Himachal Pradesh State Roads Project (HPSHP)
Environmental screening Report
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS FOR SCREENING AND SCOPING
1. INTRODUCTION As a part of feasibility, an environmental screening and scoping study has been carried out for 1675 km of project roads. The entire study is reported in two volumes. Volume 1 has eight chapters with Chapter 8 as the findings and recommendations. This Chapter 10 is essentially the abstract of the study findings and recommendations. Nevertheless a summary of other chapters is also included to understand the steps taken to achieve the findings and recommendations. The volume 2 of the screening and scoping report is all relevant supporting appendices that also include the recent Government of India MOEF Gazette notification on environmental clearance and corridor specific details of public consultations. 2. ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING AND SCOPING STUDIES The environmental and social screening Report (ESR) is being prepared to establish the environmental sensitivity of the project roads under consideration. Therefore essentially environmental screening studies will help to prioritise the sub projects of the Himachal State Roads Project (HSRP) according to the priorities with the time required to plan and implement the projects. Study will also establish the boundaries of the further studies required (scoping) based on the proximity to ecologically sensitive and environmentally sensitive areas. The feasibility study (that includes environmental screening also) will identify approximately 800km of high priority roads, which will be subjected to detailed design and associated studies in two or more phases. The first set of 413 kms of road constitute phase 1 (both batch 1 and 2) has been identified by the State Government to include in the project. This 413 km of roads is part of the final 800 km of roads that have been identified as a part of the Feasibility study. 3. OBJECTIVES OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING STUDY As a part of the feasibility studies, this Environmental Screening Report (ESR) report has been prepared to submit to World Bank and the Public Works Department.
The objectives of the feasibility and environmental screening studies are:
To relate the proposed works with identification and prioritisation of environmental and social issues This identification and prioritisation will provide useful information/input for assessing technical, economic, and financial feasibility of the project as well as the recommendations for modification in preliminary project design To Identify Valued Ecosystem Components (VEC) and corridor specific major environmental issues The VEC is defined as Social or Bio-physical component, which is of value (for any reason) in a project influenced area The broad objectives of the EA process during the project preparation phase will be to achieve the following objectives:
• • • • To establish priority roads based on the environmental screening studies To establish the environmental baseline in the study area, and to identify any significant environmental issues; To assess these impacts and provide for early measures to address the adverse impacts by the provision of the requisite avoidance, mitigation and compensation measures; To integrate the environmental issues in the project planning and design;
Louis Berger Group Inc.
1
Himachal Pradesh State Roads Project (HPSHP)
Environmental screening Report
•
To develop appropriate management plans for implementing, monitoring and reporting of the environmental mitigation and enhancement measures suggested.
In order to achieve these objectives, adequate physical ground surveys and other studies have been carried out along the project roads to identify Valued Eco-system Components (VEC) and corridor specific significant environmental issues (SEI). The project roads that will be taken up as a priority in various phases of the project should consider the findings of the ‘Environmental screening and scoping’ to plan and implement the projects in a phased manner for obtaining various clearances and approvals from the Central and State agencies. 4.
METHODOLOGY
The methodology consists of: • • • • Reconnaissance survey for getting an idea about the environmental issues in the region Study all information related to the project that includes Terms of Reference. Preparation of a Project summary from all available information Continuous documentation of the prevailing environmental issues and the various related issues from Press as well as other sources (also required for stake holder workshop to be conducted at a later stage). Collection of secondary data from secondary sources such as published reports, text books and maps ,and other similar reports and from web pages Collection of primary data by surveys Carry out stake holder community consultation together with surveys Analysis of environmental screening data Preparation of a screening matrix Ranking of project corridors Screening and Scoping Recommendations End Dec 05-Jan 06 Janury 2006 February and revised in March 2006 Jan- September 2006
• • • • • • •
Jan-Sept 2006 Do Sept-Oct 06 October 06 Oct 06 Oct 06 Oct 06
The steps mentioned above have been followed through identification of relevant environmental sub parameters in biological, physical and social environment. The identified sub parameters have been assigned weightages and each project corridor has been assessed based on evaluation criteria evolved using the baseline data. The environmental parameters identified and the total score allocated have been given below in table E-1.
SL NO TABLE E-1 WEIGHTAGE ASSISIGNED FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PARAMETERS ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING PARAMETERS WEIGHT
AGE ASSIGNED
1
Physical environment 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Slope stability issues Debris disposal /Materials resources Water resources Soil erosion Pollution (air/water/Noise)
20 3 6 3 3 5
Louis Berger Group Inc.
2
Himachal Pradesh State Roads Project (HPSHP)
Environmental screening Report
2
Bio environment /Ecological environment 1. Number of trees within the ROW 2. Wildlife /nesting places/mod holes and other habitats 3. Forests (DPF & UPF) 4. Reserved Forests (RFs) 5. National parks and sanctuaries 6. Wetlands Socio economic Environment 1. 2. 3. 4. Drinking water sources Schools/hospitals/college Cultural properties such as Temples/shrines and other religious And archaeological monuments and properties Residential properties
60 5 10 10 15 15 20 5 5 5 5
3
5. APPLICABLE LEGAL, POLICIES AND INSTITUTIONAL FRAME WORK
5.1 Country requirements Lists of all most important applicable GOI regulations are provided in the Table E-2. Most relevant details are provided in the following paragraphs.
TABLE E-2 SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE REGULATIONS APPLICABLE GOI POLICIES & REGULATIONS YEAR OBJECTIVE
REASON FOR APPLICABILITY
Environmental (protection) Act Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) notification: 1994 Air (prevention and control of pollution) Act Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act and Cess Act of 1977 Indian Forest act The Wildlife (protection) Act Ancient Monuments and Archaeological sites & Remains Act The Land Acquisition Act Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) rules 2000 Public liability insurance Act Biological Diversity Act EIA notification 2006 International Environmental regulations in which India is a signatory
1986 2002 1974 1974 1980 1972 1958 1894 & 1989 2001 1991 2000 2006
To protect and improve overall environment Requirement of Environmental impact Assessment To control air pollution by controlling emission and air pollutants according to prescribed standards To control water pollution by controlling emission & Water pollutants as per the prescribed standards Protection of forests Protection of Wildlife Conservation of Cultural and Historical remains found in India Set out rule for acquisition of land by Government. Noise pollution regulation and controls Assessment of hazardous materials and accident hazards disclosure of species survey or collection activities to the National Biodiversity Authority For impact assessment of infrastructural projects International environmental issues such as emission of green house gases
Environment in general Direct Air pollution Water pollution Forests Wildlife Archaeological remains Land acquisition Control of Noise pollution Health and safety Biodiversity Environmental clearance Global environmental issues
With the very recent Gazette GOI notification of September 14 of this year, on environmental clearance, the State Highways are in general classified as Category B projects, however as earlier all ecosensitive roads are category A projects that require mandatory central clearance. In fact category B
Louis Berger Group Inc.
3
Himachal Pradesh State Roads Project (HPSHP)
Environmental screening Report
projects are also reviewed by MOEF by constituting a State level Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA). Besides this there are several other environmental requirements of the State and central sect oral and cross sect oral laws, rules and regulations. 5.1 World Bank Environmental Requirements
Four out of ten World Bank safeguard polices are triggered by this project. Therefore implementation of the project in tune with these triggered safeguard polices are important. Scoping for this part has been provided at the end of the recommendations.
5.2
Environmental Clearance requirements
The State level clearances are required prior to the Government of India (GOI) clearance. The GOI clearance is to be obtained prior to the World Bank Approval. Details are provided in Table E-3.
ENV. ISSUES Forest TABLE E-3 ENVIRONMENTAL APPROVALS AND CLEARANCES REQUIRED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION PHASE MOEF PCB & STATE WILDLIFE WB PHED & FOR CATEGORY SEIAA FOREST DEPT WATER A PROJECTS DEPT RESOURCES DEPT Yes for the forest Yes Forest clearance , Clearance Approval as No land requirements approval for road from Wildlife per OP side tree cutting warden 4.01,4.04, and land requirements Yes Yes Clearance Clearance Approval as No required required per OP 4.01,4.04 Yes YES No No Approval as No EIA/EMP required per OP 4.01 No Yes, No No Approval as No According per OP 4.01 to water noise & Air Act No Yes No No Approval as Drinking water per OP 4.01 resources/Water for construction, LOCAL BODIES No
Wildlife Environmen t Air/water/noi se related
No No No
Water (impacts as well as construction requirement s) Debris disposal Land acquisitions and rehabilitatio n
Yes
No
Yes (RAP required)
Yes
Yes
No
For Forest land
No No
Approval as per OP 4.01 Approval under OP 4.20 4.11 and 4.30
No
For disposal sites Yes ( e.g. parking areas)
If the cost of the Bypasses considered in this project are more than INR 1000 million (100 Crores), such bypasses would be considered as a new project and there fore require environmental clearances as per the recent September 14 MOEF notification.
Louis Berger Group Inc.
4
Himachal Pradesh State Roads Project (HPSHP)
Environmental screening Report
6. BASE LINE ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS
Due to the project location in a fragile environmental back ground, most of the basic environmental parameters were explained using available thematic maps. In all cases an overlay of the 43 project corridors over the respective thematic maps were used to establish the various baseline parameters. Further the Valued ecosystem components have been segregated for the project.
6.1
Valued Ecosystem components
The Valued Environmental Components (VEC) are defined as social or Bio physical component of an environment which is of value (for any reason) in a Project Influenced Area (PIA). Project influenced area in the case of road project is a zone covering seven km on both sides from the centre line of the project road. Some of the environmental components do have impacts to as far as seven kms. This could be water pollution or air pollution that can be carried out to far way distances. In yet some other cases, this is even more as in the case of wildlife, debris disposal and for material sources. Based on the various studies of consultants, the following VECs have been identified in this project. Physical environment
• • • • • Disposal of debris /materials resources Slope stability issues Water resources (Surface and Ground water) Soil erosion Air/water /Noise pollution
Bio environment /Ecological environment
• • • • • • Number of trees within the ROW Wildlife /nesting places/mod holes and other habitats Forests (DPF & UPF) Reserved Forests (RFs) National parks and sanctuaries Wetlands
Socio Economic Environment
• • • • • • Drinking water sources Schools/hospitals/college (declared silence zones) Cultural properties such as temples/shrines and other religious and Archaeological monuments and properties Residential properties Commercial properties Tourism locations
The stake holder consultations have been used to collect information on the screening criteria’s mentioned above.
Table E-4 Summary of the Issues raised, during the consultations
Louis Berger Group Inc.
5
Himachal Pradesh State Roads Project (HPSHP)
Environmental screening Report
Main issues raised during project specific consultations
• • • • • • • • • • • • • Provision for new parking areas Public comfort station Rain shelter Bus bays Bypasses and realignments Drainage Street lights Road should be more safe for the road users Road side tree planting Boundary wall to separate from the traffic corridor for schools Provision for Noise reduction for silence zones Affected temples compensated should be properly • • • • • • • • • • • • • Retaining walls Breast walls Foot path Speed breakers Sign boards Crash barriers/parapet Dust control Proper compensation should be paid to the PAPs Water for Constrution is not available for many roads-consider alternatives Wildlife presence in many corridors Monkey menace Trees should be planted Minimise tree cutting
Develop valley view locations
Appendix 6.5 of the Environmental screening Report is the complete corridor wise descriptions of the consultations and the main issues. Table E-5 to E-8 are the baseline characteristics of the 43 project corridors. Since these tables are important and lengthy these are attached at the end of the chapter but not as appendices. Similarly the tables E-9 to E-14relating to biological and socio economic environment are also provided at the end of the Chapter.
6.2
Biodiversity concerns
The physical field surveys coupled with institutional consultations and local community consultations revealed several important biodiversity concerns along the project road. Most important consultations are with that of MOEF (Himalayan Research institute, Shimla), DFOs and forest range officers. Secondary information from reports (e.g Status of environment in HP March 2000) are also available to understand the issue. To resolve this conflict, it will be required to carry out a study with the help of a wildlife/forestry expert in order to streamline what the highways project can contribute to the wildlife traffic conflict along the project roads. Such an attempt is expected to bring in some earmarked budgetary provisions for wildlife conservation. The consultant’s team during various engineering, environmental and social surveys has spotted considerable faunal presence along the project roads. These include but not limited to the following: Leopard, Monkeys, Mongoose, Flying Squirrel, Indian shag, Peacock, Jingle Murga, Pheasants, Middle egrets , Snake, Lizard, Owl, Vulture, Spotted deer, Langur and Jackal.
7
Environmental impact Evaluation
Based on the Valued Ecosystem Components using the methodology adopted the environmental screening weight age matrix has been prepared and provided as Table E-15(A-3 sheet). Similarly a qualitative approach has been carried out and this is provided in Table E-16 (a) to (c). The result of the qualitative approach is provided using colour codes in 10.17.
Louis Berger Group Inc.
6
Himachal Pradesh State Roads Project (HPSHP)
Environmental screening Report
Table E-16 Qualitative impact of various environmental attributes
(a) Bio-Environment
Corridor No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 BIO-ENVIRONMENT Features More no. of trees(3514) More no. of trees(4367) , 26.5 km Protected Forests Data not Available No reserved forests, Less Protected Forests Naina Devi sanctuary, Govindsagar sanctuary, 5 km protected forests 24 Km reserved forests, no Protected Forests, no sanctuary 23 Km protected forests 38 km reserved forests, Simbalwara Sanctuary 16 km protected forests Data not Available Data not Available 2 Sanctuaries Nainadevi sanctuary and 1 wetland, protected forests 3 km reserved forests, Pongdam wetland Data not Available Reserved Forests, Pongdam sanctuary, wetland, Protected Forests Data not Available 1 km protected forests, no reserved forests or sanctuaries 9 km reserved forests, 2 km protected forests, Pongdam wetland 15 km protected forests 11 km reserved forests, no protected forests or sanctuaries 6 km reserved forests, More no. of trees very less protected forests very less protected forests 15 km reserved forests 5 km protected forests, Shikaridevi sanctuary, more no. of trees 8 km protected forest, Govindsagar wetland 1Sanctuary- Pong Dam sanctuary , Reserved Forests, 2024 Trees 31 km Reserved forests, 14 km protected forests No Protected or reserved Forests 24 km Reserved forests, Chail sanctuary, Protected Forests 4.5 km protected forests 5 km Reserved forests, Protected Forests Data not Available Data not Available Data not Available Data not Available 28 km Reserved forests, 2 km Protected Forests 12 km Reserved forests, Shilli sanctuary, 2 km Protected Forests Data not Available Data not Available 4 km protected forests 7 km protected forests Data not Available Category Medium Medium High Low High High Medium Very High Medium High High Very High Medium Medium Very High High Low High Medium High High Low Low High High Medium Very High High Low Medium High High High High High High High Very High High High Medium Medium Low
Louis Berger Group Inc.
7
Himachal Pradesh State Roads Project (HPSHP)
Environmental screening Report
(b) Physical environment
Physical environment Corridor No Features 1 more waste disposal sites, Sutlej river, more water bodies 2 less no. of waste disposal sites, 2 rivers, 2 ponds 3 Data not Available 4 more waste disposal sites , Sutlej river, not prone to soil erosion 5 Very less waste disposal areas, Sutlej river 6 Very less no. of waste disposal sites, Jejuna, Markanda rivers, Highly erosion prone area 7 Less no. of waste disposal sites, Sutlej river, less no. of water bodies, erosion prone 8 waste disposal site less, Jamuna river, 5 streams , more erosion prone, seismicity high Less waste disposal sites, Less water resources, no erosion, High seismicity 9 10 Data not Available 11 Data not Available 12 waste disposal areas very less, Sutlej river, 2 lakes, seismicity high 13 More water bodies, Beas river, 4 streams, 2 ponds, erosion less, seismicity high 14 Data not Available Waste disposal sites less, More water resources (Beas river, 3 streams), earthquake very 15 high, less erosion 16 Waste disposal sites less, Less no. of water bodies, Erosion very less 17 Waste disposal sites less, Less no. of water bodies, Erosion very less 18 Waste disposal sites less, Less no. of water bodies (Beas river, 4 pond), Erosion very less 19 More waste disposal sites , More water bodies, High erosion, high seismicity Less no. of waste disposal areas, More no. of water bodies (Markanda river), Highly prone to 20 erosion, Less no. of waste disposal areas, More no. of water bodies (Markanda, 1 stream), Less 21 erosion, Seismicity high Less no. of waste disposal areas, More no. of water bodies (Sutlej, 3 Streams), Less 22 erosion, Seismicity high 23 Less no. of waste disposal areas, More no. of water bodies, Less erosion, Seismicity high 24 more waste disposal sites , Less erosion, less water bodies 25 Waste disposal sites less, Beas river, 6 streams, not prone to erosion, Seismicity high Less waste disposal sites, less water bodies (Sutlej, 1 stream), Seismicity high, very little 26 erosion Less waste disposal sites, Less water bodies (Beas river), Not prone to erosion, High 27 Seismicity Waste disposal sites less, Water resources more (Sutlej river), High prone to erosion, high 28 Seismicity 29 Waste disposal sites less, Water resources less, High prone to erosion, high Seismicity more waste disposal sites , more water bodies (Jamuna river, 6 streams), Not erosion 30 prone, high Seismicity More waste disposal sites ,Bear river, 3 Major streams, high erosion prone and high 31 Seismicity 32 more waste disposal sites 33 Data not Available 34 Data not Available 35 Data not Available 36 Data not Available Less waste disposal sites, More water resources (Sutlej, Beas, 3 streams) ,High erosion, 37 High Seismicity
Category High Medium High Medium Medium High Medium High Medium High High High High Medium Very High Medium Medium Medium Very High Medium Medium Low Low High Medium Low Medium High Low Very High Very High Medium High High High High High
Louis Berger Group Inc.
8
Himachal Pradesh State Roads Project (HPSHP)
Environmental screening Report
Corridor No 38 39 40 41 42 43
Features More waste disposal sites, More water bodies (Jamuna, 8 streams), High erosion prone Data not Available Data not Available Less waste disposal areas, less water bodies (Sutlej river), less erosion prone Less waste disposal areas, less water bodies (Sutlej river), less erosion prone Data not Available
Category Very High High High Low Low Low
(c) Socio –Economic Environment
Socio Economic Environment Corridor Features No 1 98 drinking water sources, 15 cultural properties, access to many tourist locations 2 More no. (74) cultural properties, Lathiani and govindsagar tourist places 3 Data not Available 4 Nalagarh Fort 5 Naina devi temple 6 3 tourist location, Kwgdhar temple and gurudwara at nahan 7 Machyal lake, 2 temples 8 Paonta sahib gurudwara, Bhuddhist monastery, sirmouri taal Archaeological site 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Katoch Mahal Palace Archeological site, sankat Morchan temple at sujanpur, 62 other temples , sujanpur tourist site Data not Available Data not Available Naina Devi temple , naina devi, Bkhakra tourist locations Paonta sahib gurudwara, Bhuddhist monastery, sirmouri taal Archaeological site Data not Available Managar Forts, 4 major tourist locations, Mata Balamukhi temple, Nag Mandir, Shiv cave, 116 drinking water sources, Kotla fort, Data not Available Kandrour bridge asias' highest Chintpurni and Sheetal matha temples, 17 temples, 6 sensitive zones, industial area Major industrial area, 3 forts, 6 sensitive zones Fossil park at near Kala Amb Trilokpur tourist place cement plant at Dehni Sl. No major structures 2 major temples,3 major tourist locations, sulphur hot water spring at Tattapani Chai chowk tourist place Access to Baba Balak nath temple near Barsar Haripur heritage site, Guler Fort, 3 tourist places Archaeological site at Virat, Hatkoti mata temple , 3 tourist places No major structures Chail Palace, Sidh Baba Temple, 3 tourist places Bajaura Temple (ASI site), 2 tourist places Sainj old place, two tourist locations Data not Available Data not Available Data not Available Data not Available
Category Medium High High Medium High Medium Medium Very High Very High High High Very High High Medium Very High High Medium High High medium Medium Low Low Very High High Medium Very High Very High Low High High Medium High High High High
Louis Berger Group Inc.
9
Himachal Pradesh State Roads Project (HPSHP)
Environmental screening Report
Corridor No 37 38 39 40 41 42 43
Features 2 temples, 2 tourist locations, Larji and Jalori pass, Sainj Palace Sainj palace, Balag Shiv temple Data not Available Data not Available Lathiani bridge and Govindsagar lake tourist places Govindsagar lake tourist place Data not Available
Category Medium Medium High High Medium Medium Low
The table-E-17 shows the result of the final qualitative assessment of various environmental tributes. All roads with high scores on ecological impacts are high. Table E-17 Final Qualitative assessment of the Environmental Impacts
Corridor No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Environmental Impact Analysis Socio-Economic Environment Bio Environment Medium Medium Medium High High High Low Medium High High High Medium Medium Medium Very High Very High Medium Very High High High High High Very High Very High Medium High Medium Medium Very High Very High High High Low Medium High High Medium High High Medium High Medium Low Low Low Low High Very High High High Medium Medium Very High Very High High Very High Low Low Medium High High High High Medium High High High High High High
Physical Environment High Medium High Medium Medium High Medium High Medium High High High High Medium Very High Medium Medium Medium Very High Medium Medium Low Low High Medium Low Medium High Low Very High Very High Medium High High High
RESULT MEDIUM MEDIUM HIGH MEDIUM HIGH HIGH MEDIUM VERY HIGH HIGH HIGH HIGH VERY HIGH HIGH MEDIUM VERY HIGH HIGH MEDIUM HIGH HIGH HIGH MEDIUM LOW LOW VERY HIGH HIGH MEDIUM VERY HIGH VERY HIGH LOW VERY HIGH VERY HIGH MEDIUM HIGH HIGH HIGH
Louis Berger Group Inc.
10
Himachal Pradesh State Roads Project (HPSHP)
Environmental screening Report
36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43
High High Very High High High Medium Medium Low
High Medium Medium High High Medium Medium Low
High High Very High High High Low Low Low
HIGH HIGH VERY HIGH HIGH HIGH MEDIUM MEDIUM LOW
8
SCREENING STUDY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
8.1
Summary of the screening Results
The Table E-18 provides the over all screening study findings such as score of project routes, ranking and priority from environmental perspective.
Louis Berger Group Inc.
11
Himachal Pradesh State Roads Project (HPSHP)
Environmental screening Report
Table E-18 Ranking of project routes from environmental considerations
Corridor No.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43
Corridor name
Mehatpur Una Mubarikpur Daulatpur H.P. boundary Road (Section Una to Amb) Una Aghar Barsar Jahu Bhambla Mandi-upto Ner Chowk road* Gaggal Chetru Dharamshala Mcleodganj (Section Gaggal to Dharamshala) Shimla -Kunihar Ramshehar Nalagarh Ghanoli (from Nalagarh to HP Boundary) Naina Devi Kaula Da Toba Kumarhatti-Sarahan-Nahan (Dosarka) Jogindernagar Sarkaghat Ghumarwin Road (except NH 70 section) Lal Dhank Paonta Rajban Hatkoti (Section LalDhank to Shillai except NH) Hamirpur Sujanpur Tihra Thural Maranda Dharamshal Dadh Palampur Holta Chadihar Sandhol (Section Dharamshala to Palampur) Dadh Malan Swarghat Naina Devi Bhakra (Section Kanchimore to Bhakra) Kaloha Pragpur Daliara Dadasibba Sansarpur (Section Kaloha to Nehranpukhar) Damtal Kandrori Indora Khatiar Mubarikpur Dehra Ranital Kotla road (Section Dehra to Ranital and Ranital to Kotla) Ranital Kotla road (Section Dehra to Ranital and Ranital to Kotla) Bamta Kandrour Bharwain Chintpurni Kandrori Damtal (Section Bharwain to Sansarpur Terrace) Shallaghat Arki Kunihar Barotiwala Markanda (Khajurna) bridge Suketi park Kala Amb Trilokpur Kala Amb Trilokpur Panjera Bharatgarh Panjera Dehni Shimla Tattapani Mandi (Section Dhalli to Tatapani) Chail chowk Gohar Pandoh (Section Dadour to Gohar) Barsar Deothsidh (Section Barsar to Shahtalia) Jawalamukhi Dehra Jawali Raja-ka-Talab (Section Dehra to Raja-kaTalab) Theog Kothkhai Hatkoti Rohroo Rohroo Chirgaon Sandhasu Kufri Chail Kandaghat Mandi Kataula Bajaura Sanij Chopal Nerwa Shallu (Section Sanij to Chopal). Bhawarna Lambagaon Jaisinghpur Nurpur Lahru Tunnuhatti Shahpur Sihunta Chowari Jot Chamba Bharmour (Section Draman to Chowari) Banikhet Dalhousie Khajjiar (Section Banikhet to Dalhousie) Sainj Anni Banjar Aut (Section Sainj to Jalori and Aut to Banjar) Chailla Sainj Neripul Yashwantnagar Ochhghat Kumarhatti Kullu Nagar Manali (Left Bank) Ghatasni -Bhubhu -Jot Kullu Approach to proposed Lathiani bridge Swarghat -Bilaspur via Jagatkhana(New alignment) Dharampur -Kasauli
Weightage 42.5 43 8 30 22 34 34 40.5 37 8 8 42.5 52.5 40.5 63 14 4 40 30 34.5 47.5 31.5 22.5 24 34.5 42.5 56 43 17 51 34.5 28 34 30.5 31 16.5 45 32 40.5 11 9 15 37
Sensitivity Rank 9 7 30 19 23 14 14 10 12 30 30 9 3 10 1 27 31 11 19 13 5 16 22 21 13 9 2 8 24 4 13 20 14 18 17 25 6 15 10 28 29 26 12
Priority based on Environmental angle
28 30 8 24 13 12 32 22 5 6 16 2 15 17 18 21 40 9 10 34 11 41 42 3 31 23 20 19 43 7 14 35 36 25 39 4 29 33 1 38 26 37 27
Louis Berger Group Inc.
12
Himachal Pradesh State Roads Project (HPSHP)
Environmental screening Report
8.2
Major issues identified
The overall geographic project setting is in a fragile environment especially with regards to ecosensitivity. Nevertheless except three road corridors, all project roads are the existing roads and their improvement also may not result in an immediate or in near future significant increase in traffic. Even then if the widening option is from single lane to double lane, this should be considered as a major improvement proposal affecting the fragile hill slopes and other environmental components. Major Biodiversity issues that has identified are the following;
• Although there are declared wildlife sanctuaries and National parks; wildlife presence is found in all forest categories therefore in almost all areas of the HP. There are no physical barriers /boundaries available for wildlife. None of Wildlife sanctuaries have accurate maps to determine the boundary with respect to the project corridors Categorisation of the forests to PF (DPF & UPF) does not mean any thing relating to wildlife presence or absence Therefore in Himachal Pradesh the classification of RF as eco-sensitive and PF as not eco-sensitive is false and void. All Indian states cannot be seen with one eye as the legal eco-sensitivity of RF alone in HP is found un-acceptable in the case of HP. All PF and in many cases the private forests are also eco-sensitive in reality Even with moderate population, the pressure on the forest resources (biodiversity issues) are increasing leading to many floral and faunal species classified as endangered. Data relating to the road traffic-wildlife conflict leading to death of the wildlife is not available or such incidence could be rare. Since the Himachal has six million populations, they need earmarked areas for infrastructure development. To avoid conflict with the developmental requirement and the wildlife conservation practical and implementable strategies need to be formulated and implemented. Wildlife –human interface is a prevailing environmental issue in HP. (Ref: Forest Dept Website). There are many cases of compensation by the Government to the victims. Leopard menace is reported in the State Environmental report 2000 as a serious issue Traffic –monkey conflict is a prevailing issue in the State Excellent surface condition of the Project roads after completion could lead to very high rate of road accidents. Design speed of 50 to 80 kph will not be observed by the traffic communities. For such design speeds the normal speed would be some thing around 80 -100kph leading to high rate of accidents including wildlife. Surveys of India Maps are not available for many roads. For few roads these are partially available Population density is too low, therefore all isolated areas with trees are visually similar to forest
• • •
• • • •
• • • • •
• •
Other issues are the following
• • Considerable forest land would be required for widening and strengthening of project roads Impact of flora and fauna including cutting of large number of trees during construction and Operation
Louis Berger Group Inc.
13
Himachal Pradesh State Roads Project (HPSHP)
Environmental screening Report
• • • • • • •
Impact on the drinking water sources and water bodies Stabilisation of slopes and the debris disposal would be a major issue Vehicular pollution during construction Drainage related issues Impacts on silence zones such as schools and, hospitals Direct impact on the community resources such as buildings and shops There are heavy control on the crushers in the old Himachal areas
8.3
Major Environmental screening findings
The major findings of this screening study area the following;
• • • • • • The HPSRP is a category A project by World Bank categorisation Includes both category A and B sub projects of GOI based on the legally defined eco sensitive areas. Project influenced area of all roads are rich in floral and faunal diversity. HP has considerable area of mono crop type forests/Forest Plantations (Pine forest, Deodar forests etc are two examples) Wildlife issues together with forestry issues are the most important issue identified. In principle, most of the forest areas regardless of its status are ecologically sensitive with its floral and faunal diversity. At the same time the PF areas are by its present classification are legally not ecosensitive Almost 90% of the ecological impacts are in the operational phase. This makes the importance of a joint approach by forestry and road sector for sustainable development of the region. Reasons for less fatality could be due to three factors. 1) most of the vehicle are running at very low speed 2) Since the ambient noise level is very low, the noise of approaching vehicles are very loudly heard from afar. 3) The splashing lights of the slow moving vehicles along the winding Himalayan roads. Leopard menace and monkey menace and other wildlife crop damage (mostly by wild pig) issues are the visible part of a larger issue. There are cases of lifting of domestic animals form the villages. Hardly any difference with the private and forest land in many locations. Local people even call private forest for areas under private ownership. None of the Project corridor falls within 7 kms distance of two National parks of the State. Ten road corridors (corridor no 5, 8, 12, 15, 25, 27, 30, 36, 38 & 39) out of 43 were found to be located within one or more of wildlife sanctuaries (Table E-19). All these Corridors require GOI-MOEF Clearance. 14 corridors (6, 8, 13, 15, 18, 20, 21, 24, 27, 28, 30, 32, 37 and 38) out of 43 have Reserved Forests with in the 14 km impact corridors. These are the most eco-sensitive corridors. All these corridors are Category A and require GOI -MOEF clearance. Eight corridors out of 43 corridors (2, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 26, 27, 39) have Wet lands in the near by areas. Careful surveys are required to locate bird nesting places ( e.g. Una- Amb and Una – Nerchowk such locations have been already identified)
• •
• • • •
•
• •
Louis Berger Group Inc.
14
Himachal Pradesh State Roads Project (HPSHP)
Environmental screening Report
Table E-19 is the list of most eco sensitive corridors as it is located adjacent to the Wildlife sanctuaries.
Table E-19 List of corridors that is adjacent to the Wildlife sanctuaries
Corr idor No. 5 8 12 15 25 27 30 36 38 39 Corridor name Naina Devi Kaula Da Toba Lal Dhank Paonta Rajban Hatkoti (Section LalDhank to Shillai except NH) Swarghat Naina Devi Bhakra (Section Kanchimore to Bhakra) Mubarikpur Dehra Ranital Kotla road (Section Dehra to Ranital and Ranital to Kotla) Chail chowk Gohar Pandoh (Section Dadour to Gohar) Jawalamukhi Dehra Jawali Raja-ka-Talab (Section Dehra to Raja-ka-Talab) Kufri Chail Kandaghat Banikhet Dalhousie Khajjiar (Section Banikhet to Dalhousie) Chailla Sainj Neripul Yashwantnagar Ochhghat Kumarhatti Kullu Nagar Manali (Left Bank) Name of Sanctuaries Naina Devi and Govind sagar sanctuary(11.20 km within 7 km range) Simbalwara Sanctuary (7 Km Range) Naina Devi And Govind Sagar Sanctuary(11.80 Km Within 7 Km Range) Pong Dam Sanctuary(20.55 Km Within 7 Km Range) Shikari Devi Sanctuary(3 Km Road Within 7 Km Range) Pong Dam Sanctuary, Maharanapratap Sanctuary(18.82 Km Of Road Within 7 Km Range In Pong Dam Sanctuary) Chail Wildlife Sanctuary(11.82 Km Within 7 Km Range ) Kalatop Khajjiar Sanctuary, Shilli Sanctuary Manali Sanctuary, (6.18 Km Within 7 Km Range) Kais Sanctuary(4.3 Km Within 7 Km Range) Area (sq. Km) Naina devi sanctuary-123 Govind sagar sanctuary 100 19 Naina devi sanctuary-123 Govind sagar sanctuary -100 307 72 Pong Dam- 307 109 69 2 Manali-32, Kais-14
8.4 • • • • • • • • •
Findings from consultations Consultation with local forest officials also indicated the presence of wildlife around the project roads. Local community consultation also indicate the presence of wildlife all around the project roads Most of the people were not happy with the road infrastructure They need improvement of the roads, parking areas, rain shelters, minimum impact to land and properties Forest officials informed that heavy machinery should not be used in Forest areas Proper traffic management required to avoid high noise levels along the forest areas For monkey menace, awareness programmes shall be conducted to avoid feeding of monkeys along the road After construction, maintenance of the road should be carried out Local institutions are willing to accommodate the debris disposal in almost all cases Boundary wall and a gate should be provided to schools to avoid accidents
8.5
Recommendations
8.5.1 General recommendations
• • With regards to Biodiversity issues, a well coordinated effort monitored by a central agency could be a very healthy set up for the sustainable development. A marginal increase of width from Single lane to intermediate lane or to simple heavy maintenance with
Louis Berger Group Inc.
15
Himachal Pradesh State Roads Project (HPSHP)
Environmental screening Report
safety precautions such as lining and signing, safety barricading in all unsafe locations and proper drainage with general EMP measures would be more acceptable to have least impact on the environment. This could be true with the projected traffic scenario also. • • • • • The environmental assessment has to be carried out so as to meet the requirements of the World Bank and GOI MOEF. Detailed surveys with the help of the design drawings need to be carried out as a part of the EA process and for the EIA/EMP documents Biodiversity Impact assessment should be taken up for all project roads irrespective of its legal settings Only strengthening treatment is recommended for roads which are near to Wildlife sanctuaries Public consultation should be given high weight age to include the requirements of the local communities. This should be an integral part so as to address the community concerns, enhance project benefits, and to ensure transparency. Widening should be concentric as far as possible with adjustments at places (side widening options to left or right) to minimise or to reduce or to avoid the environmental and social impacts Representative environmental monitoring shall be conducted at selected locations to establish bench marks Comprehensive contractual, design, and budgetary provisions have to be made in contract specific EMPs of construction packages for avoidance, minimisation, management or enhancement of various environmental components likely to be impacted due to widening and other road works A working effective systematic supervision and monitoring mechanism need to be developed as a part of environmental management to ensure compliance of the designed environmental protection plans, adoption of corrective measures when and where ever required to make the measures environmentally sustainable Environmental enhancement measures such as rain shelters, parking areas and enhancement of cultural properties along each corridors need to be integrated with the road widening and improvement component as well as the road strengthening component. The community concerns need to be addressed in this regard by proper dialogue with the local communities. Highway design should consider all consultation outputs as provided in the consultation section and its Appendices. Institutional strengthening of PWD/HPRIDC needs to be taken along with the project for managing, monitoring and supervising environmental concerns. All institutional arrangements including training requirements and modules for the project needs to be identified and developed as a part of the EA Process All Environmental clearances as explained in Chapter 3 of ESR should be in place for the construction phase.
• • •
•
•
• • • •
8.5.2 The impact management matrix
The impact management matrix for identified impacts has provided Table E-20.
Louis Berger Group Inc.
16
Himachal Pradesh State Roads Project (HPSHP)
Environmental screening Report
Table E-20: Impact Management Matrix S. No. Environmental attribute Mitigation measure 1 BIO Environment The emphasis will be to minimize the biodiversity impacts. This needs to be taken care of during planning and execution stage. Adequate mitigation measures will be required to compensate for any adverse impact (a) Wild life (a) Adequate measures to be incorporated in highway design at locations of Wildlife crossings for all 43 corridors after comprehensive and detailed Biodiversity Impact assessment (BIA) studies. This also includes avifauna and their nesting places. Numerous nesting places have been identified along the Mehatpur-Una- Amb and UnaNerchowk both on trees as well as in the mud holes. (b) Reserve/ Protected Forest (b) Avoidance and minimal impact on the forest areas to be planned and designed under the project. (c) Compensatory plantation is needed as per Forest act. NPV cost needs to be paid to the forest department according to the Supreme court Order. (c) Sanctuaries (d) Management and mitigation measures needed to minimize wildlife crossings at sanctuaries close to project routes. The details shall be provided in the EA report and necessary engineering designs and plans should be provided in the EMP reports. (e) Trees should be saved through proper alignment planning and engineering design. (f) Compensatory Plantation to be taken up for the floral cover that will be lost due to the project. (e) Trees with platforms (g) Trees with platform constructed need to avoid as far as possible. If required to cut community consultations should be carried out at the respective locations. The alignment should be finalized in such a way that trees on at least one side can be saved.
(d) Impact on trees
2 Physical Environment Most of the adverse impacts on Physical environment can be managed/mitigated through good construction management, for which suitable measures need to be built into the EMP. (a) Debris disposal and Material Source (a) After the construction use, remaining excavated material from the hill ward side widening should be properly disposed of in as per a debris disposal plan. All haul roads should be properly maintained. The vehicle carrying construction materials should be covered. (b) Soil erosion (b) Design needs to consider soil erosion protection measures. The details and site specific measures will be suggested in the EIA/EMP. (c) Drainage (c) Highway design needs to take into consideration for provision of drainage particularly in settlements, areas prone to submergence and in other areas where road will be raised.
Louis Berger Group Inc.
17
Himachal Pradesh State Roads Project (HPSHP)
Environmental screening Report
(d) Noise levels
(e) Water bodies
(f0 Air Quality
(d) No construction work during night time should be allowed in habitations, reserved forest and near the wildlife areas and sanctuaries. All construction machinery should be maintained to minimize noise generation. Workers working in high noise zones should be provided protective measures. Noise mitigation measures need to be provided at noise sensitive receptors. (e)Mitigation measures to avoid spillage of debris into water bodies and pollution during construction needs to be developed during the EMP. Similarly measures to prevent disposal of construction waste near water bodies needs to be indicated in EMP. (f) During construction, control on dust generation is needed. All construction machinery should conform to accepted emission norms. During operation adequate plantation needs to be developed in the Row.
3 Socio-Economic environment Most of the likely impacts on Socio economic environment need to be managed through proper design, relocation plans and public consultation. (a) School, hospital and colleges in COI may be impacted. (a) School/Hospital/Colleges Highway design should explore possibility to save these as far as possible. In case these need to be relocated, then new construction should be completed prior to the demolition of the structure. Also measures to prevent noise pollution and ensure safety of children and other road users need to be looked into. (b) Since most of the drinking water sources will be impacted especially along the widening corridors, these shall not be demolished until permanent alternative source of drinking water is provided to the local communities. No water source should be demolished with out the consent of the local communities (c)Same as explained in (a) above. (c) Same as explained in (a) above. SA and RAP will address the issue
(b) Drinking water sources (C) Other Common Property Resources (CPRs)
(d) Residential and commercial Properties
8.5.3 Corridor specific recommendations
a. The beautiful Kulu- Manali project road needs to include in the widening and strengthening programme. This is a very important road from the tourism point of view b. The Theog –Rohru should provide some additional space for the seasonal Cauliflower marketing place at Chainage 6 along the project road Theog c. Una- Amb road should have vibration resistant design at the Archaeological structure Gurudwara at Chainage 18.000 d. Una- Nerchowk road The bird nesting places along Una Nerchowk and Una-Amb road shall be avoided e. Theog-Rohru road-Vibration resistant design for the Archaeological monument at Rohru f. In all snow fall corridors, critical locations should be provided with safety measures. There shall be signboards showing the expected length of snowfall affected sections in the beginning and end of the project roads (These corridors are 24,31,32,36,37, and 39) g. Dehra- Raja ka Talab- If widening takes place along this road, some of the PAPs are very much concerned that they have been once rehabilitated for the Bird Sanctuary. This needs to be considered during the widening option.
Louis Berger Group Inc.
18
Himachal Pradesh State Roads Project (HPSHP)
Environmental screening Report
h. Lal Dhank- Shillai- There area numerous quarries and crushers near Sataun located along the project road. Severe dust problem and noise problem have been identified along the corridor. During the construction period this needs to be considered i. Hamirpur-Maranda- Narbadeshwar temple in the central list of Archaeological structures is located within ten metre of the project corridor at Sujanpur-Tira. This needs to be taken in to consideration while improving the road. j. Sainj-Jalori pass - along this section, for about six km stretch after Luhri, the road is located immediately adjacent to the river course of Satluj. The local people informed that every year the section is washed away. Therefore they need a bypass at this location. This road is also prone to cloud burst. k. Sanij- Jalori, Draman- Chowari and Nurpur-Tunhatti (three Corridors) – These are prone to severe land slides at specific locations. Along Draman-Chowari after Lahru for 3-4 kms and in Nurpur-Tunhatti after Sanjha Nalla for 3-4 kms are the specific location. 8.6 Positive impacts of the project
The project will give significant economic benefits to the State. Better connectivity will ease the otherwise difficult nature of the hilly terrain. Proper implementation with international best practices would lead to a sustainable development objective of the country. The project will generate direct and indirect employment to the local people of the State. The indirect benefits include savings in vehicle operating costs. Since the project is spread all over the State, people of all parts of Himachal pradesh will reap the benefits. All environmental enhancement measures such as the rain shelters, parking areas, planting of trees and cultural property rehabilitation will also benefit the communities. Over all road safety situation will be improved, although there will be an increase in road traffic accidents immediately after implementation of the project. Participation of the local bodies and the local communities will bring in a new sense of owner ship at local levels. The various levels of consultation by the environmental and social team also made the people aware that they have a role to playing the infrastructural development. 8.7 8.7.1 Scoping for Project Environmental Assessment Scoping according to WB Guidelines
From the initial screening and assessment, Web has classified the project in to category A from the Environmental angle. Category A projects requires a comprehensive EIA and an implement table EMP according to the WB Guide lines. There are ten operational policies out of which four have been triggered by the project implementation. Further WB Clearance for the overall Programme will be is obtained, provided that:
• • • • •
Feasibility studies and environmental screening studies are carried out Followed by detailed design and project-level environmental documentation when necessary and Provides assurance that the environmental issues will be properly addressed in the subsequent phases of the Programme, and All other feasibility, design, mitigation plans and financial responsibility requirements are acceptable. All other State level and National level permissions, clearances and approvals are obtained in a timely and phased manner. Scoping as per the country laws
8.7.2
Louis Berger Group Inc.
19
Himachal Pradesh State Roads Project (HPSHP)
Environmental screening Report
As per the requirement of Government of India and that of Himachal Pradesh the project has to follow all procedures and legal requirements as provided in Chapter 3. Except the project Corridors listed in Table E-21, all project roads would require MOEF clearance, as these roads passes through eco-sensitive zones. This consideration is based on the fact that there are extensive Reserved Forests (which are legally eco-sensitive) present with the 14 km impact corridor of these corridors. All the corridors listed in Table 10. 21 are also near to extensive forest areas. Although by location and nature these are truly eco-sensitive roads, these roads do not come under the category A as per the legal definition of the country laws.
Table E-21 Category B projects according to the Sept 14, 2006 MOEF notification
Corridor No. 1 Corridor name Mehatpur Una Mubarikpur Daulatpur H.P. boundary Road (Section Una to Amb) Una- Aghar Barsar Jahu Bhambla Mandi-upto Ner Chowk road* Name of Protected and unclassified Forests DPF Avenue trees kariara PF, Solasinghi & Biambi PF, Kanura PF, Pariala PF, satrukha PF, Jatunda PF, Thana PF, Bakro PF, Karer PF, Humal PF, Jhirdari PF, Badiana PF, Sidhkot PF, Gobarta PF, Dola PF, Lakwan Pf, Bagh PF, Pipli PF Palasi PF, Khol Nalagad PF Taridhar PF, Tiun Khas PF, Bhaion PF, Talokpur PF, Sarkhagha PF,Siuri PF, Baburi Dhar PF, Draman PF, Palon PF, Jol PF, Lanhnga PF, Dharampur PF, Tiun Khas PF Chanyarah PF, Sawarian Pf, Dhar Chabutra PF, Jihn PF, Balak Rupi PF, Thathin PF, Bichhwal PF, Sanba PF Jaleda PF Ghaakru PF, Seri PF, Sharon PF, Kangu PF, Dawas PF, Raikot PF, Alobara PF Hatra PF, Raipur Pf, Himmatpur Pf Aduwal PF Cheli satrukha PF, , sasal PF, Ektarwan PF Gandhar PF, Tandi PF, Nera PF Ban Mandoo PF, Pariala PF Ghaneri PF, Thunj PF, Darbathi PF Length (Km)
2 4 Shimla Kunihar Ramshehar Nalagarh Ghanoli (from Nalagarh to HP Boundary) Jogindernagar Sarkaghat Ghumarwin Road (except NH 70 section) Hamirpur Sujanpur Tihra Thural Maranda 9 17 19 22 23 26 31 33 41 42 Bamta Kandrour Shallaghat Arki Kunihar Barotiwala Panjera Bharatgarh Panjera Dehni Barsar Deothsidh (Section Barsar to Shahtalia) Mandi Kataula Bajaura Bhawarna Lambagaon Jaisinghpur Approach to proposed Lathiani bridge Swarghat Bilaspur via Jagatkhana(New alignment)
26.5 1.5
7
23.5 16 1 15 2.5 1 8 4.5 5 4 7
All roads for which Forest data is not available are provided in Table E-22 The SOI maps are not available for these project roads. All of these maps come under the restricted category. To be on the safer side and also due to the eco-sensitive nature of the HP, all these project roads are at present considered as Category A as per the September 14 2006 MOEF Gazette notification. This consideration will remain and valid until such data is made available to the consultants.
Table E-22 Assumed Category A projects according to the Sept 14, 2006 MOEF notification
(For which the ecological data on reserved forests are not available)
Corridor No 3 10
Corridor Name Gaggal- Chetru- Dharamshala- Mcleodganj Dharamshal Dadh Palampur Holta Chadihar Sandhol
Restricted Maps SOI Sheets missing SOI Sheets missing (53 D/8)
Louis Berger Group Inc.
20
Himachal Pradesh State Roads Project (HPSHP)
Environmental screening Report
11 14 16 34 35 40
Dadh Malan Damtal Kandrori Indora Khatiar Ranital Kotla road Nurpur Lahru Tunnuhatti Draman Chowri Ghatasni Bhubhu Jot Kullu
SOI Sheets missing SOI Sheets missing (53 D/8) SOI Sheets missing 53(D/1) SOI Sheets missing (53 D/12) SOI Sheets missing SOI Sheets missing
There are many other clearances and permissions to be obtained from various authorities from other angles (Utility shifting for example does not come under the purview of the Environment). Table E-23 provides the summary of clearance requirements as anticipated to day. Table E-23 Time required for obtaining important clearances
Sl No 1 2 3 4 5 Types of Clearance NOC from HP PCB Environmental clearance MOEF Forest clearance from Project stage Pre-construction do do During construction Construction stage Responsibility HPRIDC/PWD do do Respective contractors of different packages do Approx. Time required 2-3 months 3-4 months 6-8 months 2-3 months 2-3 months
‘Consents to establish’ and ‘Consent to Operate’ under air and water act Explosive license for storing fuel oil, lubricants, Diesel etc at Construction camp from Chief controller of explosive Chandigarh
8.7.3
Scoping based on the Civil construction works
As described in previous Chapters, the project has about 1675 kms. It is not possible and not required to widen all roads from the EIRR point of view. Therefore the State Government has considered 800kms for widening and strengthening and the rest for strengthening only. For widening, land acquisition will be required depending up on the scope of widening (800 km) and for strengthening no additional land acquisition would be necessary under the project. Widening and strengthening will involve land acquisition, loss of properties, loss of agricultural land, displacement of people, large scale felling of trees. The anticipated environmental and social impacts would be very high in this case. In the case of strengthening of roads, the impacts are very limited without any land acquisition with very little or no impact to road side structures and properties. There will be limited tree cutting requirements. Construction of new alignments such as realignments and bypasses however will involve major impacts as most of the time the entire land will be new. a) Road widening and strengthening (with land acquisition) This involves widening from single and intermediate lanes to 2 lane. New bypasses and realignment if required Major anticipated impacts Land acquisition and resettlement of people Tree felling on both sides of the project road Forest land acquisition and impacts to eco-sensitive areas including legally not defined areas like PF General construction impacts like air water and noise pollution
Louis Berger Group Inc.
21
Himachal Pradesh State Roads Project (HPSHP)
Environmental screening Report
Impacts on road side environmental features like schools, hospitals, temples, cultural and heritage sites b) Strengthening only (without land acquisition) This will involve widening if the land is already available, other wise the existing road will be strengthened, drainage will be improved, and safety will be improved. Major anticipated Impacts No land acquisition Minimum tree felling General impact like dust and noise during construction Little or no impacts to schools, hospitals, temples etc. No impact to Archaeological sites and monuments 8.7.4 Scoping for EA process
From the ecological point of view, a comprehensive EIA document with an implement able contract wise EMPs would be required for all project roads irrespective of the legal setting of the project roads and its proximity to sensitive areas. All project roads that are near to eco-sensitve areas will be category A and will require GOI MOEF environmental clearance. The summary of the Scoping for EA process is provided in Table E-24. Table E-24. Summary of scoping for EA, EMP and other studies
Issues /Criteria Land acquisition Tree felling on both sides Direct impact on Drinking water sources Direct impact on schools, hospitals, temples etc RF or sanctuary within 7 kms on either side Wildlife crossings Biodiversity issues No land acquisition Limited tree felling on both sides RF or sanctuary beyond 7 kms (a)Biodiversity issues/ wildlife related issues Matching improvement proposal Up gradation with land acquisition Level of further EA Full EA Full EMP Contract specific EMPs BIA and or wild life management plan
Up gradation without land acquisition
Full EA Full EMP Corridor specific EMPs Sectoral BIA plan/ management plan
Wild
life
Note: (a) Above is based on the fact that some wildlife issues including avifauna and their nesting places or Biodiversity issues are there in all 43 corridors. 8.7.5 Scoping of major issues identified under screening
Scoping of all major issues that have been identified under screening is provided in the Table E-25
Louis Berger Group Inc.
22
Himachal Pradesh State Roads Project (HPSHP)
Environmental screening Report
Table E-25 Scoping of major issues identified under screening
Area Bio environment Project activities Felling of road side trees Flora and fauna issues Potential impacts Biodiversity impact Loss of trees on the road sides Poaching of wild animals and felling of trees by construction work force Action under EA Compensatory tree planting plan for every trees removed as per the GOI –MOEF requirements A very strong EMP to tackle all the issues during construction phase that includes prohibition of establishment of construction camps in Forest areas Secondary and primary data collection Impact identification and mitigation measures Debris disposal plan and material stacking plan Borrow and quarry area management plans Management plan for establishing of Construction camps, hot mix plants, WMM plants etc. Socio-economic surveys Impact identification and mitigation measures Resettlement Action plan R& R plan LA plan Primary and secondary data collection Impact identification and mitigation measures
Land environment
Site clearing Construction of embankments Excavation of hill side for widening Construction of bridges & Structures Constriction debris Construction camps/plants
Change in land scape Change in drainage pattern Use of borrow and quarry materials Landslides and destabilisation of slopes Dumping of excess materials excavated from the hill ward side Eviction from houses and properties Employment opportunities Trade opportunities Saving of fuel time Reduction of accidents Stress on water resources Jamming of natural springs and origin of new springs Water pollution in various ways. Vehicular accidents Safety of personnel working for the project
Social environment
Additional land acquisition Recruitment of labour force Procurement of construction materials Faster and efficient movement of traffic Construction water requirements Waste water from construction sites and camps Siltation of water bodies Faster movement of traffic Crash barriers , barricades Hill side excavation of materials Valley side construction of labour force Use of explosives for excavation Safety during construction of bridges Safety during Snow fall season Excavation back filling and hauling activities Vehicular operations Dust nuisance
Water environment
Health and Safety
Improvement of road junctions Compulsory use of PPE as per the EMP Lining and Signing and crash barriers Parking areas Rain shelters Sign boards for the snow affected stretches
Air environment
Fugitive dust Vehicular emission Vehicular noise and vibrations
Secondary data collection Impact identification and mitigation measures Ambient air quality monitoring Noise monitoring Management plan for Construction plants
Louis Berger Group Inc.
23
Himachal Pradesh State Roads Project (HPSHP)
Environmental screening Report
TABLE E-5 GEOMORPHIC AND RELIEF CHARACTERISTICS OF THE STUDY CORRIDORS
CORRIDOR NO 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 L O C A T I O N /D I S T R I C T PHYSIOGRAPHIC AND TOPOGRAPHIC CONDITIONS OF THE PROJECT ROADS Plane plane and rolling Rolling Plane Rolling Rolling Rolling plane and hilly Rolling Plane and hilly Plane plane and rolling Plane Plane Plane Plane Rolling plane and rolling Plane plane and rolling Plane Plane Plane Rolling Rolling Plane plane and rolling Hilly Hilly Hilly Hilly Hilly Plane Rolling Rolling Hilly Hilly Rolling Rolling Rolling Rolling Rolling Rolling RELIEF CHARACTERISTICS (H E I G H T I N M E T E R S 300-600 300-3000 600-3000 300-600 300-600 300-1350 300-3000 300-1350 600-1350 1800-3000 1800-3000 300-600 300-600 300-900 300-900 300-900 600-900 600-900 300-900 300-600 300-600 300-600 300-600 600-3000 600-3000 300-900 300-600 1350-3000 300-4500 1350-3000 600-1350 1800-3000 600-1350 600-1350 900-3000 900-1350 900-3000 900-1800 1350-1800 1350-3000 600-900 300-600 900-1350
ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL)
Una Una,Hamirpur And Mandi Shimla Solan Bilaspur Solan And Shimla Mandi, Hamirpur And Bilaspur Sirmour Hamirpur, Kangra Kangra Kangra Bilaspur Kangra Kangra Kangra Kangra Bilaspur Una And Kangra Solan Sirmour Sirmour Solan Solan Shimla, Mandi Mandi Hamirpur, Bilaspur Kangra Shimla Shimla Shimla, Solan Mandi, Kullu Shimla Kangra, Kangra, Chamba Kangra, Chamba Chamba Kullu, Mandi,Shimla Shimla, Solan Kullu Kullu Una Bilaspur Solan
Louis Berger Group Inc.
24
Himachal Pradesh State Roads Project (HPSHP)
Environmental screening Report
Table E-16 Corridor wise Rainfall and general wind Characteristic in the region.
CORRIDOR NO 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Sirmour Hamirpur, Kangra 1400- 1800 mm Kangra Kangra Bilaspur Kangra Kangra Kangra Kangra Bilaspur Una And Kangra Solan Sirmour Sirmour Solan Solan Shimla, Mandi Mandi Hamirpur, Bilaspur Kangra Shimla Shimla Shimla, Solan Mandi, Kullu Shimla Kangra, Kangra, Chamba Kangra, Chamba Chamba Kullu, Mandi,Shimla Shimla, Solan Kullu Kullu & Mandi Bilaspur Bilaspur Solan 1000-1400 mm Do Do 1800-2600 mm 2200-2600 mm 1000-1400 mm Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do 1400-1800 mm 1000-1400 mm Do 1000-1800 mm 1000-1400 mm 1400-1800 mm 1000-1800 mm 1800-2600 mm 1000-1400 mm Do Do Do LOCATION/ DISTRICIT Una Una,Hamirpur And Mandi Kangra Solan Bilaspur Solan And Shimla Mandi, Hamirpur And Bilaspur RAINFALL
MM
1000-1400 1000-1800 1800-2600 1000-1400 mm Do 1000- 1800 mm Do Do
WIND RELIEF CHARACTERISTIC wind moderate damage risk zone Do Do Do Do wind high damage risk zone and wind moderate damage risk zone wind moderate damage risk zone Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do wind high damage risk zone wind moderate damage risk zone Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do
Do
Do
Louis Berger Group Inc.
25
Himachal Pradesh State Roads Project (HPSHP)
Environmental screening Report
TABLE E-6 GEOLOGIC AND SEISMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE STUDY CORRIDORS
CORRIDOR
NO
LOCATION/ DISTRICT Una Una,Hamirpur And Mandi Kangra Solan Bilaspur Solan And Shimla Mandi, Hamirpur And Bilaspur
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
GEOLOGIC CHARACTERISTICS Shiwalik Shiwalik Shiwalik And Murrec Series Shiwalik Shiwalik Mandhati-Chandpur Groups Murrec Series Shiwalik, MandhatiChandpur Groups, ShaliDeoban And Largi Groups Shiwalik Murrec Series And Jutogh Group Murrec Series Shiwalik Shiwalik Shiwalik Shiwalik Shiwalik Murrec Series Alluvium And Shiwalik Shimla Group And Shiwalik Murrec Series Murrec Series Shiwalik Shiwalik Granites, Jutogh Group And Shali Deoban And Largi Groups Jutogh Group Shiwalik Shiwalik Jutogh Group Jutogh Group Shimla Group Jutogh Group Andmandhati Chandpur Group Jutogh Group Shiwalik And Murrec Series Shiwalik And Granite Shiwalik And Granite Granite
SEISMIC CHARACTERISTICS earthquake very high damage zone Do earthquake high damage risk zone Do earthquake very high damage risk zone earthquake high damage risk zone earthquake very high damage zone
Sirmour Hamirpur, Kangra Kangra Kangar Bilaspur Kangra Kangra Kangra Kangra Bilaspur Una And Kangra Solan Sirmour Sirmour Solan Solan Shimla, Mandi Mandi Hamirpur, Bilaspur Kangra Shimla Shimla Shimla, Solan Mandi, Kullu Shimla
earthquake high damage risk zone earthquake very high damage risk zone Do Do Do Do earthquake high damage risk zone Do Do Do Do Do earthquake very high damage risk zone Do Do earthquake high damage risk zone Do Do earthquake very high damage risk zone earthquake high damage risk zone earthquake very high damage risk zone Do earthquake very high damage risk zone Do
33 34 35 36 Kangra, Kangra, Chamba Kangra, Chamba Chamba
Louis Berger Group Inc.
26
Himachal Pradesh State Roads Project (HPSHP)
Environmental screening Report
CORRIDOR
NO
LOCATION/ DISTRICT
37 Kullu, Mandi,Shimla 38 Shimla, Solan 39 40 41 42 43 Kullu Kullu& Mandi Bilaspur Bilaspur Solan
GEOLOGIC CHARACTERISTICS Nagthat Group, Muth Quartzite Manikaran Quartzite And Mandhati Chandpur Group Jutogh Group, Shimla Group Jutogh And Granites Jutogh Shiwalik Murrec Series Shimla Group
SEISMIC CHARACTERISTICS Do
earthquake high damage risk zone earthquake very high damage risk zone
earthquake high damage risk zone
TABLE E-7 EROSION AND OTHER NATURAL CALAMITIES
CORRIDOR NO 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15, 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Sirmour Hamirpur, Kangra Bilaspur Kangra Kangra Kangra Una And Kangra Solan Sirmour Sirmour Solan Solan Shimla, Mandi Mandi Hamirpur, Bilaspur Kangra Shimla Shimla Shimla, Solan Mandi, Kullu Shimla Kangra, prone to erosion not prone to erosion prone to erosion not prone to erosion very little very little not prone to erosion prone to erosion very little not prone to erosion not prone to erosion not prone to erosion not prone to erosion not prone to erosion very little not prone to erosion very prone to erosion prone to erosion not prone to erosion very prone to erosion very little very little LOCATION/ DISTRICT Una Una,Hamirpur And Mandi Solan Solan And Shimla Mandi, Hamirpur And Bilaspur EROSION not prone to erosion very little not prone to erosion very prone to erosion prone to erosion 13 areas, many mines along the road No area 14 areas No area 2 areas 6 areas No area 27 areas 3 areas No area No area No area No area No area 2 areas No area 33 areas 12 areas No area 34 areas 3 areas 3 areas 5 dry rivers (no bridge) 1 (river without bridge) 1 location LANDSLIDE /LAND SLIPS
ETC
FLOODING 1 location
No area 1 area No area 31 areas 29 areas
1 location 1 location
Louis Berger Group Inc.
27
Himachal Pradesh State Roads Project (HPSHP)
Environmental screening Report
CORRIDOR NO 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43
LOCATION/ DISTRICT Kangra, Chamba Kangra, Chamba Chamba Kullu, Mandi,Shimla Shimla, Solan Kullu Kulu and Mandi Bilaspur Solan
EROSION prone to erosion prone to erosion not prone to erosion very prone to erosion very prone to erosion very little
LANDSLIDE /LAND SLIPS
ETC
FLOODING
25 areas 23 areas No area 31 areas 51 areas 10 areas
Cloud burst prone area, 5 point
very little
3 areas
TABLE E-8 PROXIMITY TO WATER RESOURCES
CORRIDOR NO 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 RIVER BASIN sutlej sutlej,Beas Beas sutlej sutlej Jamuna, Markanda sutlej Jamuna Beas Beas Beas sutlej Beas Beas Beas Beas Beas Beas sutlej Markanda Markanda sutlej sutlej sutlej Beas Sutlej Beas sutlej Jamuna Jamuna Beas 6 river, markanda, Kheri 1 river 22 32 MAJOR RIVERS STREAMS /NALAS ETC 2 ponds 2 ponds SNOW FALL AREA None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None Dhalli, Mashobra,Naldehra None None None Most Of The Route Most Of The Route Kufri And Chail Bajaur And Adjoining Areas
17 Giri, Neda Gangtoli 3 rivers, beas 5 streams, purad, 1 pond 5 streams, nagni 2 lake 4 stream. 2 ponds 3 ponds 21 stream, totak, banj nala, khakhod nala, guj, 4 ponds 17 stream 1 stream, 1 pond 3 stream 4 stream, 1 pond 6 stream 1 stream 18 stream, amlehar, 6 ponds 6 stream 16 springs, rala, raksh, shegli, kataula,chhad,
7 river,
1 river 2 river, haripur 40 river, giri, pabbar
3 rivers, uhl
Louis Berger Group Inc.
28
Himachal Pradesh State Roads Project (HPSHP)
Environmental screening Report
CORRIDOR NO 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43
RIVER BASIN Beas Beas Beas, Ravi Beas Ravi sutlej, beas Jamuna Beas Beas Sutlej sutlej Sutlej, jamuna
MAJOR RIVERS 2 rivers, giri 6 rivers, haroti, maand 5 rivers, chakki, jabbar, shabadra 11 rivers, sarali, chanhal, thulel,dadman 25 rivers, beas, sutlej 19 rivers, giri 5 rivers, beas
STREAMS /NALAS ETC batheri, dulchi 1 spring 3 springs 9 springs, sanjha nala, huwardi, 5 streams, sirli, suked, khola, surki nala, 27 streams, tirthan, flela nala, jalori khad, shamshar, sainj nala 8 streams 8 streams, lran kelo nala, kanoli nala,
SNOW FALL AREA 80% Of The Route None None None Most Of The Route Jalori, Aani, Etc Most Of The Route None None None None
TABLE E-9 PROXIMITY TO NATIONAL PARKS AND WILDLIFE SANCTUARIES
CORRIDOR NO 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NATIONAL PARKS Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil SANCTUARIES Nil Nil Nil Nil Naina Devi And Govind Sagar Sanctuary(11.20 Km Within 7 Km Range) Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Naina Devi And Govind Sagar Sanctuary11.80 Km Within 7 Km Range) Nil Nil Pong Dam Sanctuary(20.55 Km Within 7 Km Range) Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Shikari Devi Sanctuary(3 Km RESERVED FORESTS OTHER FORESTS
59.5 1.6
59 km 24 km 21.60 km
28.5 0.48 km 12.5 43 17.5 24.4 1.50 km 6 km 4.8 3.2
Louis Berger Group Inc.
29
Himachal Pradesh State Roads Project (HPSHP)
Environmental screening Report
CORRIDOR NO
NATIONAL PARKS Nil Nil
SANCTUARIES Road Within 7 Km Range)
RESERVED FORESTS
OTHER FORESTS
26 27
6 km Pong Dam Sanctuary, Maharanapratap Sanctuary(18.82 Km Of Road Within 7 Km Range In Pong Dam Sanctuary) Nil Nil Chail Wildlife Sanctuary(11.82 Km Within 7 Km Range ) Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Kalatop Khajjiar Sanctuary, Nil Shilli Sanctuary Manali Sanctuary, (6.18 Km Within 7 Km Range) Kais Sanctuary(4.3 Km Within 7 Km Range) Nil Nil Nil Nil
28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39
Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil
44 km 42 km 27 6.4 2.4
3 km 18 km 25.5 km 28.5 km 6 km 6.72 km
9.5
40 41 42 43
Nil Nil Nil Nil
1.53 km
TABLE E-10 PROXIMITY TO WETLANDS
CORRIDOR NO. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
DISTRICTS Una Una,Hamirpur and mandi Solan solan and shimla mandi, hamirpur and bilaspur Sirmour hamirpur, kangra Bilaspur Kangra Kangra Kangra Kangra
ROAD LENGTH (KM) 32.2 126.27 12.515 11.285 12.22 78 82.98 74.94 58.99 4 37 11.2 52 20.5 39.182 6.66
NEAREST WETLANDS None Rewalser lake, Govindsagar lake None None None None None None None None None Govindsagar lake Pong Dam Pong Dam Pong Dam None None
DISTANCE FROM THE ROAD TO WET LAND AT THE NEAREST LOCATION Within 7 kms Within 7 kms
Within 7 kms Within 7 kms Within 7 kms Within 7 kms
Louis Berger Group Inc.
30
Himachal Pradesh State Roads Project (HPSHP)
Environmental screening Report
CORRIDOR NO. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43
DISTRICTS una and kangra Solan Sirmour Sirmour Solan Solan shimla, mandi Mandi hamirpur, bilaspur Kangra Shimla Shimla shimla, solan mandi, kullu Shimla kangra, kangra, chamba kangra, chamba Chamba kullu, mandi,shimla shimla, solan Kullu
ROAD LENGTH (KM) 32.56 80.4 15.13 6.37 4.66 9 46 20.325 11.3 75.14 80.37 27 57 51 47 26.645 42.19
NEAREST WETLANDS
DISTANCE FROM THE ROAD TO WET LAND AT THE NEAREST LOCATION Within 7 kms
Pong Dam None None None None None None None Within 7 kms Govind sagar lake Pong Dam None None None None None None None None Within 7 kms
53.4 6.205 72 86.32 39.375 66.57 4 20.375 10.5
None None None Beas river (raison and katrain) None None None None Within 7 kms
Solan
TABLE E-11 DRINKING WATER SOURCES ALONG THE FEASIBILITY CORRIDORS
CORRIDOR NO 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 8 11 7 10 46 41 25 46 22 22 7 7 17 60 35 63 2 6 1 9 WELLS 8 13 HAND PUMPS 9 60 11 SPRINGS SHALLOW TUBE
WELLS
PWS 38 112
42
Louis Berger Group Inc.
31
Himachal Pradesh State Roads Project (HPSHP)
Environmental screening Report
CORRIDOR NO 14 15, 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28, 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43
WELLS 9 6
HAND PUMPS 15 63 8 19 6 1 3 8 6 12 33 26 8 21 5 21 22 29 4 39 7 8 10
SPRINGS
SHALLOW TUBE
WELLS
PWS 50 37 13 23 6 11 2 12 11 40 19 47 31 14 29 13 55 25 33 1 28 8 56
1
1 3 2
2 2 3 1 29 12 5 1 4 12 6 19
8 1
1
6
8
TABLE E-12 POPULATION DISTRIBUTION IN RELATION TO POLLUTION (AIR /WATER AND NOISE)
Corridor No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15,16 Population High Medium Medium High High High Medium Medium Low Low Air quality High medium medium High High High medium medium Low medium Low Water quality high medium medium high high high medium medium low high low Noise Quality High Medium Medium High High High Medium Medium Low Medium Low
Louis Berger Group Inc.
32
Himachal Pradesh State Roads Project (HPSHP) 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43
Environmental screening Report
Medium High Low Low Low Medium Low Low High High Low Medium Low Medium Low Medium Medium Low Medium High Medium Medium Low Low
medium High Low Low Low medium Low Low High High Low medium Low medium Low medium medium Low medium High medium medium Low Low
medium high medium medium medium medium low low high high low medium low medium low medium medium low medium high medium medium low low
Medium High Low Low Low Medium Low Low High High Low Medium Low Medium Low Medium Medium Low Medium High Medium Medium Low Low
TABLE E-13 ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES ALONG THE PROJECT ROAD
CORRIDOR NO 1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES/MONUMENTS AND WORLD HERITAGE SITES Pirniga Mazar The Old Gurudwara At Una Town Is Also Of 17 Th Centuray IMPORTANT TEMPLES AND OTHER
WORSHIP PLACES
NO OF CULTURAL PROPERTIES
FRO SURVEY DATA
Ashtbhuj Mata Temple Near Una, Vishwakarma Temple Rawalsar Lake
15
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15, 16 17 Sirmouri Tal(ASI) Narbedshwar Temple And Katoch Mahal At Sujanpur
Kwagdhar,Gurudwara At Nahan Basahi, Machhyal,Nabahi Devi Paonta Sahib Gurudwara, Budhist Monastruy Gauri Shankar, Murli Manohar And Sankat Mochan Temple At Sujanpur Mata Naina Devi Temple Channo Sidh Temple Mata Baglamukhi Temple, Naag Mandir, Shiva Cave At Trilokpur
74 1 6 0 6 34 22 62 0 0 10 14 37 39 0
Paragpur Heritage Village Maangarh Fort; Kotla Fort
Louis Berger Group Inc.
33
Himachal Pradesh State Roads Project (HPSHP)
Environmental screening Report
CORRIDOR NO
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES/MONUMENTS AND WORLD HERITAGE SITES
IMPORTANT TEMPLES AND OTHER
WORSHIP PLACES
NO OF CULTURAL PROPERTIES
FRO SURVEY DATA
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Fort At Guler, Haripur Heritage Site(State) Archaeological Site At Virat Near Hatkoti Chail P[Alace Bisheshwar Temple At Bajaura (ASI) Old Palace At Sainj Arki Palace And Forts At Arki, Subathu And Kuthar
Sheetla Mata And Chintpurni Mata Temple
21 9 4 3 2 9
Durga Mata Temple At Mashobra, Nag Temple At Naldehra Baba Balaknath Temple
7 15 7 40
Hatkoti Mata Temple Sidh Baba Temple At Chail Lankarvir Templ At Chaupal Brijraj Temple At Nurpur Temple At Nadholi Nag Temple At Banikhet, Temple At Shamshar And At Behna Shiva Temple At Balag Monastry At Karadsu, Manu Rishi And Vashisht Temple Near Manali
18 ( 28 & 29) 5 13 8 46 21 31 1 20 12 16 7
Hidimba Mata Temple
Hanuman Temple At Kasauli
TABLE E-14 TOURISM AND ALL OTHER RELATED ASPECTS CORRIDOR NO
IMPORTANT TOURIST LOCATIONS
PILGRIMAGE SITES
WILDLIFE SANCTUARIES FOREST AND RELATED ASPECTS
HOT SPRINGS/WATER BODIES OF TOURIST SIGNIFICANCE
Louis Berger Group Inc.
34
Himachal Pradesh State Roads Project (HPSHP)
Environmental screening Report
CORRIDOR NO 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
IMPORTANT TOURIST LOCATIONS
PILGRIMAGE SITES
WILDLIFE SANCTUARIES FOREST AND RELATED ASPECTS
HOT SPRINGS/WATER BODIES OF TOURIST SIGNIFICANCE
Ashtbhuj Mata Temple Near Una Lathiani, Govindsagar Rawalsar Lake Una Gurudwara Nalagarh Fort None None Naina Devi Nahan, Renuka Lake Macchyal Lake Naina Devi Temple None Machyal
None None None None Naina Devi Sanctuary Govindsagar Sanctuary None None Simbalwara Sanctuary None None
None Rewalser Lake, Govindsagar Lake None None None None None None None None None Govindsagar Lake Pong Dam Pong Dam Pong Dam None None Pong Dam None None None None None Hot Water Spring (Sulphur) None Govind Sagar Lake Pong Dam None
Paonta Sahib, Sirmori Paonta Sahib Taal Gurudwara, Sujanpur Gauri Shankar, Murli Manohar Chamunda Devi Naina Devi, Bhakra Paragpur Heritage Site, Channo Sidh Temple Damsite Trilokpur, Dehra Bankhandi, Maangarh Trilokpur, Dehra Bankhandi, Maangarh Kandrour Bridge Chintpurni Arki, Subathu, Kuthar Fossil Park At Suketi Trilokpur Nil Nil Mashobara, Naldhera, Tattapani Chail Chowk Lathiani Guler, Haripur, Khara Patthar, Hatkoti Chamunda Mata Temple Mata Naina Devi Temple Channo Sidh Temple None Mata Baglamukhi Temple, Mata Baglamukhi Temple None Sheetla Mata And Chintpurni Mata Temple None None None None None None None Baba Balaknath Temple None Hatkoti Mata Temple
None Naina Devi Sanctuary Govindsagar Sanctuary None None Pong Dam Sanctuary None None None None None None None None None Shikari Devi Sanctuary None Pong Dam Sanctuary, None
Louis Berger Group Inc.
35
Himachal Pradesh State Roads Project (HPSHP)
Environmental screening Report
CORRIDOR NO 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39
IMPORTANT TOURIST LOCATIONS
PILGRIMAGE SITES None
WILDLIFE SANCTUARIES FOREST AND RELATED ASPECTS
HOT SPRINGS/WATER BODIES OF TOURIST SIGNIFICANCE
None Chail Wildlife Sanctuary None None None None None
None None None None None None None
Chail, Kufri, Mandi, Bajoura Sainj Old Palace, Chopal Jaisinghpur Nurpur Fort Nadholi Delhousie, Banikhet Larji, Jalori Pass, Good Valley View Sainj Palace Kullu, Naggar, Manali
None None None None Brij Raj Temple None None None Shiva Temple At Balag Monastry At Karadsu, Hidimba Temple Manu Rishi And Vashisht Temple Near Manali
Kalatop Khajjiar Sanctuary, None None Shilli Sanctuary Manali Sanctuary, Kais Sanctuary None None Beas River (Raison And Katrain) Hot Water Spring At Vashisht And Ramshilla (Kullu) None None None
40 41 42 43
Kullu Govindsagar Lake Govindsagar Lake Kasauli Hill Station Hanuman Temple At Kasauli
None
Louis Berger Group Inc.
36