sanctuary. Block I - 25000 PB seedlings. Maintenance of 8" X 12" size seedlings at Yashwanthpura Seedling not Camp Nursery from 1-4-2007 to C.S.S 154 H.D.Kote Nugu Yeshwanthapura available for 30-9-2007 in Nugu Wildlife Project Tiger evaluation Sanctuary. Block II - 25000 PB seedlings. Maintenance of 5" X 8" size seedlings at Yashwanthpura Seedling not Camp Nursery from 1-4-2007 to C.S.S 155 H.D.Kote Nugu Yeshwanthapura available for 30-9-2007 in Nugu Wildlife Project Tiger evaluation Sanctuary. Block I - 100000 PB seedlings. Maintenance of 5" X 8" size seedlings at Yashwanthpura Seedling not Camp Nursery from 1-4-2007 to C.S.S 156 H.D.Kote Nugu Yeshwanthapura available for 30-9-2007 in Nugu Wildlife Project Tiger evaluation Sanctuary. Block II - 100000 PB seedlings. Construction of varanda to ground 2406-02-110-0- 157 Gundlupet Moyar Forest floor to H.G. Hills guest house in Good 46 PADF Moyar Range . 158 2007-08 Gundlupet Moyar Forest Formation of water holes (Soil & KSFMBC Good

218

moisture conservation works) in Vastihalla and Kambigudda halla in Moyar Range Excavation of EPT from Banghihalla to 159 Gundlupet Moyar Kaniyanapura KSFMBC Good Mahadeswaraswamy temple in Moyar Range. Maintenance of Doddanekatte to C.S.S 160 Gundlupet Moyar Kundukere Anekatte and other four fire lines Good Project Tiger in Moyar Range. Widening and rejuvination of C.S.S 161 Gundlupet Moyar Forest Bolugudda Kolachi in Moyar Good Project Tiger Range. Maintenance of Eerasuranagudda, C.S.S 162 Gundlupet Moyar Forest Chigarekadu halla D line and Good Project Tiger other two firelines. Improvement of road from Dhoni C.S.S 163 Gundlupet Moyar Forest halla to Chigarekadu road in Good Project Tiger Moyar Range. Construction of room no 3 to the ground floor of the existing rest 164 Gundlupet Moyar Forest Eco tourism Good house at H.G. hills in Moyar Range . Providing flooring to rest house at 165 Gundlupet Moyar Forest Eco tourism Good hills in Moyar range .

-o0o-

219

Annexures

219

Annexure - I

Guidelines for evaluation of forestry works and civil works taken up by Karnataka Forest Department during 2007-08 under plan and Non-plan schemes

As decided on 19-04-2011 during the annual KDP meeting held at Aranya Bhavan, the evaluation of Forestry Works for the year 2007-08 to be conducted & the guidelines for conducting evaluation are as follows:- 1. (a) The forms are to be prepared in three categories under all the schemes for plantations, for distribution of seedlings and for other works. The other works include all those works other than plantations and distribution of seedlings. The team should cover at least one work in each type of other works. (b) The evaluation team members shall spend a minimum of four days in each assigned Circle. The intention is to cover the evaluation of all types of work in a detailed manner. (c) The team leaders should ensure that all the works executed during the period in each unit are included by the Deputy Conservator of Forests of the division in form ‘A’ (Plantations) or ‘D’ (distribution of seedlings) or ‘I’ (other works). The purpose is to cover all the expenditure incurred by the department, irrespective of the sanctioning authority or the source of funds. Purchase of various equipments and materials where the expenditure was incurred, shall also come under the purview of evaluation’. 2. “The evaluation will cover all works undertaken during 2007-08 under Plan and Non- Plan schemes including Wildlife works, logging works, etc., 3. The field work for evaluation may commence from June 2011 onwards and the work should be completed by the end of October 2011. Teams are constituted with Conservators of Forests as team leaders and comprise of DCF’s of his/her Circle as members. Each team is assigned the task of evaluation of one or two circles.

4. The team leaders would carry out the evaluation with respect to implementation of field work in relation to the Annual Plan of Operations and sanctioned estimates and quantities worked, as well as in relation to the objectives of each scheme and determine to what extent the objectives have been fulfilled. The team leaders should assess whether the Approved Working Plan/Management Plan (in case of wildlife works) prescriptions are

220 adhered to, by the concerned. Any deviation/violation observed should be recorded in their evaluation report.

5. The team leaders and Conservators of Forests should collect the list of all works such as plantations, distribution of seedlings, wildlife related works and all others namely civil works, SMC works, CPT, EPT, plantation extraction work and salvaging dead and fallen timber and firewood during 2007-08. List of these works should be submitted to the Chief Conservator of Forests, Evaluation, Bangalore for random selection by the committee. 6. In case of plantation work a minimum of 10% of plantations raised under each scheme in the Division will be selected by random sampling by a committee of Officers in headquarters comprising of APCCF (EWPRT), CCF(Evaluation), CCF (WP) & CCF (Training). However, in case of all other works such as seedlings distributed to public and farmers, civil works and logging works the team leaders themselves may select 10% of the works on random basis. It should be ensured at the time of random sampling that where there are very few works in a Division, at least one work in each Range of the Division is selected. This may be in any scheme, i.e., no Range should be omitted entirely because of the random sampling. Selection of works will be based on locations (Spots). Also in the plantation works, the probability of selecting a sample plot is proportional to the size of plantations.

7. The list of plantations selected by the Committee for evaluation should be visited by the staff of the concerned division, who will carryout the assessment of survival as per sampling detailed in para 8 below. The concerned staff will also record GPS readings and other observations in the plantations. a) To record whether of the same area has been planted more than once. b) General condition of the plantations – survival percentage. c) Average height, DBH, Basal area and approximate yield in terms of timber / poles / Firewood.

8. Work selected by random sampling by headquarters team as detailed in para 5 should be verified in the field and details like survival percentage, growth condition, quality of

221

work carried out, etc. should be recorded by the evaluation team. Performance of different species is to be ascertained during the assessment of the percentage of survival while assessing the seedling distribution scheme. Civil works & logging works may be evaluated with reference to measurements recorded on a sampling basis.

9. Assessment of survival percentage of each plantation should be made on the basis of systematic sampling with a random start. The sampling intensity for plantations should be 2% irrespective of the extent of plantation. This works out to have a sample plot for every 5 Ha of plantation, but in case where the extent of plantation is less than 5 Ha, one sample plot should be laid compulsorily. The size of each sample plot could be 1000 Sq. meters (0.1Ha) grids having measurement of 31.62 meters X 31.62 meters to achieve the desired intensity of 2% and these grids be chosen at regular intervals for inventory or the line transect method could be employed. It is observed that plantation sketches are available on village maps, where latitudes and longitudes are not recorded and therefore girds drawn on the map cannot be easily located on the ground, even with the help of GPS. In such cases line transect method could be easily employed for laying the sample plots. A detailed note on LINE TRANSECT method for fixing sample plots is enclosed along with the guidelines. The team leaders should ensure that they work in co-operation with the concerned Conservator of Forests, working plan and their staff for laying sample plots and for survey work also.

To achieve an even spread of the sample plots, a grid of lines can be drawn at regular spacing on the map at suitable spacing and sample plots located at regular intervals on the grid lines, so as to achieve the desired intensity with the recommended plot size, provided, however, that the starting point (first sample plot) can be located using random numbers or other random methods.

10. The sample plots laid for assessing the performance of plantations should, if possible, be located with reference to grid lines on the sketch map, otherwise may be located on the following line on the field. The latitude and longitude readings may be recorded for each field spot visited by the concerned with the help of GPS (Global Positioning System) if possible, and the gridline distances may also be noted for precise location. The corners of sample plot may be marked by pegs or stones on the ground.

222

11. The team leaders will pay attention to the aspect of distribution of seedlings under schemes other than those excluded and verify the villages randomly and assess the success. The villages, for assessing the success of distribution of seedlings, may be selected at the rate of 1 to 2% of villages in each hobli (revenue circle).

12. Each team will submit their assessment report regarding: a) the schemes to be continued, b) the schemes to be modified and continued, c) the schemes that can be clubbed together, d) the schemes which may be given up.

13. Observations are to be recorded in the set of nine (9) proformae, which are circulated among implementing Officers and the team leaders may also obtain any additional information from the field units in these proformae, based on which they are to evaluate the works in the field and submit their reports.

14. Teams shall function as follows:

a) The teams shall be led by respective Chief Conservator of Forests or Conservator of Forests. b) The team may function as a single unit but, on any given day it could split itself to cover more sample areas. c) The team should invariably check the recording of latitude and longitude with the help of GPS by concerned Staff. Further, verification regarding sample plot location may also be carried out as per records in terms of distance between grid lines & along grid lines (i.e. x-y co-ordinates). d) Special emphasis in evaluation may please be laid to the aspect of performance of plantations raised under Compensatory afforestation, JFPM and Tree Patta schemes. The last two may please be evaluated with reference to the progress made during the year 2007-08. e) In respect of number of spots visited, detailed notes may be kept and the same may be reported.

223

f) The field work may be completed by 31st August 2011 and the final report may please be submitted by the 31st October 2011.

15. It is herewith clarified that the most important aspect of evaluation work is to improve the performance of the organization. The Conservators of Forests, who have been nominated as Team Leaders along with Team Members may have a special meeting with the Territorial Conservator of Forests, Deputy Conservator of Forests (Territorial / Social Forestry) and the Asst. Conservators of Forests of the Circle regarding the action taken on the earlier Evaluation Report and on improved performance in the areas of concern. Special efforts may be made to check the status of plantation survey and posting up of records such as Field Note Books, Measurement Books & Plantation Journals.

16. The APCCF (EWPRT) is always available for consultation to sort out any problems, as may arise, during the course of implementing the evaluation programme.

17. It is learnt that the area of plantation is reduced by decreasing the espacement. The evaluation teams are expected to go into the details of survey carried out for raising the plantation. Wherever the team leaders suspect the extent of the plantation, they are at liberty to order for resurvey. It has come in the recommendation of earlier evaluation that the area of plantation be correctly ascertained by carrying out a proper survey for the plantations.

18. The team engaged in ongoing Evaluation would ascertain whether the recommendations and suggestions made during the earlier evaluation are complied with or otherwise. Findings to this effect should be clearly brought out in their evaluation report.

19. The Chief Conservator of Forests (Evaluation) will assist the Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (EWPRT) in examining the reports received, undertake any checks and prepare a consolidated report by February 28, 2012, for onward submission to Principal Chief Conservator of Forests.

Additional Principal Chief Conservators Forests (Evaluation Working Plan, Research & Training) Bangalore.

224

Note on the line transect method

As per the sampling intensity, number of sample plots of 0.1 ha will be determined. To locate these sampling units randomly and evenly in the plantation area either the grid method or the line transect method may be adopted. If the plantations sketches are geo referenced with proper latitude/longitude co-ordinates marked on them, grid method may be followed. The centre of sampling units with their latitude/longitude may be located on the ground by using G.P.S. Since the plantation sketches are not geo-referenced the line transect method may be used to lay sample plots. As this method is also based on the principle of systematic random sampling so that bias is avoided. Here the principal transact line is drawn on the cadastral sketch from the North-West direction passing through centre of plantation (approximately). After determining the N.W. point on plantation boundary transect at 1350, bearing is drawn passing through the centre of sketch crossing up to the other end. Parallel to the principal transect few more transects on either side of it may be drawn at suitable regular spacing. Sample plots may be located on these transects at suitable regular spacing as per the requirement of sampling intensity of the evaluation. Care should be taken to ensure that the sampling units are not located on the boundary, but inside the plantation on the transect. Distance between the sampling units on the transect and number of transects will depend on the number of sampling units to be marked. To mark the sample plot of 0.1 ha on the transect from the sample plot centre, semi diagonals of 22.36 meters will be marked along the transect on either side of the plot centre. Perpendicular to this two other semi diagonals may be marked. By joining the end points of these diagonals, boundaries of sample plots may be drawn which will have each side 31.62 m. Example: Scale used in village map 8”=1 mile i.e. 1 cm is approximately equal to 4 chains.

225

N NW

2B 2A

W E

S

As shown above starting from the point on the boundary in N.W direction at the interval of 1cm/2cm/3cms (as the case may be) sample plots may be located. If more sampling units are required subsidiary transects 2A & 2B parallel to the principal transect at the perpendicular distance of 1cm/2cm/3cm (as the case may be) may be drawn and on them further sampling units at the same distance may be marked. If required this may further be continued, following similar/design.

226

Annexure – II

TEAMS CONSTITUTED FOR INTERNAL EVALUATION OF FORESTRY WORKS SUCH AS PLANTATIONS, RSPD, SMC AND CIVIL WORKS TAKEN UP DURING 2007-08 UNDER BOTH PLAN AND NON-PLAN SCHEMES

Sl. Name of the Circle to Evaluation to be carried out by No be evaluated Team Leader Team Member Conservator of Forests, Deputy Conservator of 1. Bangalore Circle Hassan Circle Forests of his/her circle Conservator of Forests, Deputy Conservator of 2. Belgaum Circle Dharwad Circle Forests of his/her circle Conservator of Forests, Deputy Conservator of 3. Bellary Circle Gulbarga Circle Forests of his/her circle Chamarajanagara Conservator of Forests, Deputy Conservator of 4. Circle Mysore Circle Forests of his/her circle Conservator of Forests, Deputy Conservator of 5. Chickmagalur Circle Shimoga Circle Forests of his/her circle Conservator of Forests, Deputy Conservator of 6. Dharwad Circle Kanara Circle Forests of his/her circle Conservator of Forests, Deputy Conservator of 7. Gulbarga Circle Bellary Circle Forests of his/her circle Conservator of Forests, Deputy Conservator of 8. Hassan Circle Kodagu Circle Forests of his/her circle Conservator of Forests, Deputy Conservator of 9. Kanara Circle Mangalore Circle Forests of his/her circle Conservator of Forests, Deputy Conservator of 10. Kodagu Circle Chickmagalur Circle Forests of his/her circle Mysore Circle & Conservator of Forests, Deputy Conservator of 11 & 12 FDPT Bangalore Circle Forests of his/her circle Deputy Conservator of Mangalore & Conservator of Forests, 13 & 14 Forests of his/her circle Shimoga Circles Belgaum Circle

-Sd- Additional Principal Chief Conservators Forests (Evaluation Working Plan, Research & Training) Bangalore. Dated: 23rd May, 2011

227

Annexure - III

Evaluation Formats for data collection

KARNATAKA FOREST DEPARTMENT

EVALUATION FORM – “A”- (LIST OF ALL PLANTATIONS)

(To be filled by the Division office and signed by the DCF of the division)

1. Name of the District: 2. Name of the Division: 3. Details of plantations raised: 4. Scheme:

No. Year Scheme Range Hobli Village Survey Area Main Species planted Nos. (ha)

DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS ……………..DIVISION

228

Evaluation Formats

KARNATAKA FOREST DEPARTMENT

EVALUATION FORM – “B”- (LIST OF SELECTED PLANTATIONS) (To be filled by the evaluation team after random selection)

1. Name of the District: 2. Name of the Division: 3. Year of planting: Total area planted in ha: 4. Total area planted during the last two years under all the schemes: 5. Total area of plantations randomly selected under all the schemes: 6. Details of randomly selected plantations:

No. Year Scheme Range Hobli Village Survey Area Model Nos. (ha)

TEAM LEADER & CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS of the evaluation team

Evaluation Formats

229

KARNATAKA FOREST DEPARTMENT

EVALUATION FORM – “C”- (INDIVIDUAL PLANTATIONS) (To be filled by the evaluation team, based on division office records)

1. Location of Plantations: District: Taluk: Hobli: Village: Survey Nos: Forest Division: Sub-division: Range: Section: Beat: 2. Nature of the land: Parampoke/Gomal/Forest(Reserved/Village/Protected/District Forest): Name of the Forest Block/Compartment (if any): 3. Year of planting: 4. Scheme: 5. Model of Plantations(including number if, any): 6. Gross area of the plantation: 7. Net area of the plantation: 8. Number of pits: Number of trenches: 9. Pit Size X X CM Trench size: X X CM 10. Spa cement of Pits: M Spa cement of Trenches: 11. Species Planted: No. Species Number of Seedlings planted

230

Evaluation Formats 12. Details of Maintenance operations carried out: Period of operation from ………….. to ………… No Item of Work (Dates) Plantation year 1 year old 2 year old 1 Fencing 2 Casualty replacement 3 First weeding 4 Fertilizer application 5 Second weeding 6 Scrapping 7 Hoeing 8 Fire-tracing

13. Status of VFC’ & Micro plan in the village plantation: a). Entry point activities: Item of Work: Amount spent: Date: b). Registration Number and Date: c). Number of members of the VFC: Male Female Total d). Name of the VFC Chairman e). Amount of seed-money paid to VFC: Rs: Date:

Rs. Date:

Rs. Date: f). Revenue realized by VFC: Source:

Amount:

Dated: 14. Date of approval of Micro-plan:

(To be filled by the Evaluation team, after inspection of the plantation)

15. Selected Sampling intensity: 16. GPS readings of the field sample plot (centre): Latitude: North of Equator: Longitude: East of Greenwich: Altitude: Above mean sea level.

231

Evaluation Formats

17. Total number of seedlings planted in the sample plots: 18. Surviving plants in the sample plots: Survival percentage: % 19. Whether the evaluation team agrees with the data given above, regarding: a). Model of Plantation: Yes/No. (if no, give observed variation) b). Pit/Trench size (visible): Yes/No. (if no, give observed variation) c). Spacement: Yes/No. (if no, give observed variation) d). Species Planted: Yes/No. (if no, give observed variation) e). Maintenance operations: Yes/No. (if no, give observed variation) f). Status of VFC Yes/No. (if no, give observed variation) g). Micro-plan implementation, etc: Yes/No. (if no, give observed variation) h). Plantation Journal: Written Up to date/Partially written/ Not written 20. Performance of different species: 21. Qualitative aspects of the plantation: a). Selection of site: Proper/Improper b). Selection of plantation Model: Proper/Improper c). Choice of species: Proper/Improper d). Protection aspects: Proper/Improper e). Average height of the plantation in sample plot: 22. General condition of the plantation:

TEAM LEADER & CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS of the evaluation team

232

Evaluation Formats

KARNATAKA FOREST DEPARTMENT

EVALUATION FORM – “D”- (DISTRIBUTION OF SEEDLINGS) (To be filled by the Division office and signed by the DCF of the division)

1. Name of the District: 2. Name of the Division: 3. Details of village-wise seedling distribution; Number of Species of seedlings No. Year Taluk Hobli Village seedlings distributed Distributed.

DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS ……………..DIVISION

233

Evaluation Formats

KARNATAKA FOREST DEPARTMENT

EVALUATION FORM – “E”- (DISTRIBUTION OF SEEDLINGS LIST OF SELECTED VILLAGES) (To be filled by the evaluation team, from division office records)

1. Name of the District: 2. Name of the Division: 3. Total number of seedlings distributed during the year 2007-08 under all the schemes: 4. Number of villages where departmental seedlings have been distributed; Total number of Number of villages where seedlings were No. Taluk Hobli villages in the hobli distributed in 2007-08

5. Details of randomly selected villages (where seedlings have been distributed): (To be filled by the Evaluation team) No Taluk Hobli Village Total number of seedlings received from the department during the year 2007- 2008

TEAM LEADER & CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS of the evaluation team

234

Evaluation Formats

KARNATAKA FOREST DEPARTMENT

EVALUATION FORM – “F”- (DISTRIBUTION OF SEEDLINGS INDIVIDUAL VILLAGE FARMER) (To be filled by the evaluation team, after inspection)

1. Name of the Village: 2. Name of Hobli 3. Name of Taluk: 4. Name of the District: 5. Name of the Farmer: 6. Nature of the land: Dry/Irrigated/Plantation: 7. Year of planting: 8. Type of planting: Block/Strip/Pit/Bund/Others(specify): 9. Source of seedlings planted by the farmer: 10. Details of private nurseries in the area: 11. Details of cost of seedlings in private nurseries: 12. GPS Latitude and Longitude reading of field spot: 13. Number of seedlings received: 14. Number of seedlings planted: 15. Number of pits: Number of the trenches: 16. Pit size: X X CM Trench size: X X CM 17. Spacement of Pits: M Spacement of TrenchesL M 18. Species Planted: Species: Number of seedlings planted: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Total seedlings planted: 19. Survival percentage: 20. Performance of different species: 21. Qualitative aspects of the plantation: 22. Opinion of the farmer:

TEAM LEADER & CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS of the evaluation team

235

Evaluation Formats

KARNATAKA FOREST DEPARTMENT

EVALUATION FORM – “G”- (LIST OF ALL OTHER WORKS) (To be filled by the Division office and signed by the DCF of the division)

1. Name of the District: 2. Name of the Division: 3. Details of all other works such as Buildings, Soil conservation works, Thinning, Logging, JPRM, Tree Patta, NTFP collection, Watch towers, Salt licks, Desilting of tanks, Fire line/View-line clearance, Roads,etc., under all the scheme:

Year of Survey No. Taluk Hobli Village Scheme Work Sanctioned amount sanction Nos.

DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS ……………..DIVISION

236

Evaluation Formats

KARNATAKA FOREST DEPARTMENT

EVALUATION FORM – “H”- (LIST OF SELECTED OTHER WORKS) (To be filled by the Evaluation Team)

1. Name of the District: 2. Name of the Division: 3. Details of randomly selection other works, such as Buildings, Soil conservation works, Thinning, Logging, JPRM, Tree Patta, NTFP collection, Watch towers, Salt licks, Desilting of tanks, Fire line/View-line clearance, Roads,etc., under all the scheme:

Year of Survey No. Taluk Village Scheme Work Sanctioned amount sanction Nos.

TEAM LEADER & CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS of the evaluation team

237

Evaluation Formats

KARNATAKA FOREST DEPARTMENT

EVALUATION FORM – “I”- (INDIVIDUAL OTHER WORK) (To be filled by the evaluation team, from division office records)

1. Name of the work: 2. Location of the work: i. District: Taluk: Hobli: ii. Village: Survey Nos: iii. Forest Division: Sub-division: Range: iv. Section: Beat: 3. Nature of the land: Parampoke/Gomal/Forest (Reserved/Village/Protected/District Forest): Name of the Forest Block/Compartment (if any): 4. Year of sanction of work: 5. Scheme: 6. Total cost of the sanctioned work: 7. Expenditure so far incurred:

(To be filled by the Evaluation team, after inspection)

8. Building: a). Selection of site: Proper/Improper Yes/No b). Whether the work is sanctioned by competent authority? Yes/No c). Whether it is as per the approved design by Chief Architect of Govt.? Yes/No d). Whether the work is entrusted to a Govt. agency? Yes/No e). Whether the work is executed as per the sanctioned plan? Yes/No f). Quality of the work: i. Quality of materials (Bricks, Wood, Cement) Good/Bad ii. Quality of construction: Good/Bad 9. Thinning: a. Whether the work is as per the sanctioned working plan/scheme? b. The year of the plantation-Teak/Acacia/Others (specify) c. Grade of thinning: d. Work executed by the department /KSFIC/others (specify) e. Quality of out turn- timber, poles and fire wood: i. Timber Cubic meters. ii. Poles (number) iii. Firewood Cubic meters. 10. Logging of dead and fallen trees. a). Whether the work is as per the sanctioned working plan/Scheme? Yes/No b). Whether the marking list is approved by competent authority? Yes/No c). What was the expected outturn of timber/firewood as per the approved marking list? d). Work executed by the department/KSFIC/others (Specify): e). What is the actual species-wise outturn of timber and firewood? Reasons for variation, if any: • Soil Conservation:

238

a). Type of soil/water conservation works: Check dams/Gully plugs/Pickups/Ravine reclamation structure(RRS)/vegetative bunds/ b). Whether the works are as per the sanctioned estimate? Yes/NO c). Quality of the individual work: • JFPM : Status of JFPM / VFC in the village where the plantation has been raised a). Entry-point activities: Item of work: Amount spent: Date: b). Registration Number and date: c). Number of members of the VFC: Male Female Total d) Name of the VFC chairman e) Amount of seed-money paid to VFC: Rs. Date: Rs. Date: Rs. Date: f). Revenue realized by VFC: Source Amount: Date: • Tree patta: a). Number of trees pattas issued: b). Number of tree pattas to be given: c). Activities of the tree patta holders: • NTFP (MFP) collection: a). Different products collected, Agency: Revenue: Quantity collected: b). Permits issued:

• Watch towers • Salt licks • Desilting /deepening of existing waterholes • Creation of new waterholes • Fire lines • View line maintenance /clearance • Road formation • Road maintenance • Clearance of Demarcation lines • Painting of boundary stones • Maintenance of firearms • Maintenance of wireless sets • Building maintenance • Construction of Culverts/ cause ways • Anti-poaching camps • Maintenance of tourist lodge • Clearance of weeds • Chain gates • Elephant proof trench works • EPT walls • Solar fencing 239

• Publication • LPG units subsidy • Gobargas units • Solar heaters to tribal hostels • Chullas • Rehabilitation works: (Only one of the above or other such work should be included in the form)

Qualitative and suitability to site aspects of the executed work:

TEAM LEADER & CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS of the evaluation team

240

Annexure – IV

Chronology of Receiving the Field Evaluation Reports

Name of the circle Date of receipt Sl no Team leader evaluated of the report Sri G.V. Ranga Rao IFS 1 Bangalore Chief Conservator of Forests 31-10-2013 Hassan Circle Sri Mahesh B Shirur IFS 2 Belgaum Chief Conservator of Forests 28-10-2013 Dharwad Circle Smt Radha Devi IFS 3 Bellary Chief Conservator of Forests 11-11-2013 Gulberga Circle Sri K. B. Markandiah IFS 4 Chamarajanagar Chief Conservator of Forests 11-06-2013 Mysire Circle Smt Smitha Bijjur IFS 5 Chickamagalur Chief Conservator of Forests 31-07-2013 Shimoga Circle Sri N. L. Shantakumar IFS 6 Dharwad Chief Conservator of Forests 16-12-2012 Kanara Circle Sri P. C. Ray IFS 7 Gulbarga Chief Conservator of Forests 10-12-2013 Bellary Circle Sri B. K. Deekshit IFS 8 Hassan Chief Conservator of Forests 23-7-2013 Kodagu Circle Sri Shantappa IFS 9 Kanara Chief Conservator of Forests 5-09-2013 Mangalore Circle Sri G.S. Yadav IFS 10 Kodagu Chief Conservator of Forests 8-08-2013 Chickamagalur Circle Sri Dilip Kumar Das IFS (Appointed on 30th Oct,2013) 11 Mysore & FDPT Mysore 3-03-2014 Chief Conservator of Forests Hassan Circle Sri Srikantha Hosur IFS 12 Shimoga & Mangalore Chief Conservator of Forests 23-05-2013 Belguam Circle

241