CENTREFOR WILDLIFESTUDIES August3,2012 Admln. Ofrice: # {669, 31st Cross, l6th Main, Banashankari 2nd Stage, Dr.P.J. Dilip Kumar, IFS Bengaluru - 560 070, Indla. Chair,Forest Advisory Committee Tel. : +91 80 26715364,Tele Fax : +9'l 80 26715255 DirectorGeneral of Forests WEBSITE : rrvwwwcslndia.org Regd. Oflice: 26-2,Aga Abbas Ali Road (Apt.403) Ministryof Environmentand Forests Bengaluru - 560 042, lndia. ParyavaranBhavan CGOComplex, Lodhi Road NewDelhi-1 10003 Sub:Final Report of thesub-committee of the FACon the Rupsiyabagar Khasiyabarahydroelectric project i n Munsiyari (RKH PP), Uttarakhand. Sir, This reportpertains to the site inspectionthat I had carriedout withAIGF Sri HC Choudhryon April21-22,2012. The site inspection was relatedto the 261 MW Rupsiyabagar-KhasiyabaraHydro-Power Project ("RK HPP" for short)in Pithoragarhdistrict of Uttarakhand,proposed by the NationalThermalPower CorporationLimited (henceforth NTPC). The StateGovernment of Uttarakhand videtheir letter dated 21.12.2009 submitted a proposalto obtainprior approval of CentralGovernment under the Forest(Conservation) Act, 1980 for diversionof 217.522 hectare of forestland for 30 years,in favourof the useragency. The proposalwas examinedby the ForestAdvisory Committee ('FAC", for short)on 25.05.2010and rejected. As you are aware,in responseto a representationfonryarded by the Nodal Officer,Forest (Conservation)Act, 1980 (Government of Uttarakhand)in his letterdated 15.09.2010, requesting the MoEFto re-considerits decision to declineapproval of the CentralGovernment, the ForestAdvisory Committee set- up a sub-committeeto undertakea site inspection. Accordingly,the abovesub-committee of the FAC,headed by me, inspectedthe site identifiedfor constructionof the RK HPP in orderto assessfirst-hand the floraand faunaavailable in and aroundthe forestland proposed for diversion and the ecologicalvalue of the area.The mandatedinspection was carriedon 21stand 22nd April 2012. Given the shortduration of thevisit, our assessment was basedon my experienceand expertiseas a wildlifeecologist and scientist, and Sri Choudhry'sprofessional expertise as a forester.I alsodid a full reviewof existingliterature on the floraand faunaof the areaproduced by reputed scientistsfrom the Wildlife Institute of Indiaand GB PantInstitute of Himalayan Environmentand Development,I have also had informaldiscussions with ecologicalscientists from the WildlifeInstitute of Indiawho haveworked extensivelyin the region.In addition,we soughtopinion from local inhabitants aboutthe biodiversity/wildlifevalues of the areaduring our briefsite visit. The useragency (NTPC) had consistently maintained that the projectsite did not haveany ecological value. Although we couldnot obviously quantify measurementsof theflora and fauna of in andaround project site given the short durationof ourvisit, literature review and discussions with scientists and local inhabitantsshowed the siteto be of highecological/wildlife value. Basedon my experienceas a scientist,my overallassessment is thatthe area has highbiodiversity value and is importantfor habitatconnectivity in the region. Accordingly,I had stronglyagreed with the earlierdecision of the FACto reject the constructionof the damby the useragency at the proposedsite. As the chair of the sub-committeeI had senta draftreport cleady stating this conclusionto AIGFMr. Choudhry and copied to you. However,the originaldraft report sent by me has beensubstantially modified by the AIGF,and I findthat the originalclear-cut recommendation appears to have beenwatered down, and the matteragain pushed back to FACfor reconsideration.I am notin agreementwith such a suggestion,and have re- editedthe report. I firmlysupport the originaldecision of the FACto rejectthe Rupsiyabagar- KhasiyabaraHydro-Power Project on groundsof itsecological impacts. This is my firm and finalview. In casethere is stilla disagreementto thisopinion, on the partof the committee memberAIGF Sri. Choudhry, I kindly request him to add hisofficial dissent note to the end of this report,but without further editing the bodyof the textand conclusionsin thisfinal report signed by me. However,any original submissions or documentssubmitted to FAC in this regardmay pleasebe appendedas required. I thankMr. Choudhry, the ProjectProponents, all membersof the FACand yourselffor entrustingthis work to me and trustthat this reportwill assistthe FAC and MoEFas expected.Kindly acknowledge the receiptof this letter. Thankingyou, Yourssincerely, K\X/\W-r I K. UllasKaranth, Ph.D., F.A. Sc. Member-FAC& Chairof the Subcommitteeon RKHPP Copyto: All membersof ForestAdvisory Committee INSPECTION REPORT OF THE SUB‐COMMITTEE OF THE FOREST ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO ASSESS WILDLIFE VALUES AND ECOLOGICAL IMPACT OF THE RUPSIYABAGAR‐ KHASIYABARA HYDRO‐ELECTRIC POWER PROJECT (RKHPP) K. Ullas Karanth, Ph.D., F.A.Sc – Member, FAC & Chair of the Subcommittee H. C. Choudhry, IFS, Assistant Inspector General of Forests, MoEF Introduction: The State Government of Uttarakhand vide their letter dated 21.12.2009 submitted a proposal to obtain prior approval of Central Government under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 for diversion of 217.522 hectare of forest land for 30 years, in favour of the National Thermal Power Corporation Limited (henceforth NTPC) to construct the 261 MW Rupsiyabagar‐Khasiyabara Hydro‐Power Project (“RKHPP” for short) in Pithoragarh district of Uttarakhand. The proposal was examined by the Forest Advisory Committee (“FAC”, for short) on 25.05.2010. The FAC after examination of the proposal observed that (i) the forest land proposed to be diverted is a virgin wilderness area and is highly sensitive to erosion; (ii) construction of road proposed as a constituent component of the project will severely accentuate the problem of erosion; (iii) the wildlife management plan prepared for the project does not address the likely impact of the proposed project on many endangered species available in the area; and (iv) the proposed project is one of the seven hydro power projects and is located in the mid‐stretch of the river. The FAC, therefore recommended that the project may be rejected on merit as it is located at the center of a highly ecologically sensitive, wildlife habitat. During the FAC meeting held on 17.06.2010, NTPC placed a request for a re‐evaluation of the RKHPP. The FAC however observed that many of its former observations still held good. After thorough deliberations, the FAC observed that no new fact related to the project has been placed before it, and therefore decided to reiterate its earlier recommendation to reject the proposal on merit. The Nodal Officer, Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, Government of Uttarakhand in his letter dated 15.09.2010, forwarded a copy of a representation of NTPC requesting the MoEF to re‐consider its decision to decline approval of the Central Government, in accordance with Section‐2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. The Nodal Officer highlighted that certain new facts had come to light and the RKHPP needed to be evaluated anew in this light. The important facts summarized by the NTPC in their letter dated 23.05.2011, are as below: (a) Lot of human interface already exists and is increasing due to a road being constructed by the Border Roads Organisation (BRO). 1 (b) Initially, NTPC was planning to construct 18.00 km road between dam and power house of the project. After a joint survey with BRO, the NTPC has decided to follow the alignment of BRO road for 16 km. Requirement for new road has therefore been substantially reduced from 18.00 km to 1.80 km. (c) Similarly, alignment of 12 km long road requiring diversion of 112 hectares of forest land (out of 217.154 hectares of the total forest land required for the project) proposed to be constructed in the power house area has been selected in such a manner that apart from various components of the project, it also provides connectivity to seven villages located therein. Even if the project does not get clearance, the PWD, Uttarakhand will construct the said road (under tribal sub‐ plan) to provide connectivity to these villages. The effective requirement of the forest land for the project is thus 105 hectares only; (d) Tree coverage is less than 70 trees/hectare; (e) As per the National Bureau of Soil Survey and Land Use Planning maps the project site is located in slight to moderate erosion zone; (f) No rare /endangered species of wildlife are observed in the project area; (g) Project does not lie in Eco Sensitive Zone, Wild Life Sanctuary, Bio Sphere Reserve, National Park and important migratory route of wild animals; (h) Catchment area treatment envisages expenditure of Rs. 34.67 crore out of which Rs. 8.00 crore is proposed for wildlife management; and (i) NTPC is ready to conduct additional studies on wild life management and soil erosion protection measures. The FAC, in a meeting held on 28th ‐ 29th November 2011, examined the revised petition. The representatives of the NTPC also made a presentation during the meeting. The FAC recommended that before making a final decision on the petition submitted by the user agency, a sub‐committee of the FAC will inspect the site identified for construction of the RKHPP in order to have first‐hand assessment of the flora and fauna present in and around the forest land proposed for diversion. The FAC had earlier rejected the proposal on ecological grounds, after carefully considering documentary evidence as well as a presentation made by the project 2 proponents. However, this field