| Sno. | From | Status | To | EDS Date | EDS sought/Replied | EDS Letter |
|
1
|
DFO (Civil Soyam,Almora)
|
EDS
|
User Agency (eecdalmorapwd@rediffmail.com)
|
13/04/2015
|
short out the query
|
|
|
2
|
User Agency (eecdalmorapwd@rediffmail.com)
|
REPLY
|
DFO (Civil Soyam,Almora)
|
17/04/2015
|
uploaded Details of trees by user agency against essential details sought by forest department
|
|
|
3
|
Regional Office
|
EDS
|
State secretary
|
03/07/2015
|
Following shortcomings may be attended
1.In cost benefit analysis columns in performa 22.1 VI B and 22.2 VI C are not quantified in monetary terms which may be done now.
2.FRA Certificate attached with all enclosures does not pertain to this road but is for Jogeshwar Koteshwar road.FRA Certificate to be provided.
3.Name of this road is not available in the administrative and financial approval of Uttarakhand Govt. attached in part I.
4.In the list of trees attached in part I shows 736 trees whereas in Part II detail of 820 trees is provided including 159 oak trees.This may be clarified and efforts be made to reduce the no. of trees specially oak trees.
5.Information provided in point 5 and 12 of part II is not correct.
|
|
|
4
|
State secretary
|
EDS
|
Nodal Officer
|
08/07/2015
|
Plz reply to obj of RO-Following shortcomings may be attended 1.In cost benefit analysis columns in performa 22.1 VI B and 22.2 VI C are not quantified in monetary terms which may be done now. 2.FRA Certificate attached with all enclosures does not pertain to this road but is for Jogeshwar Koteshwar road.FRA Certificate to be provided. 3.Name of this road is not available in the administrative and financial approval of Uttarakhand Govt. attached in part I. 4.In the list of trees attached in part I shows 736 trees whereas in Part II detail of 820 trees is provided including 159 oak trees.This may be clarified and efforts be made to reduce the no. of trees specially oak trees. 5.Information provided in point 5 and 12 of part II is not correct.
|
|
|
5
|
Nodal Officer
|
EDS
|
CF (North Kumaun)
|
12/07/2015
|
Plz reply to obj of RO-Following shortcomings may be attended 1.In cost benefit analysis columns in performa 22.1 VI B and 22.2 VI C are not quantified in monetary terms which may be done now. 2.FRA Certificate attached with all enclosures does not pertain to this road but is for Jogeshwar Koteshwar road.FRA Certificate to be provided. 3.Name of this road is not available in the administrative and financial approval of Uttarakhand Govt. attached in part I. 4.In the list of trees attached in part I shows 736 trees whereas in Part II detail of 820 trees is provided including 159 oak trees.This may be clarified and efforts be made to reduce the no. of trees specially oak trees. 5.Information provided in point 5 and 12 of part II is not correct.
|
|
|
6
|
CF (North Kumaun)
|
EDS
|
DFO (Civil Soyam,Almora)
|
14/07/2015
|
As per latter no. 163/12-1 date 13-7-2015
|
|
|
7
|
DFO (Civil Soyam,Almora)
|
EDS
|
User Agency (eecdalmorapwd@rediffmail.com)
|
15/07/2015
|
short the query
|
|
|
8
|
User Agency (eecdalmorapwd@rediffmail.com)
|
REPLY
|
DFO (Civil Soyam,Almora)
|
22/07/2015
|
uploaded Details of trees by user agency against essential details sought by forest department
|
|
|
9
|
DFO (Civil Soyam,Almora)
|
REPLY
|
CF (North Kumaun)
|
05/08/2015
|
short all the query's
|
|
|
10
|
CF (North Kumaun)
|
REPLY
|
Nodal Officer
|
14/08/2015
|
The On line objections raised by Nodal officer/Reg. Officer on date 12.07.2015 has been clarified by Civil Almora letter no 447/12-1 dated 05-08-2015.
|
|
|
11
|
Nodal Officer
|
REPLY
|
State secretary
|
16/08/2015
|
reply to obj by ro has been received from user agency through DFO and CF as per attached file and is being forwarded with consent
|
|
|
12
|
State secretary
|
REPLY
|
Regional Office
|
19/08/2015
|
reply to obj by ro has been received from user agency through DFO and CF as per attached file and is being forwarded with consent
|
|