GOVERNMENT OF INDIAMINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT & FORESTSNORTH EASTERN REGIONAL OFFICELAW-U-SIB, LUMBATNGENNEAR M.T.C. WORKSHOP, SHILLONG-793021TEL: (0364) - 2537609 (0), 2536041 (F)GRAM: PARYAVARAN, SHILLONG.Email: moefshil_09@rediffmail.com

No. 8-65/2011-FC/ ~ 19"'}} May 18,2012

To

The Addl. Director General of Forests (FC)Ministry of Env. & ForestsParyavaran Bhawan, CGO ComplexLodhi RoadNew Delhi - 110003

Sub: Proposed diversion of 143.4928 ha. for construction of 520 MW HEP Teesta Stage-IVunder Mangan and Dzongu Range in North District of Sikkim - Site Inspection Report.

Ref: F. No. 8-65/2011-FCI Govt. ofIndia, MoEF (FC Section), New Delhi dtd. 29.6.201 1.

Sir,

As desired by the Ministry, the site inspection of the proposed diversion of 143.4928 ha.of forest land for construction of 520 MW HEP Teesta Stage-IV under Mangan and DzonguRange in North District of Sikkim by NHPC has been carried out by the undersigned on l" and2nd May, 2012 along with the project proponent, Nodal Officer as well as local Divisional ForestOfficer. A detailed site inspection report in the prescribed format together with its enclosures isattached with this communication for your needful.

(B.N. a)Addl. Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (C)

End: As stated.

Copy to:-The DGF & Spl. Secy., Ministry ofEnv. & Forests, Paryavaran Bhawan, CGO Complex, LodhiRoad, New Delhi - 110 003 for information.

.':iII'.

/ SITE INSPECTION REPORT ON PROI)OSED FOREST LAND DIVERSION FORTEESTA STAGE IV HEP IN SIKKIM BY NHPC

1. Legal status of the forest land proposed for diversion

The legal status of the land proposed for diversion is Khasmal (Protected Forests) asstated by the State Forest Deptt ..

2. Itemwise break-up details of the forest land proposed for diversion

Land requirement (in ha) for proposed Teesta Stage-IV H.E. project in Sikkim by NHPC.

Components Right bank Left bank Sub-Total Total

Private Govt. Private Govt. Private Govt.

1. Dam complex 17.95 12.82 8.62 .15.98 26.57 28.80 55.37

2. Power house complex 14.59 12.08 6.66 2.84 21.25 14.92 36.18

3. Adit-II area 9.19 9.12 24.26 4.18 33.45 13.30 46.76

4. Colony area 27.69 0.87 27.69 0.87 28.56

5. Reservoir areaa) Land submergence 22.41 22.08 14.14 15.24 36.55 37.32 73.86

b) Water course 16.42 15.10 31.51 31.51

6. Dumping area 11.63 20.40 32.03 32.03

7 Quarry area 1.12 3.03 1.25 3.03 2.37 5.40, Total 75.78 73.63 104.81 55.46 180.58 129.09 309.67

8. Underground 14.40 14.40 14.40(Head race &Tail race tunnel)

Grand Total 143.4928 324.07

3. Whether proposal involves any construction of buildings (including residential) or not.If yes, details thereof.

Though a residential Colony for the staffs of the NHPC is proposed to be constructed nearTingchim Village on the Left Bank of Teesta River but the colony is proposed to be constructedover Private Land and only a small nallah falling between the colony area (0.87 ha) is theGovt. /Forest Land, which is proposed for diversion. The details of permanent residential andnon-residential buildings proposed for construction are as below:-

DETAILS OF NON-RESIDENTIAL B ILDI G

Sl. No Description No Total Plinth area(Sq. meter)

01 Hospitals at main Colony 1 120002 Field Hostels with canteen facility at main colony

Non - Executive Field Hostel 1 2700Executive Field Hostel 1 3100

03 Workshops 1 40004 Stores/ Warehouse at various location in project 1 30005 Quality assurance laboratories 1 15006 Tel. ExchangelPost office/Bank! SchoollPolice 1 4500

station/Shopping Centers/ Co-operative stores/Canteen/ Fueling Station / Gas Depot., etc.

07 Guest House at main colony 1 115008 Officer Club 1 60009 Staff recreation club at main colony 1 40010 Auditorium for training and cultural activities etc. 1 011 Sheds for DG sets 1 012 Explosive Magazine 1 10013 Office accommodation 1 450014 Substation Building 1 50015 Other misc. Building/Security Barracks, etc. 1 200

Total 19800

DEtAILS OF RESIDENTIAL BUILDING

Sl. No Description No Total Plinth area(Sq. meter)

01 General Manager Type - IV (Spl.) 1 22502 Chief Engineers Type - IV 2 40003 Sr. Manager / Managers Type - III 12 150004 Asstt. Deputy Managers/Principle Type- lIB 80 760005 Engrs/AE/AOIRO/ARO/AAO and other officers 100 4875

Type-IIA06 AGII/ AGIIIIDr. Man/Nurse/Compounder/Security 150 2700

GuardslDrivers/ Attendants Type -I07 Quarters for equipment erectors 0

Total 17300

Total plinth area of Non-Residential & Residential building = 19800 + 17300 = 37100 sq.m.

4. Total cost of the project at present rates.

Rs. 3594.74 Crs (at July 2009 PL).

5. WildlifeWhether forest area proposed for diversion is important from wildlife point of view or not.

As informed by the State Forest Deptt. officials, the proposed area for diversion doesnot form part of any Wildlife Protected area, or on any wildlife migration route. The area alsodoes not inhabit any rare, endangered or unique species of flora and fauna, however Jungle Cat,

Fishing Cat, Leopard, Barking Deer,Mongoose, Common Otter, Himalayanthe area.

oral. ild Bear, Macaque, Jackals, Squirrels, Bats,urt .n, different varieties of snakes and birds abound

There are two Wildlife Protected Area in the vicinity of the project. As per mapprovided by the State Forest Deptt. Kanchcndz nga National Park/Kanchendzonga BiosphereReserve is at a distance of 5.83 km (aerial di tancc) in the North from the Dam site whereas inthe South lies Fambonglho Wildlife Sanctuary at a distance of 4.3 km. from the proposedunderground power house area. The prop sed dam site is about 12 km. (11.99 km.) away fromKanchandzonga National Park/Kanchendzonga Biosphere Reserve. The HEP is listed underactivities requiring environmental clearance under EIA Notification 2006 (as amended inNov'2009); therefore this proposal shall require clearance from NBWL as the distance ofKanchendzonga National Park/Biosphere Reserve as well as Fambonglho Wildlife Sanctuary isonly 5.83 km. and 4.3 km. respectively from proposed dam site and underground Power Housesite respectively (as required by Guidelines of MoEF dt. 19.,08.10 under FCA).

As per EIA studies, in the influence area of the project there are 32 spp. of mammals,170 spp. of birds, 11 spp. of Amphibians and 35 spp. of Reptiles whereas in project areas thereare 5 spp. of Mammals, 36 spp. of birds, 3 spp. of Amphibians, 3 spp. of Reptiles and 35 spp.of butterflies. Avifauna includes Cuckoos, Doves, Pigeons, Parakeets, Flycatchers, Kingfishers,Wagtails, Thrushes, Bulbuls, Warblers, Tree pies, Sandpipers, Hawks, etc.

6. VegetationTotal number of trees to be felled; effect of removal of trees on the general ecosystem in thearea.

, The tree canopy comprises of species of Duabanga, Schima wallichi, Albizia, Alnusnepalensis, Tenninalia myriocarpa, Betula, Ficus, Rhus chinensis, Bischofia javanica, Bombaxetc. Species of tree fern, pandanus, grasses, various climbers etc. were also seen together withthe trees on both the banks of the river which is very steep ( >75°). As per enumeration list theproposed project is to affect 8322 no. of trees together with about 17000 no. of poles, and about9000 no. of bamboos. The ruling crown density in the project area is very dense (havingestimated density of about 0.8).

Effect of removal of trees on the general eco-system in the area:

The number of trees which shall be affected due to this project is large and its removal mayaffect the local eco-system. The immediate effect will be accelerated soil erosion which maylead to landslips/slides on steep slopes. The felling, logging, extraction all shall add together tothis. Removal of top canopy shall have effect on middle/lower canopy as well as on groundflora and fauna. The general eco-system may not get much impacted in the wider area as thearea is having thick tree cover all along, but the local eco-system may get affected. To reduceimpact of tree felling (if any) should be done in phased manner with concurrent planting in thevicinity/project land! CA site. While executing felling all precautions should be taken tominimize soilloss/erosionllandslips etc.

7. Background note on the proposal

Teesta river is the largest river of Sikkim and there is enormous fall of the order of about3600 m over a length of about 175 km. along the course which makes the river ideal from pointof view of Hydro Power tapping/generation. The Central Water Commission has identified sixstages ofHEPs to harness about 3635 MW Hydro Power potential of Teesta. Teesta Stage IV is

a part of cascade development of Hydro pow 'J' on this river. A table showing Stage-wise powerpotential and project proponent involved in th d evclopment is as below:-

StagesStage IStage IIStage IIIStage IVStage VStage VI

Capacity320MW

750MW1200 MW495 MW (revised to 520 MW)510MW360 MW (revised to 500 MW)

Project proponentSMEC

HIMUrjaTeesta Urja Ltd.

NHPCNHPCLANCO

A schematic diagram showing development of HEP on Teesta river in Sikkim isattached with this report to have a clear view of the distances from one dam to another dam inthis cascade development together with their capacity and their elevation as obtained fromNHPC authorities (Annexure - I).

Out of above six projects, Teesta V (510 MW) has already been commissioned byNHPC in Feb'2008. Teesta IV HEP is the 2nd project on Teesta river proposed to be developedby NHPC. Other four projects are being developed by private companies. NHPC has signed anagreement with Govt. of Sikkim for implementation of the project in the year 2006 on Build,operate and maintain basis.

The DPR of Teesta-IV H.E. Project (520 MW) has been concurred by CEA on 13thMay 2010.

, The TOR of the project was accorded by MOEF on 4th June 2009.

EIAIEMP Studies reports have been prepared by CISHME, New Delhi.

Public Hearing of the project has been conducted on 29th March, 2012 and report sentto MoEF.

The project is proposed between Teesta Stage III HEP (under construction) and TeestaStage V HEP which has already been commissioned. The project is located in Mangan Sub-Division of North District of Sikkim. It envisages utilization of gross head of 165.5 m. byconstruction of a concrete gravity dam at location near village "CHANDEY" and Hee-Gythangjust downstream of the confluence of Runchu with Teesta. The Power House shall be located atvillage Phidang. This is a run of the river HEP.

Salient features of the project are as follows:-

Installed capacity - 520 MW; No. of units : 4x130 MWPower House: Underground (166.2 m x 23.5 m x 254 m)Dam - Concrete gravity dam

Length of dam - 197,2 m (at top)Maximum height above river bed level - 65 mTail race tunnel: 2 nos., 8 m dia, 622 m (TRT-1) &

627 m (TRT-2) long, horse shoe-shaped.Gross storage - at FRL : 18.6 MCM

at MDDL : 8.2 MCMSubmergence - 105.37 ha. (Forest land - 68.82 ha.)

(Pvt. land - 36.55 ha.)

Length of pond a c : 4.37 km. along Tccsta644 IU along Tolungchu.

FRL - EL 755 mMDDL - EL 740 mLength of Reservoir - 4.37 km. along Tcesta &

644 m along Tolung chu.Catchment area - 3910 sq.km.Annual Generation - 2373 MUs (90% dependable year).

Locational detail of the Teesta-IV H.E. Project (520 MW)

State Sikkim

District North Sikkim

Dam Lat.-27°28'50"N,Long.-88°31' 23" E

Power House Lat.-27b25'N , Long.- 88°30'35"E

Nearest Town Mangan (Distt. HQ)

Nearest Railway Station New JalpaigurilSiliguri (W.Bengal)

Nearest main Airport Bagdora (West Bengal)

8. Compensatory Afforestation

The proposed CA sites are located at 12 locations in Mangan and Dzongu Range inthe North District of Sikkim ranging from 11 ha. upto a patch of 30 ha. totaling 287 ha. Duetosthe sites located distantly and scattered over 12 patches and having difficult approachesthe CA sites could not be inspected. The map of CA sites have been enclosed with theproposal submitted to Ministry. Site suitability certificate of CA sites has been provided bythe concerned DFO, but a certificate about non-encumbrances and CA sites not beingimportant from Religious/Archeological point of view requires to be obtained from theState Govt.

Total Financial outlay for CA -_Rs. 2,93,77000.00

The scheme of CA also includes components of soil and moisture conservation, stonewall fencing, overhead expenses, maintenance, monitoring etc.

9. Whether proposal involves violation of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 or not. If yes, adetailed report on violation including action taken against the concerned officials.

No violation seen.

10. Whether proposal involves rehabilitation of displaced persons. If yes, whetherrehabilitation plan has been prepared by the State Government or not.

No displacement of human population is involved in this project however privateagriculture lands of about 256 families is partially involved. As there is no displacementinvolved therefore rehabilitation of displaced person is also not an issue in this project butResettlement and Rehabilitation package has been prepared by the NHPC for people whoseprivate land and other assets are getting affected. Project proponent (NHPC authorities) havestated that such "Resettlement and Rehabilitation Package" prepared by them has been

concurred by the competent authority of th . Stat Govt. Project affected people will get the R& R Package over and above the comp nsati n for their private land and other properties.Project proponent is being advised to make available a copy of package approved by StateGovt. directly to Govt. ofIndia as well as thi Ifice too. However in case of non-receipt of theplan, the same may be called on from the project proponent or the State Govt.

Resettlement and Rehabilitation Plan is not to affect any other forest area as notranslocation of oustees is involved.

11. Reclamation plan:Details and financial allocation : RESTORATION OF MUCK DUMPING SITES:

Engineering and Biological Measures required at the dumping siteA. Quantity and cost for Engineering Measures

Capacity . Retentionof Remaining Wall* Sausage Wall**

ear Dumping Length Elevation Area Total Dumping Qty. ofngineering Capacit Cost Costtructure Site (m) (m) (ha) y(Cum) area @ Muck Volume (Rs. (Rs.70% (Cum) (Cum) Lakh) Volume Lakh)(Cum) (Cum)lamComplex DSI 600 802-910 14.6 3124000 2186800 1252463 4800 148.18 6089.2 113.26

IB ofTeesta

.ocation A~ Location;)

dit 2 site DS2 252 635-674 3.12 447760 313432 144915 2000 61.74 2557.4 47.57

JB ofTeesta ,Location A)

xdit 2 site DS3 252 685-710 2.68 365317 255722 144800 2000 61.74 2557.4 47.57

JB ofTeesta

Location B)

'owerhouse DS4 500 610-750 11.63 2003200 1402240 1236754 4000 123.48 4029.6 70.95.iteUB ofTeesta

rotal 610-910 32.03 4158194 2778932 12800 395.14 15233.7 279.35

rOTAL COST (A) Required for Engineering Measures: Rs. 674.49 lakh

B.Ouantitv and cost for Biolozical measuresDescription Quantity Rate Total Cost (Rs.

in lakh)

BenchTerracing 10 ha Rs.24019/ha2.4

Afforestation 10.5 ha Rs.21883/ha 2.3Maintenance of afforestation 10.5 ha Rs.5384/ha 0.56Barbed wire! stone wall Fencing 3 Ian Rs 4.89 lakhIkm 14.67Grassing with doobgrass 20000sqm Rs 50/sqm 10Total 29.93Maintenance (20%) 2.99TOTAL COST (B) Required for Biological Measures

32.92TOTAL COST for Engineering and Biological Measures (A+B) (674.49+32.92) =

Rs. 707.41 lakh

12. Details on catchment, command area and ~lItchlll 'nt urea treatment plan.(Source: EMP Report)

• Area proposed to be brought under AT Plan i 4277.62 ha in 35 sub-watersheds infree draining catchment area of Teesta IV II 'P

• Engineering and biological measures for CAT Plan proposed.• Financial outlay ofRs. 2157.821akhs for CAT Plan.

Area (ha) under different intensity of erosion in the watershed of Teesta Stage-IV H.E. projectcatchment

Watershed Slight Moderate Severe V. Severe River/ Snow/ TotalWatersheds Glaciers

Chakung Chhu 4.72 704.29 699.76 '; 60.82 9.78 0 1479.37

Rangyong Chhu 89.29 4825.93 5983.73 885.66 98.30 885.06 12767.97

Run Chhu 62.01 3490.66 726.97 11.57 16.79 0 4308.01

Teesta River 146.59 8874.58 7229.77 999.81 145.33 318.09 17714.17

Total 302.61 17895.46 14640.23 1957.86 270.20 1203.15 36269.52

Year-wise plan for treatment of the sub-watersheds

S. No. Year wise Treatable Area,1 1st Year 838.442 IInd Year 902.203 IIIrd Year 1199.184 IVth Year 801.755 Vth Year 333.96

6 VIth Year 202.09

Total 4277.68

Budget for development of State Forest Department infrastructure

S. No. Components Qty.fUnit Amount (Rs. inlakhs)

1 Forest Office Establishment 25.25(one office)

2 Forest Fire Fiohtlno System 5.003 Office Vehicle 2 No. 12.004 Road and Foot Path 6.58

--------- Development5 Machinery & Equipment* 20.006 W&W 8 Nos. 5.357 Monitoring & Evaluation 5.00

.8 Adm. Cost 6.209 Continqencv 6.00

Total 91.38..* Machinery & Equipment: Computers, Laptop, Photocopier, Digital Camera, etc.

Budget for Entry Point Activities

S. No. Plans Amount (Rs. in Lakh)

1 Plantation of Avenue trees In the Villages 12.00and Towns

2 LPG connection and alternate energy 8.50sources

3 • Maintenance of Hygiene In the Villages and 8.00Towns

4 Training, Awareness, Extension and Other 10.00Activities

5 Income generating schemes 5.50

6 Contingency 6.00

Total 50.00

Component-wise cost estimate for Catchment Area Treatment works forTeesta Stage-IV H.E. Project.

,

S. Item of Work AmountNo. (Rs. in lakhs)A. Engineering Measures 659.34

Add 50/0for maintenance of structures 32.97Sub-total (A) 692.31

B. Biological Measures 1026.33Sub-Total (A+B) 1718.64

C. Micro-planning & Overhead 257.80expenditure @ 15% of (A+B)

D. Forest Infrastructure (Vehicles, 91.38machinery & eaulement. paths. etc.)

E. Entry Point Activities 50.00F. Monitoring and evaluation 40.00

Grand Total (A to H) 2157.82

13. Cost benefit ratio: 28867.742/88755.9000 0.325 : 1

14. Recommendations of the Principal Chief Conservation of Forests/State Government

The diversion of forest land proposed has been recommended by the PCCF and Govt. ofthe State.

15. Recommendations of Regional Chief Conservator of Forests along with detailedreasons

There exists a large gap between demand and supply of power in the country and it is aknown fact that the power is essentially required for infrastructure, social, economic andoverall development of the country. It is also known that Hydro Power is one of the clean formof energy and water is put to a non-consumptive use in this process. On the other hand in theprocess of establishing HEP we have to lose a large number of trees in constructional phase andmake ~e flowing river into almost a stagnant large pool. Loss of trees though can becompensated to a great extent by raising fresh plantations or rehabilitating degraded forests; butit remains a fact that it is almost impossible to grow a forest alike nature. The pondage of a dam

submerge trees, shrubs, herbs etc. between Full Reservoir Level (EL 755 m) and the presentHigh Flood Level of the River Tee ta which is around EL 600 m at the dam site thesubmergence area in this case is 105.37 ha. (in luding 68.82 ha. of forest land and 36.55 ha. ofprivate land). Therefore the forest between < 00 m and 655 m = 73.86 ha. (105.37 ha - 31.51ha. of river course) shall get totally wiped out.

The positive point in this case is the underground power house, location of residentialcolony and dumping area on private land. Moreover out of total requirement of 324.07 ha. ofland 180.58 lia. is private land. Having seen number of HEP in its establishment as well asoperational phase I understand that the most damaging phase is the initial and constructionalphase impacting Environment, Forest, Biodiversity etc. In high hilly terrain the worst is cuttingof hills and pushing muck in the valleys/rivers/nallahs/streams. The disposal of extra muck isalso very important. If muck is dumped withought having proper toe wall (of sufficient width,height and strength) in advance and not re-vegetated or site restored properly the same causesserious adverse environmental impact. After completion of project and site restoration!development phase the causes of environmental damages get settled or stabilized to a greatextent except post project effect on surrounding eco-system due to anthropogenic causes.

Taking into consideration the national need of power for overall development,hydropower being comparatively a cleaner form of energy generation, non-consumptive use ofwater, smaller pondage requirement, more than 50% of land requirement being non-forestland, etc. I will like to recommend this diversion for the said HEP subject to followingconditions:-

,(A)The issue of "cascade development of HEP over River Teesta" and its impact (as

pointed out in para 18 of this report) on Biodiversity, especially aquatic andamphibian flora/fauna should be discussed and understood in the greater forum ofexperts and then a final decision be taken whether to grant clearance or not to thisproject.

(B) If it is decided to grant clearance to this project then to minimize the adverse impactof constructional phase, following additional stipulations may be included -:-(i) Muck generated must not be pushed into any natural drainage/water course

at any point of time.(ii) Before dumping the muck at designated sites a toe wall or a garland drain

etc. of sufficient width, strength, height etc. must be put at place to avoid anyrolling down of muck beyond designated area.

(iii) Stone quarry sites must be restored and re-vegetated to merge with theadjacent landscape and to avoid any further adverse impact of same onnatural eco-system after its active phase.

(iv) Reservoir Rim-Treatment should not be stipulated on a fixed formula ofcertain width and height rather treatment should take sufficient care forstability of rim and adjacent landscape on a permanent basis and in a naturalway.

(v) As far as possible the trees should be felled only when it is unavoidable, inphased manner and also in a way to disturb the slopelland least. C.A. shouldbe raised concurrently.

(vi) All the land available to the project which can be put under tree cover/greencover must be done so, to co-terminate with the commissioning of project.

(vii) A strict and complete adherence to EMP in a fixed time frame.

\

16. Regional Chief Conservator of Fore. t. I hnll ~ive detailed comments on whether thereare any alternatives routes/alignments fur lucllting the project on the non-forest land.

This is a diversion proposed for TII2P which is a site specific requirement based onavailability of Head, sufficient water and other complex technical parameters ofHEP. An HEPalso has to be established over a river and Rivers in Sikkim in itself is deemed forest land.Moreover river is flowing through forest land; therefore to suggest other alternatives does notappear practical,

17. Utility of the project.Numbers of Scheduled caste/Scheduled Tribes to be benefited by the project : Acomprehensive figure about number of scheduled caste/scheduled tribe to be benefitted by theproject is not worked out however the project and surrounding area is inhabited by scheduledtribes (Lepcha) and the benefits of project shall flow to them also.

Other Benefits envisaged:

• The project will bridge partially the large gap of demand and supply of thepower in the country.

• 12% free power shall be given to State of Sikkim.• 1% extra free power will be given to Govt. of Sikkirn for local area

development.• NHPC will create infrastructure to tap power supply from the existing substation

of the State utility for the inhabitants residing within 5 Km radius of the,, generating station. Each BPL family will be provided Electric Connection with

LED Lamp free of cost.• Improvement of road network & bridges in and around Project Area.• Facilities of schools & hospitals at Project shall be extended to local people.• 25% of the Post in Executive Cadre in technical as well as nontechnical

disciplines and Junior Engineer is proposed to be filled on deputation basis fromState Govt. during construction stage as per MoA between NHPC and Govt. ofSikkim.

• Recruitment of able persons in class-III & IV during construction stage andthereafter during operation and maintenance is also provided to be made inphased manner against the requirement by the project upto 50% of thesanctioned strength.

• Except Major & Special type of works, all works is to be kept open for localcontractors on competitive bidding.

• Various Community & Social Development Plan is envisaged by the projectproponent in the project area like construction of footpaths, Bus stops/rainshelters, water supply facilities, community welfare centers, upgradation of localinfrastructures, improvement of Namprikdang Mela ground, development ofplayground, development of sanitation system etc.

18.Whether land being diverted has any socio-cultural/religious value:

One Namprikdang Mela Ground is the social and religious place in the vicinity of theproject being used by local Lepcha community for holding their cultural and religious activitiesbut this Mela Ground has been excluded from project area.

Whether any sacred grove or very old growth trees/forests exist in the areas proposed fordiversion. : No

Whether the land under diversion forms part of any unique eco-system. :

The dam site is located at a place called ~handey about 200 m downstream of Rangchumeeting Teesta and river Rang-Rang meeting Teesta 1 k.m downstream on its left bank. Asuspension bridge exists over Rang-Rang river near its confluence with Teesta. A semi-permanent ITBP Transit Camp is also located upstream of confluence.

The hills on both the banks of river especially Right bank is very steep, high anddensely vegetated with lot of large trees mixed with miscellaneous vegetation. The river isalmost forming a gorge. The vegetation extends very close to river-bed. The Hills are not verystable. Only due to presence of dense vegetation they are able to stand so steep a gradient(around 70-80%). The land under diversion though does not form part of any so called uniqueeco-system but dense forest on both the banks of river 'on very steep (precipitous slopes), thepattern of drainage, fragile hills, local hydrology, together with flora and fauna (terrestrial,amphibious and aquatic), climate, precipitation, flow of river, soil rocks etc. certainly arewoven together in forming an important eco-system requiring least disturbance lest it may getdisturbed causing damage to local eco-system. Therefore it requires to be treated cautiously.

The cascade development of HE projects as in this case may be good from the point ofview of harnessing Hydro Power to a maximum extent but this type of development is notallowing river to flow freely and in its natural way. The better and greater part of the rivercourse get converted in the shape of a reservoir which otherwise would have remained a freeflowing river. Making most part of a high flowing river almost stagnant or having only minimalM1ter flowing in most part of the year is a point of concern in so called "cascade developmentscheme ". The flora and fauna especially aquatic and amphibians shall always be impactedgreatly and adversely when a major component of an eco-system (here flowing river) ischanged into a virtual stagnant large water pool, more so when river does not get chance torejuvenate itself, ultimately impacting adversely the eco-system and its bio-diversity. Therefore,this issue needs to be taken into consideration in a greater forum of experts for taking a finalview in the matter. In this cascade development scheme there is hardly any length of river leftfree flowing between power house of upstream project and submergence of downstreamproject.

19. Situation w.r.t. any P.A

There are two Wildlife Protected Area in the vicinity of the project. As per mapprovided by the State Forest Deptt. Kanchendzonga National ParklKanchendzonga BiosphereReserve is at a distance of 5.83 k.m (aerial distance) in the North from the Dam site whereas inthe South lies Fambonglho Wildlife Sanctuary at a distance of 4.3 k.m. from the proposedunderground power house area. The proposed dam site is about 12 k.m. (11.99 k.m.) away fromKanchandzonga National ParklKanchendzonga Biosphere Reserve.

The HEP is listed under activities requiring environmental clearance under EIANotification 2006 (as amended in Nov'2009); therefore this proposal shall requireclearance from NBWL as the distance of Kanchendzonga National ParklBiosphereReserve as well as Fambonglho Wildlife Sanctuary is only 5.83 km. and 4.3 km.respectively from proposed dam site and underground Power House site respectively (asrequired by Guidelines of MoEF dt. 19.8.10). (Annexure -II).

20. Any other information relating to the project.

• As stated in parI 19 (situation with respect to PA), the project shall requireclearance from NBWL.

• The project does not involve human dislocation however private land/assets aregetting affected partially of about 256 families for which project proponent hasprepared Resettlement & Rehabilitation Plan concurred by State Govt; a copyoj the same may be called on from the State Govt./project proponent.

• Namprikdang Mela Ground, being used by local Lepcha tribes for their culturaland Religious activities is situated in the vicinity of project area which hasthough already been excludedfrom the project area deserves exclusion.

• The Public Hearing of the project was conducted by SPCB on 2!1h March 2012and the related documents have already been sent to Ministry of Env. & Forests,Govt. of India for consideration of environmental clearance.

As per mentions made in the report of Public Hearing only about 50%people likely to be affected attended the same. Other 50% people from RightBank area did not attend the Public Hearing programme.

• The issue raised for discussion in larger forum of experts regardingprobable adverse impact of cascade development of HEP in Teesta river onits bio-diversity water quality and other related aspects requires attention.

• A certificate about non-encumbrances and CA sites not being important fromReligious/Archeological point of view requires be obtained from the StateGovt.

, I ,0§./2-(B.N. Jha)

Addl. Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Central)

ShillongDated: 18.05.2012