PART-II
Form for seeking prior approval of Central Government under section 2 of the Forest(Conservation) Act,1980 for Diversion of fresh forest area
(To be filled by the concerned Deputy Conservator of Forest)
State Serial No. of proposal :
KA-073/2020
1.
Location of the project/Scheme :
Karnataka
(i)
State / Union Territory :
Karnataka
(ii)
District :
Gadag
(iii)
Forest Division :
Gadag
(iv)
Area of forest land proposed for diversion (in ha.) :
39.9
(v)
Category of the Proposal:
Mining
2.
Legal status of forest land proposed for diversion
S. No.
Division
Forest Land(ha.)
Legal Status
1
Gadag
39.9
Reserved Forest
Total
39.9
Division 1. : Gadag
3.
District wise area to be diverted in the division
S. No.
District
Area(ha.)
1
Gadag
39.9
Total
39.9
4.
Details of Vegetation available in the forest land proposed for diversion
(i)
Density of vegetation
S. No.
Area(in ha.)
Density
Eco-Class
1
6
30
Eco 3
2
23.9
15
Eco 4
Total.
29.9
(ii)
Species-wise local/scientific names and girth-wise enumeration of trees at FRL
S. No.
Scientific Name
Local Name
(0-30)cm.
(31-60)cm.
(61-90)cm.
(91-120)cm.
(121-150)cm.
(>150)cm.
1
Others
Dindal
0
48
0
0
0
0
2
Others
Udaya
0
54
0
0
0
0
3
Diasporus Melanoxylon
Tumbre
0
50
0
0
0
0
4
Others
Pachali
0
42
0
0
0
0
5
Others
Tered
0
56
0
0
0
0
6
Hardwickia Binnata
Anjan
0
53
0
0
0
0
7
Others
Mushawala
0
45
0
0
0
0
8
Somi
Sevamara
0
35
0
0
0
0
9
Pterocarpus Marsupium
Honne
0
38
0
0
0
0
10
Terminalia Tomentosa
Karimatti
0
52
0
0
0
0
11
Others
Chil
0
32
0
0
0
0
12
Azadirachta Indica
Bevu
0
0
88
0
0
0
13
Pongamia Pinnata
Honge
0
43
0
0
0
0
14
Eucalyptus spp
Nilagiri
0
0
79
0
0
0
15
Others
Maddi
0
49
0
0
0
0
16
Cassia Fistula
Kakke
0
52
0
0
0
0
17
Terminalia Chebula
Alale
0
39
0
0
0
0
18
Others
Halapi
0
48
0
0
0
0
19
Dalburgia Sisoo
Sisso
0
59
0
0
0
0
20
Others
Goravi
0
50
0
0
0
0
21
Others
Subabul
0
47
0
0
0
0
22
Phyllanthus Emblica
Bettad nelli
0
43
0
0
0
0
23
Others
Ghoni
0
36
0
0
0
0
24
Others
kalagatti
0
53
0
0
0
0
25
Others
Basavnapada
0
55
0
0
0
0
26
Syzigium Cumini
Nerale
0
43
0
0
0
0
27
Santalum Album
Shrigandha
0
56
0
0
0
0
28
Gmelina Arborea
Shivane
0
33
0
0
0
0
29
Others
Adakidagida
0
44
0
0
0
0
30
Others
Gurchi
0
53
0
0
0
0
31
Acacia Nilotica
Karijali
0
36
0
0
0
0
32
Albezzia Amara
Tuggali
0
59
0
0
0
0
33
Acacia leucophloea
Bela
0
47
0
0
0
0
34
Holoptelia integrifolia
Tapasi
0
39
0
0
0
0
35
Prosophis Juliflora
Bellary jali
0
48
0
0
0
0
36
Albzzia Spp.
Albizzia odoratissima
0
57
0
0
0
0
37
Others
Bandaraki
8
0
0
0
0
0
38
Zizyphus Xylopyrus
Jheni Gida
0
33
0
0
0
0
39
Others
Chadurangi gida
11
0
0
0
0
0
40
Others
Nayi Shenga
10
0
0
0
0
0
41
Others
Siam weed
0
36
0
0
0
0
42
Tacoma Stans
Gowri goda
18
0
0
0
0
0
43
Others
Ganduli
8
0
0
0
0
0
44
Others
Hondgumbla
14
0
0
0
0
0
45
Others
kauli gida
17
0
0
0
0
0
46
Others
Kene gida
15
0
0
0
0
0
47
Others
Nelagulli
19
0
0
0
0
0
48
Others
Honnambri
17
0
0
0
0
0
49
Others
Naga tulasi
7
0
0
0
0
0
50
Others
Pig weed
5
0
0
0
0
0
51
Others
Tondarasi
9
0
0
0
0
0
52
Others
Dagadi balli
7
0
0
0
0
0
53
Others
Adumuttada balli
8
0
0
0
0
0
54
Others
Nelabikki
5
0
0
0
0
0
55
Others
Madhu nashini
6
0
0
0
0
0
56
Others
Gilimuti balli
7
0
0
0
0
0
Total
191
1663
167
0
0
0
Sub Total (No of Trees.)
2021
5.
Working plan prescription for the forest land proposed for diversion :
The area comes under protection cum improvement working circle of the working plan and requires utmost protection and scientific intervention for conservation.
6.
Brief note on vulnerability of the forest area to erosion :
The area is highly vulnerable to soil erosion and degradation. The proposed project may affect the catchment and watershed of the landscape also in a negative way.
7.
Approximate distance of the proposed site for diversion from boundary of forest(in km.) :
0
8.
Significance of the forest land proposed for diversion from wildlife point of view
(i).
Details of wildlife present in and around the forest land proposed for diversion :
Stripped Hyena Hyaena hyaena Sch.I Wolf Canis lupus pallipes Sch. I Indian porcupine Hystrixindica Sch. III Jackal Canisaureus Sch. II Jungle cat Felischaus Sch. II Common mongoose Herpestessps Sch. II Common langur Presbytis entellus Sch. II Bonnet Maccaque Macaca radiate Sch. II Common Indian hare Lepusnigricollis Sch. IV Wild pig Susscrofa Sch. III Four horned antelope Tetracerusquadricornis Sch.II Pangolin Maniscrassicaudata Sch. I Fresh Water Crocodile Crocodilussps Sch. I Monitor lizard Varanusbengalensis Sch. II Indian Cobra Najanaja Sch. II Rat snake or Dhaman Ptyasmucosus Sch. II Indian Rock Python Python molurus Sch. I Viper Viperarusselli Sch.II Blackbuck Antelope cervicarpa Sch. I
(ii).
Whether forms part of national park, wildlife sanctuary, biosphere reserve,tiger reserve, elephant corridor, wildlife migration corridor etc. :
Yes
Details and comments on the impact of Project on such areas :
Refer to the Site Inspection Report.
(iii).
Whether the forest land proposed for diversion is located within eco-sensitive zone(ESZ) of the Protected Area notified under Wildlife(Protection) Act,1972 (Note: In case, ESZ of a Protected Area is not notified,then,10kms distance from boundary of the Protected Area should be treated as ESZ):
Yes
Details of Protected Area and comments on the impact of Project on the ESZ :
The approach road proposed to the project and also the extraction plant is planned to be established on the ESZ of the Kappathagudda Wildlife Sanctuary and has negative impact on the eco sensitive zone and also to the protected area.
(iv).
Whether any national park, wildlife sanctuary, biosphere reserve, tiger reserve, elephant corridor, wildlife migration corridor etc., is located within 1 Km. from boundary of the forest land proposed for diversion :
Yes
Details and comments on the impact of Project on such areas :
Refer to the Site Inspection Report.
(v).
Whether any rare/endangered/unique species of flora and fauna found in the area :
Yes
9.
Details of any protected archaeological/heritage site/defence establishment or any other important monument located in the area, if any
(i).
Whether any protected archaeological/heritage site/defence establishment or any other important monument is located in the area :
No
10.
Comment as to the reasonability of the extent of the forest land proposed for diversion
(i).
Whether the requirement of forest land as proposed by the user agency is unavoidable and bare minimum for the project :
Yes
11.
Details of violation(s), if any ,committed
(i).
Whether any work in violation of the Act or guidelines issued under the Act has been carried out :
No
12.
Whether work in violation is still in progres(Yes/No) :
NIL
13.
Details of compensatory afforestation scheme
(i).
Patch wise details of non-forest or Revenue forest land to be provided by User Agency for CA
Patch Wise Details
S.no
District Name
Village
Area(in ha.)
khasra
KML file
Present Owner file
1
Davanagere
Arasanaalu
40.06
262/A
(ii).
Upload a scanned copy of the Geo-referenced map of the forest land proposed for C.A. prepared by using DGPS or Total Station:
(iii).
Upload a copy of Survey of India Toposheet indicating boundary of forest land proposed for C.A:
(iv).
Copy of CA scheme details:
(iv).
Copy of CA scheme details:
NA
Additional information Details
S. No.
Documents
Remarks
1
Recommendation
14.
District Profile
S.no
District Name
Geographical area of the district (in ha.)
Forest area of the district (in ha.)
Total forest area diverted since 1980 (in ha.)
No. of Approved Cases
Forest Land including penal C.A. (in ha.)
Progress of compensatory afforestation as on(date)
A) Forest land (in ha.)
B) Non-forest land (in ha.)
1
Gadag
465700
32442.124
417.706
14
4.02
04/12/2020
4.02
408.8
15.
Site inspection report of the DFO/CCF/Nodal Officer highlighting important facts pertaining to the forest land
Division Name
Circle
Site inspected By
Whether site inspected
No. of times site visited
Site inspection report
Date of visit
Gadag
Dharwad
DFO
Yes
One
02/12/2020
Dharwad
CF
Yes
One
22/12/2020
Nodal Officer
No
No Data
(Specific recommendation of the DFO/CCF/Nodal Officer with(Part II,III & Part IV))
16.
Specific recommendation of the DFO/CCF/Nodal Officer for acceptance or otherwise of the proposal with reason
Division
Circle
Recommendation By
Recommendation
Reason
Letter
Whether CF agreed
Gadag
Dharwad
DFO
Not-Recommended
The project is specifically not recommended in the interest of the local livelihoods, flora and fauna which has an intermingled biological stability.
Dharwad
CF
Not-Recommended
Certified that I have inspected the proposed forest land for diversion for mining purpose is 39.9 Ha. It was inspected by me on 22nd December 2020 along with Deputy Conservator of Forests, Territorial Division, Gadag, Assistant Conservator of Forests, Territorial Division, Gadag, Range Forest Officer, Shiratti and other staff. It is well explained in the SIR report the existence of flora fauna and avian species as listed in the report submitted by Deputy Conservator of Forests, Gadag are dependent on micro climate provided by Kappatagudda. These species of the area suggest that this area is ecologically ‘rich’, ‘valuable’, ‘unique’, and ‘irreplaceable’. This proposed project may negatively affect the catchment and watershed of the landscape. Further, by virtue of their biological richness, they are potentially of high value to Human societies, help in maintaining the ecological stability of the area and are significant in conserving biological diversity. The uniqueness of the services they offer to human societies are precious. The part of proposed mining project lying in the Kappatagudda Wildlife Sanctuary as notified in FEE57FWL2019 Dated 16.05.2019 may alter/destroy or disturb present ecological setup both in physical and biological levels which may not be possible to restore later at any cost. The perils, consequences and ecological losses as explained in reference letter are genuine and acceptable. The other parts of the project also lie in the ESZ. This proposed project no.FP/KA/MIN/42366/2019 earlier submitted as FP/KA/MIN/26675/2017 was recommended for rejection by Deputy Conservator of Forests, Territorial Division, Gadag. Deputy Conservator of Forests, Territorial Division, Gadag expressed negative impact of this project on flora fauna, groundwater, watershed landscape, native medicinal plant species,etc., considering all the above elements to conserve the natural resources and maintain ecological balance, this proposed project is recommended for REJECTION.
Yes
Nodal Officer
Not-Recommended
Proposal Not recommended
Print
Checklist for State Nodal Officer
×