Upload
truongcong
View
218
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Study for Expeditious Processing of
Environment Clearances for Projects of
Narmada Valley Development Authority
(NVDA)
Submitted To:
Submitted by;
K V Gopakumar
MBA Student
IIT Kanpur
DETAILS OF THE PROJECT
Organization Name: Narmada Valley Development Authority, Bhopal
Project Commencement Date: 10th May, 2010
Project Duration: 2 months
Project Guide Details:
Mr. Lalit Kumar Sood (I.F.S) Mr. Atul Kumar Jain
Chief Conservator of Forests Conservator Forest
NVDA, Bhopal NVDA, Bhopal
Name of the Student:
K V Gopakumar
Roll No. Y9125019
Summer Intern
IME Department (MBA)
IIT Kanpur
Email: [email protected]
Contents
CERTIFICATE ........................................................................................................................... 4
ACKNOWLEDEMENT ................................................................................................................. 5
List of Abbreviations ................................................................................................................. 6
Objective of the Study .............................................................................................................. 7
Methodology............................................................................................................................ 8
Process Level Diagram of each stage of the Research Methodology ............................................. 9
Narmada Valley Development Authority (NVDA) .........................................................................10
Narmada Water Dispute and the setting up of NWDT ...............................................................10
Major Decisions of the Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal (NWDT) .............................................12
Formation of NVDA ..............................................................................................................13
NVDA – Organization Structure .............................................................................................14
Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) and Environment Clearance (EC) .......................................14
What is EIA? .......................................................................................................................14
Evolution of EIA in India .......................................................................................................16
EIA 1994 ............................................................................................................................16
EIA 2006 ............................................................................................................................17
Difference between EIA Notification 1994 and EIA Notification 2006 ...........................................19
What is Environment Clearance (EC), why is it needed? ...........................................................19
EC Process at NVDA ................................................................................................................25
Stakeholders .......................................................................................................................25
Steps in the Clearance Process for NVDA Projects ....................................................................26
Delay in getting EC for NVDA projects ....................................................................................26
Reasons for Delay in getting EC for NVDA Projects ...................................................................28
Methods to Reduce the Time Delay in EC Process ........................................................................30
Comparison with NHPC ............................................................................................................33
Some Recommendations for MoEF to Improve the Process Further ................................................35
References .............................................................................................................................36
Appendix ...............................................................................................................................37
Appendix 1 .........................................................................................................................37
Appendix 2 .........................................................................................................................38
Appendix 3 .........................................................................................................................46
Appendix 4 .........................................................................................................................49
Appendix 5 .........................................................................................................................51
Appendix 6 .........................................................................................................................57
Narmada Valley Development Authority
CERTIFICATE
To whomsoever it may concern
This is to certify that Mr. K.V Gopakumar, an intern from MBA Program of Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur was associated with the Narmada Valley Development Authority, Bhopal under the summer internship scheme of School of Good Governance and Policy Analysis, Bhopal. He had undertaken a study on “Expeditious Processing of Environment Clearances for Projects of Narmada Valley Development Authority (NVDA)” assigned to him by the department. He was associated with the department for a period of two months starting from 10th May, 2010 and has completed the project successfully. We wish him all the very best for his future endeavours.
A.A. Ansari Member (Environment and Forest)
Narmada Valley Development Authority, Bhopal .
ACKNOWLEDEMENT
I wish to express my deep sense of gratitude to Mr. O.P Rawat, VC, NVDA, Mr.A. A Ansari, Member (E&F), NVDA, Mr. Lalit Kumar Sood, C.C.F, NVDA and Mr Atul Kumar Jain, C.F, NVDA for their able guidance and useful suggestions, which helped me in completing the project work on time. I would also like to thank Mr.Vinay Khare, NVDA, for his valuable guidance in the project work.
I am also deeply indebted to Mr.A.K. Rana, Regional C.C.F, Dr. A. Mehrotra, Director and R.O. and Mr. S.K. Lal, MOEF, Bhopal for their valuable inputs.
I would also like express my gratitude to Mr.Bhatt, NHDC and Mr. Devraj Barua, AM (Env.), NHPC for their suggestions.
I am especially thankful to Mr. H. P. Dixit, Director General, SGPA, Dr. Umesh Pandey, Director, SGPA and Mr. Gaurav Khare, Project Officer, SGPA for providing help and support to me in completing my study.
I would also like to give my special thanks to fellow Project trainees for their valuable suggestions to the project.
List of Abbreviations
EAC Expert Appraisal Committee
EC Environment Clearance
EIA Environment Impact Assessment
EMP Environment Management Plan
EPA Environment Protection Act
MoEF Ministry of Environment and Forest
MPPCB Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board
NVDA Narmada Valley Development Authority
NWDT Narmada Water Dispute Tribunal
NHPC National Hydroelectric Power Corporation
Objective of the Study The objectives of this study are two-pronged –
a) To understand the various processes / steps involved in the process of getting clearances for projects
of NVDA from Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF).
b) To understand the reasons for delay in the EC process at NVDA and find out methods by which the
delay can be reduced.
Narmada Valley Development Authority (NVDA) is an organization of Govt. of M.P. constituted for
planning water resources development in Narmada basin and expeditious implementation of projects. It
is a multidisciplinary organization of the State Government and its head office is at Bhopal. The NVDA
shall have jurisdiction over the major water resources development projects in the Narmada Basin.
Many major projects are being simultaneously worked on under the NVDA. The purpose of these
projects are to utilize the Narmada waters, a master plan of the Narmada Basin has been prepared for
the development of Irrigation, power and providing water for industries and domestic requirements of
Madhya Pradesh.
One of the problems faced by NVDA in the past has been getting environmental clearances for their
projects from the Ministry of Environment and Forests. As a result of this many projects end up getting
delayed which can be a very costly proposition for the government. In some cases the budget allocated
for the projects increases many folds by the time the actual implementation begins. Moreover due to
the delay the whole purpose of the project, that is improvement of irrigation, power etc. is not
achieved. In the past major NVDA projects like LowerGoi, Punasa, Halon etc have taken more than 30
months and sometimes even up to 80 months for getting environment clearances. Refer Appendix 1 for
details.
This study tries to understand the internal processes followed at NVDA for getting environment
clearance, compares them to the processes followed in public sector organizations like NHDC, NHPC and
finally tries to come up with some methods which can be help to reduce the delay.
The report has been broken down into three major segments.
1) The first segment focuses on Narmada Valley Development Authority (NVDA), its history, why was it
setup, the processes followed by NVDA for getting EC etc.
2) The next segment explains the entire environment clearance (EC) process in India, its evolution, its
current form, why it is needed, the purpose of Environment Impact Assessment (EIA), various EIA
notifications etc
3) The final segment focuses on the methods that can be followed at NVDA to reduce the time delay for
EC; it also includes a comparison of NVDA’s process to those followed at NHPC, NHDC.
Methodology The first foremost step in any project is to identify the scope of the project and to chalk out a plan as to
how would one go about it.
This methodology adopted for this study was as follows:-
1) Stage 1:– The first stage involved understanding the various environment protection acts, rules and
notification. This was necessary to have a background of what could be the possible reasons for any
delays. As part of this stage various acts like Forest Conservation Act 1980, The Environment Protection
Act 1986 etc and notifications like EIA notification 1994 and 2006 were covered. Further, to collect
secondary data the websites of NVDA, Ministry of Environment and Forests were used.
2) Stage 2:- The next stage of the study involved identifying the various stakeholders involved in the EC
process and to find out different steps in the environment clearance process for any NVDA project. A
step by step break-up was prepared of the processes followed in an effort to understand each activity in
detail. This stage involved interacting with various members of NVDA for collecting primary data.
Another task at this stage was to identify the various stakeholders, their roles in the entire EC process.
Another important activity at this stage was to identify the factors which were causing major delays at
all stages and also to come up with a clear break-up of the delay (in days/months) happening at MoEF’s
end and that happening at NVDA’s end. Refer Appendix 2 for more details. In order to accomplish this all
the written communication that had happened over the last 7-8 years between NVDA and other major
stakeholders like MoEF, EIA consultant, Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board (MPPCB) and also
those communications which happened within the various departments of NVDA were studied for three
NVDA projects namely LowerGoi, Halon and Punasa. This required going through many old files full of
letters and documents sent by NVDA to other parties involved and vice versa. This stage helped to infer
the actual reasons for the delay, the various objections raised by MoEF, the chronological flow of events
and also calculate the delay at each step.
3) Stage 3:- The next step was the identification of the bottleneck, which in this case turned out to be
the preparation of the EIA (Environment Impact Assessment)/EMP (Environment Management Plan)
report by the external consultant. In the case of NVDA, for LowerGoi Project this step took 31 months,
for Halon 54 months and for Punasa around 20 months. The actual expected time for this step should be
around 12-15months. The steps that could be taken to reduce this delay would be explained in detail in
later sections of the report.
4) Stage 4:- This stage involved studying other organizations involved in getting EC from MoEF and
compare their processes with those followed at NVDA. For the purpose of this study National
Hydroelectric Power Corporation (NHPC) and NHDC (a joint venture of NHPC and Govt. of Madhya
Pradesh) were taken up to understand the processes being followed there. One of the major reasons to
take up NHPC was that their timelines for getting EC for their projects has been much less as compared
to those of NVDA. For Eg: Kotlbhel Hydro Electric Project in Tehri by NHPC was cleared in its appraisal
stage in 2 months, Siang Middle Project by NHPC was cleared in its appraisal stage in 6 months etc,
whereas the projects of NVDA like LowerGoi, Punasa, Halon etc have taken around 10 months or more
for their final appraisal stage. NHPC also has lesser delay for the EIA/EMP stage as well. This would be
explained in detail in later sections.
5) Stage 5:- This stage involved validating the findings with the respected authorities. Regular status
check meetings, interim presentations were held with the supervisors as part of the project. This helped
in regularly validating the findings and prevented the study from losing its focus.
Process Level Diagram of each stage of the Research Methodology
Figure -1
Narmada Valley Development Authority (NVDA) Before we go into the details of NVDA we need to first understand the history behind the formation of
NVDA. We will have a brief look at the Narmada Water Dispute Issue and the final decision taken by the
Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal (NWDT) which was constituted to adjudicate upon the water dispute.
Narmada Water Dispute and the setting up of NWDT
Narmada is a river in central India and the fifth largest river in the Indian subcontinent. It forms the
traditional boundary between North India and South India and flows westwards over a length of
1,312 km (815.2 mi) before draining through the Gulf of Cambey (Khambat) into the Arabian Sea, 30 km
(18.6 mi) west of Bharuch city of Gujarat. It is one of only three major rivers in peninsular India that runs
from east to west (largest west flowing river) along with the Tapti River and the Mahi River. The
Narmada river has a huge water resources potential, as much as 33.21 MAF (41,000 M.cum) of average
annual flow (more than 90% of this flow occurring during the monsoon months of June – September),
which according to estimates is greater than the combined annual flows of the Ravi, Beas and
the Sutlej rivers, which feed the Indus basin. The 75% dependable flow is 28 MAF (34,537 MCM).
Investigations for harnessing the Narmada waters started around the time of independence, when
Central Waterways, Irrigation and Navigation Commission (CWINC) identified several storage schemes
and in 1948 the Khosla Committee prioritized the proposals and named Tawa, Bargi, Punasa and
Bharuch projects (the last three on the main stem of the river) for preparation of reports. The reports
were ready by 1963. A parallel study of the Hydropower potential identified 16 sites with a potential of
1300 MW. While the project in Gujarat called Baruch Weir project went through a series of
modifications and improvements with a reformed scheme at Navagam village to extend benefits up to
the Rann of Kutch, but following the bifurcation of the erstwhile Bombay state into Maharashtra and
Gujarat states and Gujarat’s intent to raise the height of the dam at Navagam to maximize storage
benefits at the cost of submergence of potential hydropower sites in Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh,
created a dispute between the states. This resulted in an impasse in the implementation of the agreed
projects at Navagam in Gujarat, Punasa in MP and Bargi dam in MP and power benefit sharing among
the states; with MP refusing to ratify the agreements. To break the logjam, a high level Committee was
appointed by the Government of India (GOI) in September 1964. In 1965, the Committee prepared a
Master Plan for the basin which involved construction of 12 major projects in MP and the Navagam dam
in Gujarat. It provided priority to irrigation over power; irrigation of 2,630 square kilometers
(1,020 sq mi) in MP, 400 square kilometers (150 sq mi) in Maharashtra, 460 square kilometers
(180 sq mi) in Gujarat and 4,000 square kilometers (1,500 sq mi) in Rajasthan. The storages it
recommended in MP involved Bargi, Tawa and Narmadasagar (Punasa) while its proposed Navagam high
dam would submerge the hydelpower project sites of Jalasindhi (in Maharshtra) and Harinphal (MP) but
without any more submergence than would be caused by the three dams if separately constructed.
Gujarat endorsed this proposal but Maharashtra was not willing to go by it. After intense parleys failed
to resolve the problem, GOI decided to set up the Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal (NWDT) in 1969
under the Inter State Water Disputes Act, 1956 to adjudicate on the dispute relating to sharing of water
of the inter–state river Narmada and its valley.1
The Tribunal gave its Award on 7th Dec., 1979. The Award specified a quantum of utilizable waters at
75% dependability to be shared by the four States of Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and
Rajasthan
Allocation of Narmada water by NWDT among four states 2
1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narmada_River
2 http://www.nih.ernet.in/nih_rbis/India_information/Narmada%20Water%20Dispute%20Tribunal.htm
State Allocation in MAF Allocation in Mm3
Gujarat 9.00 11,101.32
Madhya Pradesh 18.25 22,511.01
Maharashtra 0.25 308.37
Rajasthan 0.50 616.74
Total 28.00 34537.44
Figure- 2
Major Decisions of the Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal (NWDT)
The important decisions of the Tribunal are:
The Full Reservoir Level of Sardar Sarovar Dam was fixed at 138.68 m.
The power benefits from the project are to be shared as: Madhya Pradesh
57%, Maharashtra 27%, and Gujarat 16%. The cost of power component of the project is to
be shared by Gujarat, M.P. and Maharashtra in the ratio of their benefits in power.
M.P. has to make a uniform release of 8.12 MAF (10,015.86 MCM) ex-Maheshwar to meet
the requirements of Gujarat and Rajasthan from Sardar Sarovar Dam in a normal year
having 28 MAF (34,537.45 MCM) flow.
The Indira Sagar project is to be taken up by MP and completed with a FRL of 262.13 m (860
ft) either concurrently or earlier than the construction of Sardar Sarovar.
Gujarat is required to credit to MP each year 17.63% of the expenditure
on Indira Sagar dam.
The allocation of Unit I – Dam and Appurtenant works cost between irrigation & power was
done as 43.9% and 56.1%. The irrigation component of the project is to be shared
by Gujarat and Rajasthan in the ratio of water allocation for the dam and canal.
An organization, viz., Narmada Control Authority (NCA) was set up for implementation of
the decision of the Tribunal. A Review Committee was also set up under Union Ministry of
Water Resources to review decisions of the Authority.
For efficient, economical and early execution of Unit I & III of Sardar Sarovar Project, a
construction advisory committee was set up. The Review Committee was empowered to
decide on issues on which there is disagreement in the construction committee.
The decisions of the Tribunal are subject to review after a period of 45 years from the date
of publication of the final award in the Gazette of Govt. of India.
Formation of NVDA
The NWDT awarded around 18.25 MAF of Narmada water to Madhya Pradesh. As the greater part of the
share of water (11.36 MAF) is to be utilized by the major projects, a separate department named the
Narmada Valley Development Department (N.V.D.D.) was setup by the Govt. of Madhya Pradesh in
1981. The purpose of this was the development of water resources of Narmada River by major projects.
Few major projects already implemented were retained with Water Resources Department.
Looking at the importance of the environment works and the resettlement and rehabilitation (R&R) of
the project affected families (PAF's) the State Government vide Resolution No. 500-2-NVD-XXVII-83
dated 16-7-1985 decided to constitute:-
a) Control Board for Narmada Valley Development
b) Narmada Valley Development Authority (NVDA)
The Narmada Control Board formed under the Chairmanship of Chief Minister has the overall charge of
the investigations and preparation of project reports, preparation of the Narmada Basin Plan,
construction and maintenance of major and multipurpose projects in the Narmada Valley.
The Narmada Valley Development Authority (NVDA) is a multidisciplinary organization of the State
Government and its head office is at Bhopal. The NVDA shall have jurisdiction over the major water
resources development projects in the Narmada Basin.3
The NVDA shall be responsible, in particular for the following functions:-
To prepare a detailed plan for exploitation of the water resources of the Narmada river and
its tributaries and to undertake all necessary major engineering works for the harnessing of
the river and its tributaries for the purpose of irrigation, power, navigation and other
development.
To undertake ancillary engineering works for the distribution of water for irrigation,
industrial, domestic and other purposes.
To undertake generation, sale of power in bulk to MPEB (Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board)
and all necessary engineering works ancillary thereto.
To acquire and manage land in the Narmada Valley for the purpose of carrying out
engineering works, to provide for human resettlements and the needs for irrigation, flood
control and navigation.
To shoulder responsibility of human resettlement and rehabilitation in respect of projects in
the Narmada Valley, to establish towns and villages and to take all necessary measures to
ensure planned settlement and rehabilitation.
3 http://www.nvda.in/the-nvda.htm
To advise for the proper conservation and development of forests, wildlife and fisheries in
the Narmada Valley.
To set up a designs organization for the projects entrusted to it.
To undertake operation and maintenance of the projects.
To undertake monitoring and evaluation.
NVDA – Organization Structure
Figure-3
NVDA has five major departments namely: Engineering, Power, Finance, Rehabilitation, and
Environment & Forest. These departments are headed by a Member each and the Members report to
the Vice Chairman. NVDA is headed by a Chairman.
Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) and
Environment Clearance (EC)
What is EIA?
An environmental impact assessment (EIA) is an assessment of the possible impact—positive or
negative—that a proposed project may have on the environment, together consisting of the natural,
social and economic aspects.4 EIA is an "anticipatory, participatory, integrative environmental
management tool which has the ultimate objective of providing decision makers with an indication of the
likely consequences of their decisions relating to new projects or new programs, plans or policies." EIA
helps the decision makers to identify the likely effects at an early stage and to improve the quality of
project planning and decision making. It is a process used to predict the environmental consequences of
proposed major development projects, to identify and plan for appropriate measures to reduce adverse
impacts. 5,6
An EIA attempts to answer the following questions:
1) What will happen as a result of the project?
2) What will be the extent of the changes?
3) Do the changes matter?
4) What can be done about them?
5) How can decision makers be informed of what needs to be done?
Which could be achieved through the following steps -
1) Identification of impacts.
2) Prediction of significance of causes and effects of impacts
3) Evaluation of the predicted adverse impacts to determine whether
they are significant enough to warrant mitigation
4) Suggesting a wide range of measures to prevent, reduce or remedy
those adverse impacts which warrant mitigation
5) Documentation of the process and conclusion.
It is important to know about the possible impacts of any developmental plan x on our
environment. Fortunately, adequate legislation could be brought into force to make proper assessment
of all such environmental impacts. The objectives of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) are to
ensure that development is sustained with minimal environmental degradation. EIA refers to the
evaluation of the effects of major projects on a man-made natural environment. It is the basic tool for the
sound assessment of development proposal.
EIA was introduced in the USA following the enactment of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
by the United States Congress in 1969. Since then, many countries have included EIA in their
environmental legislation. Over the time, EIA has evolved as a management tool and a planning aid that
helps in identifying, predicting, assessing impacts on environment from proposed development
projects. It is a valuable mechanism that aids in promoting sustainable development.
4 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_assessment
5 http://164.100.194.13:8080/ssdn1/htmls/Guidance%20Manual.htm
6 http://moef.nic.in/modules/project-clearances/environment-clearances/
Evolution of EIA in India
Environmental management issues came to focus in India, when National Committee on Environmental
Planning and Coordination (NCEPC) was constituted in 1972, following Stockholm conference, under
Department of Science and Technology (Valappil et al., 1994). The Planning Commission directed the
NCEPC to undertake EIA of the major development projects to weigh the pros and cons of these
activities on the environment. Later on, the Department of Environment (DoE) was established as per
the recommendation of the NCEPC, in 1980, which was finally converted to a full-fledged Ministry of
Environment and Forest 5 years later (Rao, 1997). MoEF enacted Environment Protection Act (EPA),
1986, is an umbrella act covering various environmental aspects. Under EPA, 1986, an EIA notification
was brought out in 1994, making EIA mandatory for a particular group of activities. Till 1994,
environmental clearance from the Central Government was an administrative decision and lacked
legislative support. This notification not only specifies the type of activities requiring EIA but also fixes a
time schedule for the whole process. It also defines the role of the MoEF in the whole process.
One of the major amendments made was to introduce public hearing procedure in 1997. It outlines the
process of conducting public hearing, from submission of report to State Pollution Control Board (SPCB)
to the specification for public hearing notice, composition of the hearing panel and time period for the
completion of public hearing process. In 2006 MoEF came up with a new EIA notification to address the
limitations of EIA 1994. The notification makes it mandatory for various projects such as mining,
thermal power plants, river valley, infrastructure (road, highway, ports, harbours and airports) and
industries including very small electroplating or foundry units to get environment clearance. However,
unlike the EIA Notification of 1994, the new legislation has put the onus of clearing projects on the state
government depending on the size/capacity of the project.
The EC process is also subjected to the stipulated standards in the Water (Prevention and Control of
Pollution) Act, 1974; Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981; Noise Pollution (Regulation and
Control) Rules, 2000, to provide prescribed limit of the pollutants which a particular activity may release
to the environment. The Hazardous Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules, 1989 and Forest
(Conservation) Act, 1980, are the other major acts that have bearings on EC practice.7
EIA 1994
The environment impact process was integrated into the Indian legal system in 1994 when Environment
Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification had first come into existence. The objective of the Notification was
to push for more sustainable industrialization process in the country after giving due consideration to
environmental and social impacts. For doing so, the notification imposed restrictions on setting up,
modernizing or expanding any new project or proposal without getting an environmental clearance from
the government. The notification specified the type of project/proposal that needed environmental
clearance and thus would have to conduct the EIA. The Act also made it mandatory for all projects listed
in Schedule 1 to get an environmental clearance directly from the Central Government for setting or
expanding any plant in any state in the country. It also listed a number of projects/proposals, which
were exempted from the environment clearance process or public hearing.
7 EIA practice in India and its evaluation using SWOT analysis, Ritu Paliwal
The notification had also made provisions for formation of an Impact Assessment Agency (IAA), to
comprise experts for review of the documents submitted to the MoEF for clearance. It defined the roles
and responsibilities of the IAA and fixed time frame for various stages of the environmental clearance
process. The notification also made the provision for the proponent to reapply in case its EIA report was
rejected due to lack of data. It, however, placed a penalty of automatic rejection in case of
misrepresentation and concealing of factual data.
The main stages of EC according to EIA 1994 were:
1) Site Clearance: Site clearance was given for site specific projects which were mentioned notification.
Project proponents were required to furnish information according to the environmental appraisal
questionnaires for site clearance, as may be prescribed by the IAA from time to time
2) Preparation of EIA/EMP Report: Second stage was the preparation of the Environment Impact
Assessment report and the Environment Management Plan.
3) Public Hearing: Once the EIA/EMP reports were ready the next stage was the public hearing stage.
4) Final Project Clearance: Once the public hearing was successfully conducted the proponent had to
submit all the relevant documents to the MoEF for final clearance. These documents included EIA/EMP
reports, NOC from pollution control board, Summary of Project report, Pre-Feasibility Report (PFR) etc,
based on this the application for EC was rejected or accepted.
Some of the constraints identified in the EC Process under the EIA Notification, 1994 by the
Govindarajan Committee, set up by Central Government, are as under:8
Cumbersome procedure
Disproportionate details sought with applications
Delay in appraisal meetings
Time consuming and requiring undue effort
Reopening of technical issues during various stages of appraisal
Poor quality of EIA studies by consultants
Delays by other concerned agencies
EIA 2006
In order to address this issue and to address the limitations in the old EIA Notification (1994), the Union
Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) notified the new EIA Notification in September 2006 after
putting up the draft notification for public comment for a year. The new notification has brought in
more number of projects within the purview of the environmental clearance process. As a result, a
revised list of those projects and activities has been prepared which require prior environmental
clearance. Most importantly, the categorization of projects requiring EIA is now no longer based on
investment. Instead, the size or capacity of the project, according to the new notification, determines
whether it is to be cleared by the central or state government.
8 http://delhigreens.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/environmental-impact-assessment.pdf
Some Salient features of EIA 2006 were:
1) Categorization of projects and activities - All projects and activities are broadly categorized into two
categories - Category A and Category B based on:
spatial extent of impacts
impacts on natural and man-made resources
impacts on human health
Please Refer EIA Notification 2006 for details regarding categorization of Projects
2) Requirements of prior Environmental Clearance (EC) – The following projects require EC:
Projects listed in the schedule to notification (as Category A and B projects)
All new projects or activities listed in the Schedule to this notification
Expansion and modernization of existing projects or activities listed in the Schedule to
this notification
Any change in product - mix in an existing manufacturing unit included in Schedule
The EC is granted by :
For Category A projects: Central Government in the Ministry of Environment and Forests
For Category B projects: At state level the State Environment Impact Assessment
Authority (SEIAA)
3) Expert Committees for Screening, Scoping and Appraisal (EAC and SEAC) – Expert Committees are
setup at central level and state level for screening, scoping and appraisal. At the state level it is the State
Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC) and the central level it is the EAC (Expert Appraisal Committee). Procedure for selection and maintenance of EAC and SEAC is given in notification.
4) Application for Prior Environmental Clearance - An application seeking prior environmental clearance
in all cases shall be made:
In the prescribed Form 1 and Supplementary Form 1A
After the identification of prospective site(s)
After identification of activities
Submit pre-feasibility report for all and conceptual plan for construction activities
5) The stages in the EC process as per EIA 2006 are:
Stage 1: Screening (Only for Category ‘B’ projects and activities)
Stage 2: Scoping
Stage 3: Public Consultation
Stage 4: Appraisal
These stages would be discussed in detail in the next section where we explain Environment Clearance
in detail.
Difference between EIA Notification 1994 and EIA Notification 2006
The main points of difference between EIA notification 1994 and EIA notification 2006 are:
Categorization of projects into A, B1 and B2
Category A to be appraised at central level and category B1 and B2 at state levels
Scoping to determine TORs for EIA
Finality of TOR
No separate site clearance stage, this is incorporated in the scoping stage
Public consultation is more structured, to be conducted by SPCB (State Pollution Control Board)
and presided over by DM (Deputy Magistrate)
Time limits set at each stage
What is Environment Clearance (EC), why is it needed?
Environmental clearance from Ministry of Environment & Forests is required for following categories of
project as per EIA notification 2006-9
Sector: Industry
1. Petroleum refineries including crude and products pipelines
2. Chemical fertilizers (nitrogenous and phosphatic other than single superphosphate)
3. Pesticides (Technical)
4. Petrochemical complexes (both olefinic and aromatic) and petro chemical intermediates such as DMT,
Caprolactam, LAB etc. and production of basic plastics such as LDPE, HDPE, PP, PVC
5. Bulk drugs and pharmaceuticals
6. Exploration of oil and gas and their production, transportation and their storage
7. Synthetic rubber
8. Asbestos and asbestos products
9. Hydrocyanic acid and its derivatives
10. a) Primary metallurgical industries (such as production of iron and steel, aluminum, copper, zinc,
lead and ferro alloys) b) Electric Arc Furnace (Mini Steel Plants)
11. Chloro alkali industry
9 http://www.novamining.com/Guidelines/Environmental%20Clearance.pdf
12. Integrated paint complex including manufacture of resins and basic raw materials required in the
manufacture of paints
13. Viscose staple fiber and filament yarn
14. Storage batteries integrated with manufacture of oxides of lead and lead antimony alloys
15. Distilleries
16. Raw skins and hides
17. Pulp paper and news print
18. Dyes
19. Cement
20. Foundries (individual)
21. Electroplating
22. Meta Amino phenol
Sector: Mining
23. Mining projects (with lease more than 5 hectares)
Sector: Thermal Power
24. Nuclear power and related projects such as heavy water plants, nuclear fuel complex, rare earths
25. Thermal power plants
Sector: River Valley and Hydroelectric
26. River valley projects including hydel power, major irrigation and their combination including flood
control
Sector: Infrastructure and Miscellaneous Infrastructure
27. Ports, Harbors, Airports (except minor ports and harbors)
28. Highway projects except projects relating to improvement work including widening and
strengthening of roads with marginal land acquisition along the existing alignments provided it does not
pass through ecologically sensitive areas such as National Parks, sanctuaries, tiger reserves reserve
forests
29. Tarred road in the Himalayas and forest areas
30. Miscellaneous All tourism projects between 200m – 500m of High Water line and at location with an
elevation of more than 1000m with investment of more than Rs. 5 crores
The rationale behind listing these projects is environmental damage intensity. Such projects bring with
them a broad range of alterations in the environment and hence their environmental aspects need to be
scrutinized to ensure sustainable development and to mitigate the negative effects caused by them.
However, depending upon size/investment the applicability of the requirement may vary in certain
cases. Similarly, certain areas are more degraded and require specific regulation for permitting setting
up of any kind of developmental project. MoEF has brought out various notifications regulating setting
up projects in these areas.
The expansion or modernization of the projects also increases the damage potential on environment.
MoEF has therefore regulated undertaking expansion and modernization projects also for above
identified 30 categories of projects.
Since public may be effected by a developmental project, provision of public consultation (with few
exceptions) has been made in the EC process. Ministry of Environment & Forests has grouped 30
categories of projects in five-sub group depending on the similarity of EC process work flow. These
groups are as under:
1. Industry
2. Mining
3. Thermal Power
4. River Valley and Hydro Electric
5. Infrastructure and Miscellaneous projects
The projects falling in coastal Zone regulated area out of the above requires clearance under CRZ
notification also.
According to the EIA 2006, the stages of EC are:
Screening: This is only for Category B projects. (Please refer EIA Notifications 2006 for details on
category). All category A projects compulsorily need EIA. this stage will entail the scrutiny of an
application seeking prior environmental clearance made in Form 1 by the concerned State level Expert
Appraisal Committee (SEAC) for determining whether or not the project or activity requires further
environmental studies for preparation of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for its appraisal
prior to the grant of environmental clearance depending up on the nature and location specificity of the
project. The projects requiring an EIA report shall be termed Category ‘B1’ and remaining projects shall
be termed Category ‘B2’ and will not require an EIA report.
Application in Form 1 for Screening (Figure -4)
Scoping: “Scoping” refers to the process by which the Expert Appraisal Committee in the case of
Category ‘A’ projects or activities, and State level Expert Appraisal Committee in the case of Category
‘B1’ projects or activities, including applications for expansion and/or modernization and/or change in
product mix of existing projects or activities, determine detailed and comprehensive Terms Of Reference
(TOR) addressing all relevant environmental concerns for the preparation of an Environment Impact
Assessment (EIA) Report in respect of the project or activity for which prior environmental clearance is
sought. The TORs are based on:
on the basis of the information furnished by applicant in the prescribed application Form1/Form
1A including
proposed by the applicant
a site visit by a sub- group of EAC or SEAC, only if considered necessary.
SCOPING PROCESS (Figure -5)
Public Consultation: It is the process by which the concerns of local affected persons and others who
have plausible stake in the environmental impacts of the project or activity are ascertained. All Category
‘A’ and Category B1 projects or activities shall undertake Public Consultation though there is a big list of
exceptions to this.
Public Consultation shall ordinarily have two components:
Public hearing at the site or in its close proximity- district wise, to be carried out in the
manner prescribed in Appendix 3, for ascertaining concerns of local affected persons, this is
conducted by the State Pollution Control Board.
Obtain responses in writing from other concerned persons having a plausible stake in the
environmental aspects of the project
Public Consultation Stage (Figure – 6)
Appraisal Stage: This is the final stage in the EC process and refers to the detailed scrutiny by the EAC or
SEAC of application and other documents submitted by the applicant for grant of environment
clearance. Some of the documents include: EIA/EMP Report, Public hearing documents, Replacement
and Rehabilitation Plan etc, Detailed Project Report etc.
EC Process with Rough Timelines (Figure -
7)
EC Process at NVDA
Stakeholders
The various stakeholders involved in the process of Environment Clearance for NVDA projects are:
1. NVDA, various departments like Environment and Forest (E&F), Engineering, Rehab etc.
2. MoEF (Ministry of Environment and Forest)
3. External Consultants for EIA/EMP Reports
4. Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board (MPPCB)
5. General Public and those affected by the project
Steps in the Clearance Process for NVDA Projects
The EC process at NVDA can be broken down as follows:
Site Selection: - This task is done by the Engineering department at NVDA. They identify suitable
tasks and try to gauge the viability of the site for the project purposes. The relevant data
collection takes place at this stage to find out the feasibility of the project.
Preparation of the Pre- Feasibility Report (PFR):- The next stage carried out by the engineering
department is the preparation of the Pre-Feasibility Report (PFR). This is one of the documents
submitted along with the application to the MoEF as part of the EC initiation process. This report
is generally prepared by a consultant fixed by NVDA.
Submission of application form for Environment Clearance: - The next stage is the submission
of Form 1 (as per EIA notification 2006) for EC. This is taken up by the E&F department of NVDA.
Approval of Terms of Reference by Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) and MoEF: - On the basis
of the Application Form (along with the TORs (Terms of References) proposed by NVDA) and the
PFR the MoEF either approves the TOR or adds some further TORs from its end for EIA report.
Fixing of Agency for EIA/EMP: - Next stage is the fixing of agency (consultant) for EIA/EMP
report. This goes through the entire process of advertising the press notice, sale of bidding
documents, pre-bid meeting, submission of tenders, evaluation of bids and notification of
results etc.
Preparation of Draft EIA/EMP (Environment Management Plan):- This stage involves the
preparation of the EIA/EMP report by the consultant and also involves the continuous review of
the various interim reports sent by the consultant to NVDA.
Approval of MoEF for Public Hearing: - Once the EIA/EMP ready MoEF gives the approval for
Public hearing to be conducted by MPPCB.
Conduction of Public Hearing by MPPCB: - MPPCB conducts the public hearing for the project at
the project site. It follows the procedure of advertising about the public hearing at least 30 days
in advance in one national and a regional daily and also mentioning the place where the relevant
documents are available so that the affected people and the general public can view and study
the documents.
Submission of Public Hearing documents, Modified EIA/EMP Reports, R&R Plan to Expert
Appraisal Committee (EAC) and MoEF:- The next step is the submission of all relevant
documents required for final appraisal. These include EIA/EMP Report, Public hearing
documents, R&R Plan, Command Area Treatment Plan (if required), and Dam Break Analysis (if
required).
EAC (Expert Appraisal Committee) accords the Environment Clearance for the Project or Rejects
the application or asks for further clarifications.
Delay in getting EC for NVDA projects
In order to understand the reasons for the delay in major NVDA projects, all written communications
between the various stakeholders were studied for three major projects namely Halon, Punasa and
LowerGoi. This was done to get an understanding if the chronological flow of events and to find the
actual bottlenecks in the process and whether these were at NVDA’s end or at MoEF’s end. This study
also gave an idea about the various reasons for the delay and how they can be avoided in future. These
will be discussed in detail in the next section. In terms of timelines the time taken for each stage of the
three projects are as below:
Figure - 8
Actual Timelines for Various Stages of EC With EIA Notification 1994 for LowerGoi
Site Clearance EIA/EMP Report Public Hearing Final Appraisal Total Time Taken
14 months 31 months 14 months 18 months 63 months
Actual Timelines for Various Stages of EC With EIA Notification 1994 for Punasa
Site Clearance EIA/EMP Report Public Hearing Final Appraisal Total Time Taken
2.5 months 20 months 4 months 13.5 months 36 months
Actual Timelines for Various Stages of EC With EIA Notification 1994 for Halon
Site Clearance EIA/EMP Report Public Hearing Final Appraisal Total Time Taken
28 months 28 months 31 months 0 58 months
Actual Timelines for Various Stages of EC With Notification 2006 for Halon( applied again under
notification 2006
Site Clearance EIA/EMP Report Public Hearing Final Appraisal Total Time Taken
0 months 26 months 23 months 9 months 36 months
The timelines mentioned above were far more than the expected timelines for both the notifications.
For both the notifications the total time for EC should not have exceeded 30 months. Please refer
Appendix 1 for the expected timelines for each stage of EC with EIA notification 1994 and 2006.
Reasons for Delay in getting EC for NVDA Projects
Over the course of this study various reasons have surfaced as possible reasons for the large time delay
in NVDA projects. These are:
1. Incorrect , Incomplete data filled in Questionnaires and Application Forms:- One of the prominent
reasons for time delay was the objections raised by MoEF and EAC on the questionnaire (under EIA
1994) and Form 1 (EIA 2006) submitted by NVDA during EC initiation. Each and every time a lot of
resource and time was spent at NVDA’s end to clarify these objections. Most of these objections
were due to inaccurate and incorrect data being filled in during the application level or due to
incomplete details in the forms. Appendix 4 has some common clarifications/objections that MoEF
has raised over the years for past projects of NVDA. There were cases where many times relevant
data had been left blank in the application form. Issues like incorrect botanical names of plants,
places should be rectified before forms are sent to MoEF and EAC for further action. This clearly
indicated a lack of expertise, knowledge at NVDA’s side.
2. EC processes under the EIA notifications not being followed properly: - This is a major cause of
delay for NVDA projects. In the case of LowerGoi Project (under EIA notification 1994) the public
hearing had to be conducted again as the first hearing was conducted without the submission of
draft EIA/EMP to MPPCB. This caused a delay of around 3-4 months which could have been avoided.
The situation was even worse for Halon Project in which 3 hearings had to be conducted. The first
one was rejected by MoEF as EIA/EMP had not been submitted to MPPCB at the time of the hearing.
The second one was conducted in only one district (Balaghat district of MP) whereas 2 districts
(Balaghat and Mandla) where being affected by the project and as per MoEF guidelines if more than
one district is being affected than public hearing need to be conducted separately in all districts. As
a result a third hearing was conducted separately in Mandla. All this could have been avoided if the
processes had been properly followed.
3. Inter-Departmental delays: - Another major cause of delay in getting EC has been the time
consumed by any communication to go from one department to another. Once any objections are
raised by MoEF the official letter and queries are first received by the E&F department which
forwards it to the respective department which will handle the query. This process is time
consuming, moreover work on any query starts only once the official note is received from the
concerned department. This was in major contrast to an organization like NHPC where employees
involved in the clearing process in most cases never waited for everything to come to them the
official route. On occasions they themselves reached out to the concerned person in any
department to resolve issues, not waiting for higher executives to get involved in the process. In
addition to these there were no deadlines on departments to resolve any queries/clarifications
required by the MoEF, this further added to the delay.
4. EIA/EMP stage of the Project: - This stage has been the bottleneck for most of NVDA projects.
Ideally this stage should not take more than 12-15 months to finish, but in the three projects
(LowerGoi, Punasa and Halon) studied it has taken 31 months, 20 months and 54 months
respectively. Refer to Figure-8 for data. There are many reasons for delay at this stage:
The number of interim reports submitted by the consultant and the time taken by NVDA
to review them has been a cause of major delay. The interim reports submitted at
various stages include inception report, baseline conditions report, draft report on
construction stage impacts, draft report on operation stage impacts, and draft EIA/EMP
Report, modified EIA/EMP report with public hearing comments included. All these
documents are sent by consultant to NVDA where they are reviewed and the review
comments are sent back to the consultant for incorporating them into the EIA Report.
The problem here is that although the time taken for sending review comments in
within 20 days of the submission of the interim report, in nearly all cases the review
comments have been sent for more than 1-2 months, sometimes even up to 6 months
from the time of submission of reports, Eg. Halon Project. This causes delay which is
cumulative in nature as sometimes by the time one interim report is reviewed by NVDA
and comments are sent back to the consultant they might be ready with the next report
and the changes made to one report might affect the other report as well. In fact the
draft EIA/EMP has all the earlier mentioned reports in it, so there are situations when
the draft EIA/EMP might be ready but it has to be changed because the comments on
the baseline report where received then. The table below would give a clearer picture as
to the different interim reports and their timelines as per the MoU between NVDA and
consultant.
Figure -9
S.NO Interim Report (in sequential order) Time Taken
1. Inception Report 1 month
2. Detailed Report of the Baseline Conditions 3.5 months
3. Draft Report of Construction Stage Impacts of the Project 1 month
4. Draft Report of Operation Stage Impacts of the Project 1 month
5. Draft EIA/EMP Report 1month
Another cause of delay at this stage has been lack of processes followed by the
consultant. Sometimes even after mentioning clearly in the MoU that all relevant
documents need to be prepared for the clearance process, it has been observed in the
past that the consultant have missed preparing important reports like Command Area
Development Plan, Rapid EIA (required for Public Hearing), Executive Summary etc. If
consultants ensure that these documents are also prepared on time simultaneously
along with the draft EIA/EMP report the delay caused due to preparation of these
documents later can be avoided.
5. Lack of Use of Information Technology at NVDA:- This is also a prominent reason for delays in
project EC. The major communication between various departments still happens through various
files which are routed through the hierarchy from one department to another. This was in striking
contrast to NHPC where employees had their individual email ids and communicated with each
other directly at times for queries and clarifications irrespective of their department. In fact
Mr.Bhatt at NHDC mentioned that within their internal teams they also use utilities like messengers
and communicators to pass on information and documents and it is not necessary for every piece of
communication to come from the top hierarchy. This not only saved time but also is more eco
friendly as this reduces the need for taking print outs again and again for each department as
documents could be read and reviewed online itself.
Methods to Reduce the Time Delay in EC Process In this section we will be discussing a few methods which can help in reducing the time delay that NVDA
has faced in its past projects.
1. Proper Training to Employees involved in the EC process: This step can help reduce the numerous
objections that the MoEF have raised in the application form in the past on account of inaccurate,
incorrect and incomplete data. It needs to be ensured that all the members involved in the EC of any
project are well versed with the salient features of the project, especially those who are involved in
filling the application forms and responsible for queries/clarification asked for by MoEF. It would be
good if workshop/trainings could be conducted for those directly involved in filling Form 1 where it
is clearly explained to them what MoEF is expecting as answers to each question in form 1 and how
each question needs to be answered. Moreover the team members also need to be properly
educated about the EC process as per the latest notification so that they have a clear idea what is
expected of them in each stage.
2. Setting up of a Core Group consisting of team members from all departments within NVDA:
Another important step that NVDA can take up is to setup a core group which consists of members
from various departments within the NVDA. This group would be directly responsible for all direct
communication between the NVDA and MoEF. The rationale behind the formation of such a group is
that EAC which reviews the application forms and the final appraisal process consists of experts
from various fields and hence they can ask for clarifications from any domain. In such a scenario if
the queries are directed to this group they can take up the issues directly among themselves due to
their varied expertise instead of one department passing information to other department and
waiting for a reply, which has been very time consuming in the past. For e.g., sometimes it happens
that the clarifications asked for by MoEF are technical in nature and hence the E&F department
cannot handle the queries, so it passes the queries to Engineering Department which is generally at
the site area. Now this process takes time, as the file goes from one office to another delaying the
entire process. In place of this had there been a core group at the main office itself the issues could
have been taken care of then and there without the delay. The team member with expertise in the
Engineering Domain could have been able to take up the queries and provide a clarification to them
at the earliest. Another advantage of having such a core group is that the members of various
departments can act as interfaces to their respective departments. They would have a clear idea as
to which member in their department is capable of handling certain queries and can redirect the
queries to the right person directly rather than waiting for the higher authorities to come into the
picture.
3. Preparation of Checklist consisting of all objections raised by MoEF: This is one task that has been
done as part of this study. A checklist has been prepared which consists of all the
objections/clarifications asked for by MoEF in past NVDA projects as well as all the objections raised
by MoEF in other River Valley Projects of India which have come for EC since October 2007. This
checklist has been divided into two sections: one for all those objections at TOR approval stage and
another one for all the objections at the Appraisal stage. In this way NVDA can ensure that it is not
making its mistakes of the past and that it is also ready for the possible queries that MoEF has asked
in other cases. One important activity that needs to be taken up by NVDA is to regularly update this
checklist from time to time to ensure that any new objections raised by MoEF is captured in the
checklist. Please Refer to Appendix 5 for the checklists.
4. Setting up smaller River Valley Projects: - One easier way to reduce delay is to take up smaller
projects than a large one. These would not fall in Category A as per EIA notification 2006 (Refer EIA
Notification 2006 for details regarding categories of projects) and hence their appraisal takes place
at State level and not at Central Level. The time delay in continuous communications with the MoEF
gets reduced this way. As per EIA notification 2006:
Category A : Projects “> 50 MW and > 10,000Ha of cultural command area”, require
clearance from MoEF
Category B : Projects “< 50 MW and > 25MW , < 10,000Ha of cultural command area”,
require clearance at State Level
This has a few benefits like the environment impact of a smaller project would be much less as
compared to a large project, lesser people would be affected by it. At the same time it needs to be
ensured that the cumulative impact of setting up too many small projects over a small river is not
more than one or two large projects.
5. Strict Deadlines: - It needs to be ensured that moving forward there are stricter deadlines
associated with any piece of work, be it replying to queries raised by MoEF or review comments to
be sent to the consultant for their interim reports. In comparison at NHDC the concerned
department/employee generally has a deadline of 10 days associated with any work within which
they either have to finish the work or give a proper clarification as to why the piece of work could
not be finished on time. Such measures need to be followed at NVDA also to ensure that future
projects do not end up having as much delay as those of the past.
6. Outsourcing the entire EC process: - This is a very radical way to reduce the delay but has been
followed by a few organizations of late. As part of this NVDA can give the responsibility to obtain EC
to a third part, which has the right credentials and expertise in getting the EC without much delay,
on its behalf in exchange for a certain amount of payment.
7. Reduce the number of interim reports in the EIA/EMP stage: - One cause of delay has been the
number of interim reports that the consultant needs to send in the EIA/EMP stage and the time
consumed due to the review comments sent by NVDA for months after the deadline gets over. This
results in constant changes in the final EIA/EMP report. Currently there are 5 main interim reports
(Refer Figure 9), this can be reduced to 2 reports: the baseline conditions report and the draft
EIA/EMP report. The reason to do away with the operation stage and construction stage impact
reports are that they are delivered within a span of 2 months along with the EIA/EMP report which
already would have all the data, hence it would be better to review the draft EIA report. In order to
have a regular update about the work going on at the consultant’s end more impetus must be given
to the monthly status reports.
8. Use of Technology: - Another step to reduce the delay would be to introduce the use of technology
within NVDA.
Use of email for communication between various departments instead of relying on the
current file system could be of great help.
Another problem faced has been the communication with the EIA consultant. As there are
many reports shared by the EIA consultant with NVDA it would be a good idea to have a
common online repository which can be accessed by both parties. Any changes or updates
can be done to the document on the common repository. This way both sided can eliminate
the need for sending various documents to each other by way of posts. All reports can be
uploaded by the EIA consultant at the common repository where NVDA departments can
review them and suggest changes. Many version control systems are available where both
the parties can share all common documents. Apache Subversion is one such system which
software developers use to maintain current and historical versions of files such as source
code, web pages, and documentation.
9. Speeding up the Tender Process for fixing the consultant for EIA/EMP: - In the past the NVDA has
taken a lot of time to fix the consultants for EIA/EMP. For LowerGoi, Punasa and Halon the time
taken from inviting tenders to the final signing of MoU with the consultant was around 6months.
This needs to be considerably reduced in future projects to around 1-2 months. The following figure
describes the tender process and the timelines.
Tender process and its respective timelines (Figure 10)
Thus we see that the tendering process can be reduced to around 2-3 months from its current
duration of around 5-6 months.
Comparison with NHPC One of the important aspects of this study was the comparison between the EC processes of NVDA with
NHPC. Unlike NVDA, NHPC is a public sector organization and hence it has a completely different setup
and work culture. The reason for opting for NHPC for a comparative study was the efficiency shown by
NHPC in getting EC for their River Valley Projects. NHPC projects like Kotlbhel Hydro Electric Project in
Tehri was cleared in its appraisal stage in 2 months, Siang Middle Project by NHPC was cleared in its
appraisal stage in 6 months etc, whereas the projects of NVDA like LowerGoi, Punasa, Halon etc have
taken around 10 months or more for their final appraisal stage. NHPC also has lesser delay for the
EIA/EMP stage as well. Some distinctions between the EC processes of both organizations are as
follows:
1. One of the basic reasons for the efficiency shown by NHPC has been the way their internal teams
are structured. Different teams have much more interactions with each other; also there I much
better knowledge sharing, for Eg. The design team has someone with a good understanding of the
engineering department and the engineer department has someone with understanding of the
forest or R&R department. This is because all the major documents like DPR, EIA and EMP are
linked. The DPR provides the details of the project, the EIA the impact and the EMP the
Particulars of Action Start Day
First Announcement Date 1
Commencement of Sale of RFQ documents
7
Last date of Sale of RFQ documents
22
Pre Bid conference 52
Submission of responses to RFQ 67
Opening of Responses to RFQ Proposal
67
Short Listing based on responses to RFQ
67
management plan for it. Unless there is proper coordination between the teams it can cause a lot of
inconsistencies in the data presented in the documents and the application form. Such cross
functional teams lead to better results at NHPC.
2. Each member involved in the EC process is well versed with the salient features of the project. This
ensures that when any form or note sheet is sent to different team members for their comments
they make sure that they provide the correct and accurate data about their subject.
3. Use of technology like messengers, emails to send files across departments ensures a lot of time is
saved in the process. Even with external consultants such methods are used frequently.
4. Facilitation: - In order to ensure that the consultant finishes their part of the work on time it is
ensured that all necessary help is provided to them. All relevant documents are sent beforehand, in
case the location is inaccessible for the consultant the NHPC team ensures they help them to reach
the place, the comments on the interim reports are provided on time. As a result the EIA/EMP part
is completed in around 18 months for almost all the projects.
5. One of the other methods used by NHPC to reduce the delay is to do away with the tendering
process for EIA/EMP. The job is directly awarded to any government institute, with the right kind of
credentials, in the state in which the project is. This is done as it is felt that the government institute
would be best suited to understand the local environment conditions better than any external
*consultant and also because it is expected that they would do an unbiased assessment.
6. The team members have strict deadline associated with their piece of work. Generally in case of any
queries/clarifications asked for by MoEF, the concerned member has to provide a reply within 10
days.
7. Another major difference is the work culture at NHPC. There was much more cooperation and
understanding at inter department level. We got to know from Mr. Devraj Barua, AM(Env),NHPC
that team members at times directly approach members from other departments if they know a
particular person could be of help for a piece of work. They don’t wait for note sheets to be sent
from one department to other for getting an urgent work done.
Some Recommendations for MoEF to Improve the
Process Further During the interactions with various experts as part of this study I came across many suggestions
whereby MoEF can improve the EC process further. Some of them are:
1. Online application form filling to reduce time further: - This calls for having facility for online
filling of form 1 and sending other documents online during the initiation process. This could
reduce the current time taken further as currently the forms are filled manually and posted to
MoEF.
2. Clearly defining “Go” and “No Go” Areas on MoEF website: - One problem which many project
proponents have faced in the past that their site locations are rejected by MoEF as the location
was not considered suitable for river valley projects. This causes lots of wastage in terms of
effort, time and cost. If MoEF can clearly specify “Go”, “No Go” areas in their website explicitly
then proponents would avoid such site locations totally.
3. MoEF can collect certain standard data through various institutes for eg. Seasonal data etc and
create a huge repository. This information then can be given to the project proponent for a cost.
Not only would this save time for proponents but by this MoEF can ensure that the data
collected is unbiased and correct.
References
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narmada_River
2. http://www.nih.ernet.in/nih_rbis/India_information/Narmada%20Water%20Dispute%20Tribunal.htm
3. http://www.nvda.in/the-nvda.htm
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_assessment
5. http://164.100.194.13:8080/ssdn1/htmls/Guidance%20Manual.htm
6. http://moef.nic.in/modules/project-clearances/environment-clearances/
7. EIA practice in India and its evaluation using SWOT analysis, Ritu Paliwal
8. http://delhigreens.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/environmental-impact-assessment.pdf
9. http://www.novamining.com/Guidelines/Environmental%20Clearance.pdf
10. http://www.nhpcindia.com/
Appendix
Appendix 1
Expected Timelines With Notification 1994
Site Clearance EIA/EMP Report Public Hearing Final Appraisal Total Time Taken
6 months 18 months 3 months 2-3 months 30 months
Expected Timelines With Notification 2006
Site Selection
and TOR
Approval
EIA/EMP Report Public Hearing Final Appraisal Total Time Taken
6 months 15 months 3 months 3 months 27 months
Appendix 2
a) Correspondence between MoEF and NVDA for LowerGoi Project
S.NO NVDA Letter Date
NVDA Letter Description MoEF Reply date
Corresponding MoEF Reply Description
1 24/10/2002
Letter from Member (E&F) to MoEF to start the Environment Clearance process along with Questionaire for Site Clearance
2/11/2002 MoEF replies to NVDA asking for the following : a) More details around the questionaire b) Extra Maps c) Comments by Forest Officer on site inspection
2 24/10/2002
Letter from Member (E&F) to MoEF to start the Environment Clearance process along with Questionaire for Site Clearance
9/12/2002 Letter from MoEF to NVDA citing problems in application for site clearance a) Break up of total project area of 13760km b) Maps showing the features of the project area within 7km of radius c) Details of any villages in the vicinity d) Details of Water Quality e) Flow rate during lean season
3 2/1/2003 NVDA to MoEF for site clearance with details requested in letter on 9/12/2002
9/1/2003 MoEF to NVDA requesting additonal information a) complete the questionnaire b) break up of area under submergence c) details about flora and fauna d) topography maps (1:25000) scale
4 24/10/2003
Letter to MoEF with details of letter sent by Chief Engineer on 10/10/03 and that sent by the MoEF on 9/1/2003
30/12/2003 Site Clearance Received (No construction possible as yet, EIA/EMP to be submitted within 18 months
5 Feb-05 NVDA to MoEF for appraisal since public hearing was conducted on 4/12/2004
10/3/2005 MoEF to NVDA asking for fresh hearing because: a) EIA report not made available at the time of public hearing on 4/12/2004 b) R & R plan not available
6 11/9/2006 NOC and Public hearing details made available by MPPCB to NVDA and MoEF
10/1/2007 MoEF informs NVDA that in the meeting on 20.12.2006 environmental clearance was not given due to some comments raised by Prof. S Basu and Dr. Sarkar on the EIA/EMP
7 7/3/2007 MoEF informs NVDA that if information is not provided for queries mentioned in the letter on 10/1/07 the file would be closed
8 21/3/2007 NVDA to MoEF, clarifications on queries raised by MoEF
30/4/2007 MoEF mentions it needs further details in its meeting held on 18.4.2007 a) Study of 10km periphery as per new notification b) Study of Wildlife affected c) Dam Break Analysis d) Monsoon season data e) R & R Plan f) Plan for Surface Drainage
9 4/4/2007 Request from NVDA to MoEF to not to close the file
10 9/7/2007 NVDA to MoEF , clarifications on issues raised in the meeting of EAC on 18.4.2007
3/8/2007 Dam Break Analysis and Disaster Management Plan required by MoEF
11 23/11/2007
All the relevant documents and information sent to MoEF
17/1/2008 Environment Clearance Accorded
Abstract (LOWERGOI)
Time Taken by MoEF 45 days Reply to letter dated 24.10.2002
7 days Reply to letter dated 2.1.2003
66 days Reply to letter dated 24.10.2003
96 days Reply to letter dated 4.12.2005
120 days Reply to letter dated 11.9.2006
39 days Reply to letter dated 21.3.2007
24 days Reply to letter dated 9.7.2007
54 days Reply to letter dated 23.11.2007
Total time by MoEF 451 days
or 15 months
Total Time for Environment Clearance of LowerGoi
63 months
Time Taken by NVDA, i.e, (Total time Taken - Time taken by MoEF)
48 months
b) Correspondence between MoEF and NVDA for Punasa Project
S.NO
NVDA Letter Date
NVDA Letter Description MoEF Reply date
Corresponding MoEF Reply Description
1 16/7/2004
Application for Environment Clearance of Punasa Project, NVDA to MOEF
4/8/2004 MoEF to NVDA requesting additonal information a) Length of main canal and Nature of Canal b) How drinking water would be supplied to 255 villages c)proposed 35008 ha area is gross command area, confirmation required. d)Role of balancing reservior proposed e) Map not legible f) Location of village to be indicated properly on the maps
2 24/8/2004
NVDA to MoEF, with clarification of all its queries
27/9/2004 Site Clearance Accorded by MoEF to NVDA for Punasa Project
3 7/6/2005 MPPCB to MOEF and NVDA , NOC of Public hearing
4 2/2/2006 NVDA to MoEF - EIA/EMP Report - Public hearing documents
2/3/2006 MoEF to NVDA mentioning that the questionaires, public hearing documents have not been receieved by it, also for the EIA report it is not clear how many seasons have been surveyed, exec summary of EIA not submitted
5 10/3/2006 and 28/3/2006
NVDA to MoEF mentioning that questionaire , public hearing documents have already been sent earlier and the EIA summary would be submitted shortly
29/3/2006 MoEF to NVDA mentioning that the EAC meeting for Punasa would be held on 19.4.2006
6 1/5/2006 MoEF to NVDA - documents not received on time, on 19th April 2006 only - next meeting on 17.5.2006
7 6/5/2006 NVDA to MoEF confirming docs sent 31/5/2006 MoEF to NVDA, following comments raised 1) figure of land given is inaccurate 2) No. of families affected is 388 instead of 122 3) Irrelevant information in the questionaire at some places 4) Data for terestrial flora and fauna not verified after directly using it from the forest department data 5) Incorrect names used at places 6) Catchment areas of balancing reservoirs not studied for soil erosion and treatment 7) Poor Map Quality , no evidence of GIS survey 8) Incorrect botanical names of plants 9) Plantation for canal bank, acacia should be avoided 10) Copied material from other project 11) FCC , land cover maps not available 12) Quantitative analysis of natural vegetation should be planned 13) Submit in tabular form original land holding of PAF 14) Available ground water potential, number of ground water structures feasible and conjuctive use of water should be mentioned 15) Recheck soil phosphate and report all figures in terms of kg. of available Nitrogen and Phosphate 16) River water quality does not show coliform count, turbidity
exceeds twice the permissible limit for C grade water 17) Flow velocity in canal missing 18) Plantation of eucalyptus to be avoided as it is a water exhausitng plant
8 18/12/2006
NVDA to MoEF, clarifications to queries raised in the letter on 31.5.2006
23/1/2007 MoEF asks for further clarifications - FCC not proper - Additional information on bio diversity and conservation - Micro flora fauna information - density , frequency and abundance - IVI, Shannon Weaver biodiversity indices to be measured for all vegetation types - Maps to be submitted - Groundwater details
9 7/3/2007 MoEF to NVDA asking for clarifications for its queries in letter on 23.1.2007 in two weeks, else it will close the file
10 3/4/2007 NVDA to MoEF requesting not to close
the file
11 1/5/2007 NVDA to MoEF requesting not to close the file
12 7/5/2007 Information submitted by NVDA to MoEF
16/7/2007 MoEF Accords Environment Clearance to Punasa Project
Abstract (PUNASA) Time Taken by MoEF 19 days Reply to letter dated
16.7.2004
33 days Reply to letter dated 24.8.2004
30 days Reply to letter dated 2.2.2006
25 days Reply to letter dated 6.5.2006
35 days Reply to letter dated 18.12.2006
39 days Reply to letter dated 21.3.2007
69 days Reply to letter dated 7.5.2007
Total time by MoEF 8.5 months 250 days
Total Time for Environment Clearance of Punasa
36 months
Time Taken by NVDA, i.e, (Total time Taken - Time taken by MoEF)
27.5 months
c) Correspondence between MoEF and NVDA for Halon Project
S.NO
NVDA Letter Date
NVDA Letter Description MoEF Reply date
Corresponding MoEF Reply Description
1 6/3/2002 Application process for Environment Clearance of Halon Project begins from NVDA's end, All relevant documents sent to MoEF
15/3/2002 MoEF to NVDA requesting clarification a) confusion in the area of project mentioned for total project and for irrigation b) break up of the area under existing land usage c) Reasons for not considering alternate sites d) Comments receieved from Director , Kanha, MP and Chief Wildlife Warden, MP
2 22/8/2003 NVDA to MoEF, clarification sent for the queries of MoEF
18/11/2003 MoEF to NVDA , Site clearance accorded for Halon Project
3 11/2/2004 ,7/3/2004 , 15/3/2004
NVDA to MoEF, requesting permission for construction purposes at Halon Site
8/7/2004 MoEF to NVDA , no constuction at site possible until EC is accorded
4 11/2/2005 MPPCB to NVDA and MoEF, NOC sent for public hearing conducted on 15.12.2004
5 10/3/2005 MoEF asks for a fresh public hearing as the EIA/EMP was not submitted at that time
6 10/11/2006
NVDA to MoEF, informing that documents have been submitted for the fresh public hearing
14/11/2006 MoEF to NVDA mentioning that TOR needs to be examined on the basis of Notification- 2006
7 10/1/2007 MoEF sets additional 14 TORs for Halon
8 14/8/2007 NVDA requests some clarification in TOR from MoEF
5/9/2007 Clarification to NVDAs queries by MoEF
5/3/2009 WAPCOS to NVDA , EIA/EMP , Executive Summary sent , NVDA sends all the relevant documents to MoEF
9 9/3/2009 MPPCB sends proceeedings of public hearing to MoEF and NVDA
10 16/3/2009 MoEF mentions that Halon would not be considered for the meeting on 19/20th March
11 3/6/2009 (meeting held on 14.5.2009)
MoEF to NVDA requesting clarification on the following: - Public hearing was conducted in on district Balaghat only and not in Mandla which was the other district being affected, why is this so? - Gross Comand Area, CCA and ICA not mentioned properly - Compensation package must be better than NRRP-2007 - Baseline data should provide information about data and time of monitoring - Details of degraded forest, local fish required - factors affecting drinking water, steps to mitigate them
12 29/6/2009 MoEF mentions that only one public hearing was conducted whereas 2 were required
13 24/8/2009 MPPCB forwards public hearing details of latest hearing to MoEf, NVDA
14/9/2009 MoEF needs further clarifications as replies provided during the public heairng were not proper
14 4/11/2009 Chief Engineer(NVDA) to MoEF, clarifications to queries raised by MoEF
4/1/2010 Environment Clearance Accorded, letter by MoEF in the EAC meeting held on 16/11/2009
Abstract (HALON)
Time Taken by MoEF 9 days Reply to letter dated 6.3.2002
86 days Reply to letter dated 22.8.2003
113 days Reply to letter dated 11.2.2004
29 days Reply to letter dated 11.2.2005
60 days Reply to letter dated 10.11.2006
22 days Reply to letter dated 14.8.2007
110 days Reply to letter dated 9.3.2009
21 days Reply to letter dated 24.8.2009
60 days Reply to letter dated 4.11.2009
Total time by MoEF 510 days
or 17 months
Total Time for Environment Clearance of Halon
94 months
Time Taken by NVDA, i.e, (Total time Taken - Time taken by MoEF)
77 months
Appendix 3
PROCEDURE FOR CONDUCT OF PUBLIC HEARING
1.0 The Public Hearing shall be arranged in a systematic, time bound and transparent manner ensuring
widest possible public participation at the project site(s) or in its close proximity District -wise, by the
concerned State Pollution Control Board (SPCB) or the Union Territory Pollution Control Committee
(UTPCC).
2. 0 The Process:
2.1 The Applicant shall make a request through a simple letter to the Member Secretary of the SPCB or
Union Territory Pollution Control Committee, in whose jurisdiction the project is located, to arrange the
public hearing within the prescribed statutory period. In case the project site is extending beyond a
State or Union Territory, the public hearing is mandated in each State or Union Territory in which the
project is sited and the Applicant shall make separate requests to each concerned SPCB or UTPCC for
holding the public hearing as per this procedure.
2.2 The Applicant shall enclose with the letter of request, at least 10 hard copies and an equivalent
number of soft (electronic) copies of the draft EIA Report with the generic structure given in Appendix III
of EIA Notification 2006 including the Summary Environment Impact Assessment report in English and in
the local language, prepared strictly in accordance with the Terms of Reference communicated after
Scoping (Stage-2). Simultaneously the applicant shall arrange to forward copies, one hard and one soft,
of the above draft EIA Report along with the Summary EIA report to the Ministry of Environment and
Forests and to the following authorities or offices, within whose jurisdiction the project will be located:
(a) District Magistrate/s
(b) Zila Parishad or Municipal Corporation
(c) District Industries Office
(d) Concerned Regional Office of the Ministry of Environment and Forests
2.3 On receiving the draft Environmental Impact Assessment report, the abovementioned authorities
except the MoEF, shall arrange to widely publicize it within their respective jurisdictions requesting the
interested persons to send their comments to the concerned regulatory authorities. They shall also
make available the draft EIA Report for inspection electronically or otherwise to the public during
normal office hours till the Public Hearing is over. The Ministry of Environment and Forests shall
promptly display the Summary of the draft Environmental Impact Assessment report on its website, and
also makethe full draft EIA available for reference at a notified place during normal office hours in the
Ministry at Delhi.
2.4 The SPCB or UTPCC concerned shall also make similar arrangements for giving publicity about the
project within the State/Union Territory and make available the Summary of the draft Environmental
Impact Assessment report for inspection in select offices or public libraries or panchayats etc. They shall
also additionally make available a copy of the draft Environmental Impact Assessment report to the
above five authorities/offices viz, Ministry of Environment and Forests, District Magistrate etc.
3.0 Notice of Public Hearing:
3.1 The Member-Secretary of the concerned SPCB or UTPCC shall finalize the date, time and exact venue
for the conduct of public hearing within 7(seven) days of the date of receipt of the draft Environmental
Impact Assessment report from the project proponent, and advertise the same in one major National
Daily and one Regional vernacular Daily. A minimum notice period of 30(thirty) days shall be provided to
the public for furnishing their responses;
3.2 The advertisement shall also inform the public about the places or offices where the public could
access the draft Environmental Impact Assessment report and the Summary Environmental Impact
Assessment report before the public hearing.
3.3 No postponement of the date, time, venue of the public hearing shall be undertaken, unless some
untoward emergency situation occurs and only on the recommendation of the concerned District
Magistrate the postponement shall be notified to the public through the same National and Regional
vernacular dailies and also prominently displayed at all the identified offices by the concerned SPCB or
Union Territory Pollution Control Committee;
3.4 In the above exceptional circumstances fresh date, time and venue for the public consultation shall
be decided by the Member –Secretary of the concerned SPCB or UTPCC only in consultation with the
District Magistrate and notified afresh as per procedure under 3.1 above.
4.0 The Panel
4.1 The District Magistrate or his or her representative not below the rank of an Additional District
Magistrate assisted by a representative of SPCB or UTPCC, shall supervise and preside over the entire
public hearing process.
5.0 Videography
5.1 The SPCB or UTPCC shall arrange to video film the entire proceedings. A copy of the videotape or a
CD shall be enclosed with the public hearing proceedings while forwarding it to the Regulatory Authority
concerned.
6.0 Proceedings
6.1 The attendance of all those who are present at the venue shall be noted and annexed with the final
proceedings.
6.2 There shall be no quorum required for attendance for starting the proceedings.
6.3 A representative of the applicant shall initiate the proceedings with a presentation on the project
and the Summary EIA report.
6.4 Every person present at the venue shall be granted the opportunity to seek information or
clarifications on the project from the Applicant. The summary of the public hearing proceedings
accurately reflecting all the views and concerns expressed shall be recorded by the representative of the
SPCB or UTPCC and read over to the audience at the end of the proceedings explaining the contents in
the vernacular language and the agreed minutes shall be signed by the District Magistrate or his or her
representative on the same day and forwarded to the SPCB/UTPCC concerned.
6.5 A Statement of the issues raised by the public and the comments of the Applicant shall also be
prepared in the local language and in English and annexed to the proceedings:
6.6 The proceedings of the public hearing shall be conspicuously displayed at the office of the Panchyats
within whose jurisdiction the project is located, office of the concerned Zila Parishad, District Magistrate
,and the SPCB or UTPCC . The SPCB or UTPCC shall also display the proceedings on its website for general
information. Comments, if any, on the proceedings which may be sent directly to the concerned
regulatory authorities and the Applicant concerned.
7.0 Time period for completion of public hearing
7.1 The public hearing shall be completed within a period of 45 (forty five) days from date of receipt of
the request letter from the Applicant. Therefore the SPCB or UTPCC concerned shall sent the public
hearing proceedings to the concerned regulatory authority within 8(eight) days of the completion of the
public hearing .The applicant may also directly forward a copy of the approved public hearing
proceedings to the regulatory authority concerned along with the final Environmental Impact
Assessment report or supplementary report to the draft EIA report prepared after the public hearing
and public consultations.
7.2 If the SPCB or UTPCC fails to hold the public hearing within the stipulated 45(forty five) days, the
Central Government in Ministry of Environment and Forests for Category ‘A’ project or activity and the
State Government or Union Territory Administration for Category ‘B’ project or activity at the request of
the SEIAA, shall engage any other agency or authority to complete the process, as per procedure laid
down in this notification.
Appendix 4
Clarifications/Objections raised by MoEF for past NVDA Projects
S.NO Clarification / Objectives Stage of the Project
1 Comments from Forest Officer on the site area to be provided Site Clearance
2 Additional Maps to be provided Site Clearance
3 Proper break up of total project area to be given Site Clearance
4 Maps showing the features of the project area within 10 km radius Site Clearance
5 Details of any villages in the vicinity Site Clearance
6 Details of water quality Site Clearance
7 Flow rate during the peak and lean season Site Clearance
8 Topography maps (1:25000 scale) Site Clearance
9 Break up of total area of submergence Appraisal Stage
10 Details of flora and fauna in the project area Appraisal Stage
11 EIA , R&R Plan must be available with MPPCB at the time of public hearing Appraisal Stage
12 Dam Break Analysis Appraisal Stage
13
Monsoon season data, all 3 major seasons to be covered in the EIA/EMP, namely pre-monsoon season, post monsoon season and the monsoon season Appraisal Stage
14 Plan for surface drainage Appraisal Stage
15 Length of main canal must be specified properly in the questionaire Site Clearance
15 The plan for providing the drinking water to nearby villages, towns Site Clearance
16 Differentiate properly between gross command area, cultural command area Site Clearance
17 Role of balanced reservoir (in case of projects similar to Punasa) Site Clearance
18 Maps being sent to MoEF should be clear and legible, Land cover maos to be made available Site Clearance
19 IVI, Shannon Weaver biodiversity indices to be measured for all Appraisal Stage
vegetation type
20 Groundwater details Appraisal Stage
21 Avoid using incorrect names for places and incorrect botanical names of plants and animals Appraisal Stage
22 Soil phosphate data needs to be checked and the figures to be reported in in terms of kg. of available Nitrogen and Phosphate Appraisal Stage
23
Correct details of PAF (Project Affected Families) need to be submitted, original land holding details of PAF to be submitted in proper tabular form Appraisal Stage
24 Plantation of eucalyptus to be avoided as it exhauts water Appraisal Stage
25 Catchment area studied properly for soil erosion and treatment Appraisal Stage
26 GIS data submitted to MoEF Appraisal Stage
27 River water quality data mentions about coliform count, turbidity data must not exceed twice the permissible limit for C grade water Appraisal Stage
28 Reasons for not considering alternate sites Site Clearance
29 Details of degraded forest, local fish data to be made available Scoping (TOR)
30 Factors affecting drinking water, steps to mitigate them Scoping (TOR)
31 If more than one district is being affected then the public hearing needs to be conducted in all districts and not just one of them Scoping (TOR)
32 Data should be submitted for all 3 seasons, pre-monsoon, monsoon, post monsoon Scoping (TOR)
33 Soil data is incomplete and the Phosphorous content needs to be specified properly Scoping (TOR)
34 Estimated flow data dependable only 1984-85, recent data not available Scoping (TOR)
35 Ground water data only upto 1997, recent data not mentioned Scoping (TOR)
36
Surface Water Quality exceeds the permissible limits of Calcium and Magnesium, no data on coliform count and heavy metals like Copper,Zinc Scoping (TOR)
37
Productivity of Kharif vegetable must increase after irrigation changes, moreover productivity of peas and pulses should also increase Scoping (TOR)
38 1000 cases of Malaria and 19 cases of Malarial death report, flow rate to be maintained properly Scoping (TOR)
39 Mention the year of meteorological data Scoping (TOR)
40 Sedimentary rate based on some other project site hence not a representation of Narmade Project site Scoping (TOR)
41 Detailed quantitative vegetation analysis for density, abundance, diversity to be carried out and status of species to be shown clearly Scoping (TOR)
42 Land requirement for canal Scoping (TOR)
43 Commitment for Govt. of MP for the allocation of Pumps, provide energy for consumption and use of water Appraisal Stage
44 Command Area Development Plan to be submitted Appraisal Stage
45 Dam Break Analysis and Disaster Management Plan to be submitted along with EIA/EMP Scoping (TOR)
Appendix 5
a) Checklist for TOR Approval Stage by MoEF
S.NO Checklist Item
1 Comments from the Forest Officer on the site should be provided
2 Additional Maps must be provided to MoEF
3 Proper break up of total project area should be mentioned in the form 1
4 Maps showing the features of the project area within 10 km radius should be provided to MoEF
5 Details of any villages in the vicinity needs to be provided along with the form
6 Details of water quality must be prepared
7 Flow rate during the peak and lean season should be provided
8 Topography maps (1:25000 scale) must be prepared and provided to MoEF
9 Length of main canal must be specified properly in the questionaire
10 The plan for providing the drinking water to nearby villages, towns must be mentioned
11 Gross command area, cultural command area etc must be properly mentioned in the questionnaire/form
12 Role of balanced reservoir (in case of projects similar to Punasa) must be clearly mentioned
13 Maps being sent to MoEF should be clear and legible, Land cover maps should be made available
14 Reasons for not considering alternate sites should be clearly mentioned
15 Details of degraded forest, local fish data must be made available
16 Factors affecting drinking water and steps to mitigate them should be clearly stated
17 If more than one district is being affected then the public hearing needs to be conducted in all districts and not just one of them
18 Data should be submitted for all 3 seasons, pre-monsoon, monsoon, post monsoon
19 Soil data must be complete and the Phosphorous content needs to be specified properly as per requirements of MoEF
20 Flow data provided should be recent
21 Ground Water data provided must be recent
22 Surface Water Quality needs to be re-acessed if it exceeds the permissible limits of Calcium and Magnesium, data on coliform count and heavy metals like Copper,Zinc should be specified
23 The year of meteorological data should be mentioned clearly
24 Detailed quantitative vegetation analysis for density, abundance, diversity needs to be carried out and status of species should be shown clearly
25 Land requirement for canal should be clearly specified
26 Dam Break Analysis and Disaster Management Plan need be submitted along with EIA/EMP, must be mentioned in the TORs
27 Price level mentioned should be for current years and not old data
28 Preparedness to avert crisis like earhtquake , land slide etc. in case blasting operations are required during construction phase must be mentioned in EIA report
29 Physiochemical analysis of the river water shall be performed
30 Minimum lean Season discharge in the deprived reach between the barrage and the tail race discharge point may be indicated.
31 Drinking Water Provision should be a part of the project
32 Detailed vegetation analysis & Phyto sociological studies should be done
33 E.M.P. must include 1) Conservation of the habitat in the project area; protection of the sanctuary; 2) conservation of RET species and medicinal plants to be prepared in consultation with the Forest & Wildlife Department
34 Groundwater Table, groundwater quality, soil phsio-chemical properties of the pre irrigation time, command area planned to be irrigated etc should have a common time platform or atleast the same cultivation season.
35 For Irrigation Project the following data must be present In the EIA/EMP major issues to be discussed in the EIA and action to be suggested in the EMP with respect to the proposed command area are: - land slope groups, soil erosivity, - requirement of land development for efficient irrigation (land leveling, grading, etc.) and which department willundertake such activities, - water allocation and distribution pattern, - lining of the open on-farm conveyance system after water is discharged from the closed conduit, - conjunctive use of surface and groundwater if the latter is available for pumping from dug wells or tube wells , - the scope and programme of introducing water use-efficient irrigation systems such as sprinkler and drip systems
36 In case of very large irrigation coverage area it might result in a water table increase in the region, the impact of this and a proper drainage mechanism needs to be prepared
37 Details of release of water from the dam should be prepared
38 Whether minimum water discharge during lean season is adequate to meet the aquatic life should be assessed
39 Rare, endangered and threatened species of trees must be mentioned
40 Under hydrology detailed yield, silt observation needs to be given
41 Actual water requirement by different sectors (environmental need, human need, cattle need, need to support aquatic vegetation and other lives such as fish, etc.) in case a long stretch of river should be mentioned
42 Flow and sediment load data collection should be done during the EIA study
43 When most of the catchment area comes in another state , its important to get a letter submitted from that state informing that the treatment of degraded catchment area would be taken up by them
44 Development of waterlogging and soil salinity sooner or later arising out of surface irrigation activity should be addressed and mitigating measures spelt
45 Silt yield index method for total catchment area to be considered.
46 Sub-catchment-wise soil erosion categories and CAT plan should be worked out by adopting the SYI method of AISLUS.
47 Location maps, lay out map, soil map, drainage map, and FCC from satellite data to show land use, land cover details should be provided to MoEF
48 Documentation of all group of plants under Terrestrial Ecology, endemic and RET species must be specified
49 Land Environment should include maps soil, contour, drainage vegetation, forest, land use land cover, RS imageries, GIS overlays
50 Inconsistency in data mentioned in PFR and the presentation made should be avoided
51 Frequency of sampling and number of sampling for each season be reported in the EIA.
52 Diversion of water will change downstream water availability, therefore this aspect should be included in the EIA/EMP.
53 Biological Environment should include inventorization of all groups of plants (Angiosperms to Algae/ Fungi), Shannon-Wiener index for biological diversity of the vegetation, IVI of major species, Economically important plants, medicinal plants, NTFPs; Wildlife , fauna to include all groups of animals, RET species, as per Red data list and category as per Wildlife Protection Act.
54 Management Plan for mitigating the problems arising out of impoundment of water vis-a-vis waterborne diseases should be provided in EMP
55 Quality of satellite imagery needs to be good
56 Compensatory Afforestation Plan, to be prepared in consultation with the Forest Department should be provided to MoEF. Planting density to be decided based on the crown density of the area to be afforested; exotics to be excluded from the species list.
57 Management Plan for fishes needs to be focussed on the riverine water than reservoir water
58 The tables of monsoon and lean season discharges and releases should be clearly mentioned
59 On CAT plan, while consultation with the State Forest Department it is imperative that the watershed categorization into various erosion classes is to be done adopting the SYI method of the AISLUS.
60 Daily Rainfall Records should be mentioned
61 Economic viability needs elaboration
62 There must be a clear map showing the sites of the proposed dams, the corresponding reservoir boundaries, the rivers on which they are to be constructed, the scheme of pumping and lifting water, the command area boundaries and the scheme of water distribution.
63 Primary data should be collected on silt flow across the proposed dam site during the one year EIA Study
64 Estimation of green house gas emission from reservoir should be included. .
65 Tabular information of monthly average flow of perennial nallahs (10 daily discharge) to be included in the TOR
66 Executive Summary must contain important issues on CAT, Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology and other issues critical for environmental safety evaluation
67 Data of species found in the area should be depicted altitude-wise and family-wise
68 The threat status/ categories of the species should also be given as per the IUCN/ BSI criteria including list of endemic species
69 The details regarding area proposed for compensatory afforestation should be explicitly mentioned for better understanding of area calculations for compensatory afforestation
70 Details of forest land acquisition should be given along with land use, land cover pattern of the project area.
71 A scientific study should be done on downstream requirement of water to decide minimum assured release of water for maintaining the aquatic life in the river
b) Checklist for Project Appraisal Stage
S.NO Checklist Item
1 Break up of total area of submergence should be provided
2 Details of flora and fauna in the project area needs to be specifed
3 EIA , R&R Plan must be available with MPPCB at the time of public hearing
4 Dam Break Analysis needs to be prepared with EIA/EMP
5 Plan for surface drainage should be included in the EIA/EMP
6 IVI, Shannon Weaver biodiversity indices should be measured for all vegetation type
7
Avoid using incorrect names for places and incorrect botanical names of plants and animals
8 Soil phosphate data needs to be checked and the figures should be reported in in terms of kg. of available Nitrogen and Phosphate
9 Correct details of PAF (Project Affected Families) should be submitted, original land holding details of PAF must be submitted in proper tabular form
10 Plantation of eucalyptus should be avoided as it exhauts water
11 Catchment area should be studied properly for soil erosion and treatment
12 GIS data submitted must be submitted MoEF
13 River water quality data mentions about coliform count, turbidity data must not exceed twice the permissible limit for C grade water
14 Commitment for Govt. of MP for the allocation of Pumps, provide energy for consumption and use of water
15 Command Area Development Plan should be submitted to MoEF
16 Actual location of the sampling sites of the flora and fauna needs to be mentioned clearly
17 Details about the number of water bodies that are going to be submerged should be clearly mentioned
18 Bio-diversity management plan and fisheries management plan should be in place
19 Site specific seismic study needs to be done
20 Dam Break Analysis and disaster management plan should be prepared
21 Rainfall data should be collected for minimum 25 years (project was in Manipur, Mizoram)
22 Compensatory afforestation plan needs to be submitted
23 Water logging in the area needs to be studied
24 Adopting water-saving irrigation systems (micro-irrigation, e.g., drip, sprinkler) to enhance the command area, especially in drought prone regions should be specified
25 Disaster should be quantified in terms of structural failures, particularly if lose of human lives is apprehended
26 Provision for fish ladder should be made
27 List of number of trees, methodology adopted for animal spotting to be specified needs to be specified clearly
28 Total Water Discharge should be specified with reference to the hydrological studies
29 Suitable compensatory package for project affected families needs to be worked-out over and above the NPRR 2007 with specific budget provisions and must be mentioned clearly in the R&R Plan
30 Proposed check dams for fish management is not acceptable. Provision for fish ladder / fish pass or fish hatchery for fish migration needs to be there.
31 After the notice of public hearing is issued 30 days should be given to people to lodge their complaints
32 Detailed map on the toposheet showing the area to be submerged with overlays of different forest types as per ownership status along with the extent of such forests and location of wildlife sanctuaries, if any and identifying the number of villages and sampling sites should be submitted.
33 The submersion details of reserve forest, protected forest and unclaissified forest be clearly shown in a reservoir submergence map and location of compensatory afforestation over degraded area must also be shown on the catchment map
34 Location and extent of compensatory afforestation programme with names of identified species needs to be clearly mentioned
35 Catchment area treatment plan must be made only once study has been undertaken on the erodability level, IU/LC of catchment area
36 The surface water samples need to be analysed for biological parameters like total and faecal Coliforms even
37 The location and networking of the distributary canal from the proposed reservoir to the command area should be provided
38 Ensure English and Hindi versions of public hearing are identical
39 Public hearing proceeding must contain the attendance sheet of the public present during the public hearing.
40 Fishery Management Plan should include local fishes. The plan should attend the problem of native species
41 Clarify whether the minimum assured water level is adequate for migratory fish and other aquatic life
42 In case any wildlife sanctuary is nearby the project area then special care needs to be taken to minimise any effects to the sanctuary - For conserving the flora and fauna of the Wildlife Sanctuary, habitat improvement project agency has to commit for the cost of the project - No blasting for construction of road/ tunnels etc. shall be done during winter season in the periphery of sanctuary area i.e. 2.5 km of the area - No labour camps shall be set up in to periphery of Wildlife Sanctuary areas i.e. in the 2.5 kms of the area - No tree felling in around 2.5 km of the wildlife sanctuary area should be done - During execution if needed Chief Wildlife Warden/ Conservator of Forests, National Park may stipulate any condition which is necessary for the protection/ welfare of flora and fauna of the wildlife sanctuary area
43 Site specific studies needs to be carried out for the estimation of earthquake parameters. The dam is then designed to resist earthquake forces.
44 High Sodium content in irrigation water is detrimental for heavy soils, which are present in the command area. The detailed mitigative measures & action plan to address the issue should be provided.
45 pH value greater than 8 and sometimes greater than 8.5 and also high electrically conductivity (EC), coupled with heavy soil of the command area requires special attention to irrigation water application in the command area. Specific measures planned on this should be explained in the EIA/EMP
46 Land acquisition from a person if more than 75 % of his land holding, should be treated as fully affected person and the number of such persons along with the name and land holding should be furnished
47 Soil Sampling location map should be provided to MoEF
48 Alternate arrangements for the migratory fishes should be given to MoEF
49 Installation of adequate number of micro stations for seismic monitoring should be mentioned in the EIA/EMP
50 Feasibility of conjunctive water use must be assessed
Appendix 6
Chronological flow of all communications between all the stakeholders involved in the EC process for
LowerGoi, Punasa and Halon Projects.
Site Clearance Process for Lower Goi Irrigation Project
S.NO Event Date Comments
1 Letter from Member (E&F) to Chief Engineer to provide relevant information required for site clearance from MoEF
24/10/2002
2 Letter from Member (E&F) to MoEF to start the Environment Clearance process along with Questionaire for Site Clearance
24/10/2002
3 Letter from Chief Engineer to Member (E & F) with relevant maps and other documents for Site Clearance
27/10/2002
4 MoEF replies to NVDA asking for the following : a) More details around the questionaire b) Extra Maps c) Comments by Forest Officer on site inspection
2/11/2002
5 Confirmation whether forest land comes under the project or not (Member to chief Engineer)
7/11/2002
6 Letter to Chief Engineer by Member (E & F) based on details of inspection by Mr. L K Wagh and his comments
13/11/2002
7 Letter from Member ( E & F) to Chief Engineer requiring documents to be sent to All India Soil and Land Use Survey (AISLUS)
30/11/2002
8 Letter from Member (Engg.) to Chief Engineer to provide the relevant documents to Member (E & F)
5/12/2002
9 Letter by NVDA to AISLUS to provide prioritization reports of the catchment area of Lower Goi Project with reference to Submergence of Lower Goi Dam
7/12/2002
10 Letter from MoEF to NVDA citing problems in application for site clearance a) Break up of total project area of 13760km b) Maps showing the features of the project area within 7km of radius c) Details of any villages in the vicinity d) Details of Water Quality e) Flow rate during lean season
9/12/2002
11 Letter from AISLUS to NVDA assuring the suvey would be done in a week
10/12/2002
12 Copy to chief Engineer 12/12/2002
13 Letter by Chief Engineer to Member ( E & F) with details to the queries asked by MoEF
23/12/2002
14 Letter from Member (E & F) to Chief Engineer for further details on the letter on 23.12.2002
28/12/2002
15 Reply from Chief engineer for letter sent on 7.11.2002, along with the reply by Tehsildar from Bhadwaani and Nyayalaya Tehsildaar Rajpur
28/12/2002
16 NVDA to MoEF for site clearance with details requested in letter on 9/12/2002
2/1/2003
17 MoEF to NVDA requesting additonal information a) complete the questionnaire b) break up of area under submergence c) details about flora and fauna d) topography maps (1:25000) scale
9/1/2003
18 Letter to Chief Engineer from Member (E & F) providing information asked for by MoEF on 9.1.2003
20/3/2003
19 Letter to Chief Engineer from Member (E & F) providing information asked for by MoEF on 9.1.2003 and 20.3.2003
29/5/2003
20 Letter to Chief Engineer from Member (E & F) providing information asked for by MoEF on 9.1.2003 and 20.3.2003 and 29.5.2003
12/6/2003
21 Letter to MoEF with details of letter sent by Chief Engineer on 10/10/03 and that sent by the MoEF on 9/1/2003
24/10/2003
22 Site Clearance Received (No construction possible as yet, EIA/EMP to be submitted within 18 months
30/12/2003
EIA EMP events in chronological order for LowerGoi Project
S.NO Event Date Comments
1 Invitation of tenders from various consultants 5/2/2004
2 MoU Signing with SFRI 28/7/2004
3 Sanction Amount 3/8/2004
4 Inception report sent by SFRI 26/8/2004
5 Request release of first installment 3/9/2004
6 Request for DPR, maps etc by SFRI from NVDA 3/9/2004
7 Letter for confirmation of bank guarantee 22/9/2004
8 Bank Reply 25/9/2004
9 Amount Cheque 11/10/2004
10 Confirmation of amount received by SFRI along with a request for a checklist
19/10/2004
11 Request by NVDA to SFRI for docs abouts details of project team, work plan in the form of bar charts, draft of study
16/11/2004
report
12 Progress Report 17/11/2004
13 Submission of reports 27/11/2004
14 Baseline Report sent by SFRI 5/2/2005
15 Request from SFRI for stufy by AISLUS and installments 2/3/2005
16 Request for status review of SFRI by NVDA 5/3/2005
17 Changes sent to SFRI on baseline study 11/3/2005
18 SFRI requests for additonal information from the engg. Dept
16/3/2005
19 Baseline Report with incorporated comments sent by SFRI to NVDA
30/3/2005
20 Changes in baseline study sent by Rehab Dept. 30/3/2005
21 Request for Rapid EIA by NVDA for public hearing planned on 28/7/04
18/5/2005
22 Letter for 10% back guarantee 6/6/2005
23 SFRI sends Rapid EIA report to NVDA 13/6/2005
24 Rapid EIA and Reahb plan forwarded to Chief Engineer 15/6/2005
25 Letter confirming te receving of back guarantee by NVDA 9/6/2005
26 Request for remaining back guarantee 11/7/2005
27 Letter by Member (E & F) to DFO to forward the second and third installments to SFRI
26/7/2005
28 Amount sent to SFRI 26/7/2005
29 EMP sent by SFRI, request for 4th installment 3/8/2005
27 Request for 4th and 5th installment by SFRI 31/8/2005
28 R&R plan sent by NVDA to SFRI for incorporating it in the report
22/12/2005
29 Request for final report SFRI by NVDA 27/1/2006
30 Change in pages 61,62,109, request for incorporating changes
10/3/2006
31 SFRI requests 5th and 6th installments 29/6/2006
32 NVDA to SFRI inability to pay the amount as report has lots of incorrect details
7/7/2006
33 SFRI requests documents related to public hearing held in April 2006
13/7/2006
34 Report submitted along with EIA changes 22/8/2006
35 Request by SFRI for final funds 25/9/2006
Public hearing process followed for LowerGoi Project
S.NO Event Date Comments
1 Request from NVDA to MPPCB along with the executive summary and form 1 and form 12.
13/7/2004
2 Member (Engg.) to MPPCB ( executive summary, details of villages affected)
13/8/2004
3 Request from NVDA to MPPCB to prepare for public hearing
18/10/2004
4 NVDA requests collector Zila Bhadwaani to elect the panel and confirm the date and location of public hearing
2/11/2004
5 Public hearing 4/12/2004
6 Collector to NVDA confirming the completion of public hearing on 4.12.2004
1/1/2005
7 NVDA to SFRI to incorporate comments of public hearing into EIA report
10/1/2005
8 MoEF to NVDA asking for fresh hearing because: a) EIA report not available at the time of public hearing b) R & R plan not available
10/3/2005
9 NVDA to SFRI for Rapid EIA 10/5/2005
10 SFRI sends Rapid EIA report and executive summary to NVDA
15/6/2005
11 Member (E & F) to Chief Engineer to request for date for public hearing
19/9/2005 and 14/11/2005
12 Member (E & F) to Member (Rehab) to provide the Rehabilitation Plan for the new public hearing
6/12/2005
13 Member ( E & F) to Chief Engineer to finalize the dates for public hearing
12/1/2006
14 Chief Engineer to Member (E & F) informing that the public heairng is not possible until the EIA report is completed and the Rehab Plan is approved
24/1/2006 and 6/2/2006
15 Member ( E & F) to Chief Engineer to finalize the dates for public hearing as all documents are ready
20/2/2006
16 Chief Engineer to Member (E & F) confirming date of public hearing
21/3/2006
17 Letter to SFRI confirmng dates of public hearing on 19/4/2006
10/4/2006
18 Public hearing (Second) 19/4/2006
19 Letter to MPPCB for NOC by NVDA 24/7/2006
20 Letter to MPPCB for NOC and report of public hearing by NVDA
4/8/2006
21 NOC and Public hearing details made available by MPPCB 11/9/2006
22 MoEF to NVDA mentioning issues raised by Manthan Adhyaan Kendra about the conduct of public hearing
8/2/2007
23 Letter sent by NVDA to MPPCB 24/2/2007
24 MoEF to NVDA to provide reply to letter dated 8/2/2007 7/3/2007
25 NVDA to MPPCB to provide answers to queries raised by MoEF
16/4/2007
26 MPPCB to NVDA rejecting Manthan Adhyaan Kendras objections as the issued were raised after the public hearing on 19/4/2006
2/6/2007
Appraisal Process for Environmental Clearance
S.NO Event Date Comments
1 NOC obtained from MPPCB 11/9/2006
2 MoEF informs NVDA that in the meeting on 20.12.2006 environmental clearance was not given due to some comments raised by Prof. S Basu and Dr. Sarkar on the EIA/EMP
10/1/2007
3 NVDA to SFRI to make necessary changes in EIA/EMP and provide clarifications for the queries raised
16/1/2007
4 Member (E & F) to Chief Engineer to provide clarifications on queries raised by MoEF
16/1/2007
5 NVDA to SFRI , environment appraisal questionaire 24/1/2007
11 SFRI to NVDA - clarification on comments 3/2/2007
12 Member (E & F) informs Chief Engineer to provide details based on comments raised by MoEF
13/2/2007
6 SFRI to NVDA mentioning that since this was addditional work an additional payment of Rs.150000 would be required
21/2/2007
13 MoEF informs NVDA that if information is not provided for queries mentioned in the letter on 10/1/07 the file would be closed
7/3/2007
14 NVDA to MoEF, clarifications oon queries raised by MoEF
21/3/2007
15 Request from NVDA to MoEF to not to close the file 4/4/2007
16 Letter from member (E & F) to Chief Engineer to make sure an appropriate person is present in the EAC meeting on 18.4.2007
11/4/2007
17 MoEF mentions it needs further details in its meeting held on 18.4.2007 a) Study of 10km periphery as per new notification b) Study of Wildlife affected c) Dam Break Analysis d) Monsoon season data e) R & R Plan f) Plan for Surface Drainage
30/4/2007
18 SFRI to NVDA , clarification of comments/ issues raised 18/5/2007
19 Request from Member (E & F) to Chief Engineer and Member (Rehab) to verify information sent by SFRI and provide details required by NVDA's end
28/5/2007
20 Request for information from Chief Engineer on letter dated 28.5.2007
5/6/2007
21 NVDA to MoEF , clarifications on issues raised in the meeting of EAC on 18.4.2007
9/7/2007
23 Dam Break Analysis and Disaster Management Plan required by MoEF
3/8/2007
24 Member ( Engg.) to Member (E & F) mentioning that the Dam Break Analysis would be submitted by 20.11.2007
17/9/2007
25 SFRI sends Disaster Management Plan to NVDA 10/10/2007
26 All the relevant documents and information sent to MoEF
23/11/2007
27 EAC meeting decided on 14/12/2007
28 Environment Clearance Accorded 17/1/2008
Site Clearance Process for Punasa Project
S.NO Event Date Comments
1 Karyalaya Yantri to Chief Engineer (NVDA) with the relevant documents and request to start the environment clearance process
/03/2004
2 VanMandaladhikari Khandwa to Karyalaya Yantri informing no forest land is affected by the project
7/6/2004
3 Confirmation from Zila Vyapar and Udyog Kendra to go ahead with the project
9/6/2004
4 Letter by Pashu Chikitsalya Vibhaag with the go ahead 15/6/2004
5 Tehsildaar to Karyalaya Yantri informing there is no holy place like temple, mosque or any historical site, railway line, highway etc being affected.
17/6/2004
6 Chief Engineer to Member(Forest) requesting to start the respective process and submit the proforma
12/7/2004
7 Chief Engineer to Member (Engg.) mentioning that since no Dam was being built hence site clearance as such may not be required therefore performa should be re-submitted accordingly.
15/7/2004
8 Application for Environment Clearance of Punasa Project, NVDA to MOEF
16/7/2004
9 MoEF to NVDA requesting additonal information a) Length of main canal and Nature of Canal b) How drinking water would be supplied to 255 villages c)proposed 35008 ha area is gross command area, confirmation required. d)Role of balancing reservior proposed e) Map not legible f) Location of village to be indicated properly on the maps
4/8/2004
10 NVDA to MoEF, with clarification of all its queries 24/8/2004
11 Site Clearance Accorded by MoEF to NVDA for Punasa Project
27/9/2004
EIA EMP events in chronological order for Punasa Project
S.NO Event Date Comments
1 Invitation of tenders from various consultants 5/2/2004
2 MoU Signing with WAPCOS 28/7/2004
3 Letter from WAPCOS to NVDA, reqesting for Punasa Project related documents like DPR/FR
9/9/2004
4 WAPCOS to NVDA requesting release of first installment, enclosing the bank guarantee
22/9/2004
5 NVDA to Indian Overseas Bank asking to confirm the back guarantee sent by WAPCOS
29/9/2004
6 Indian Overseas Bank to NVDA confirming the bank guarantee
28/10/2004
7 NVDA to WAPCOS confirmation of site clearance and requesting to fulfill the conditions of EIA/EMP mentioned in site clearance
11/11/2004
8 NVDA to WAPCOS requesting the following: - inception report - Details of project team - Work plan in the form of bar chart - Monthly progress report - Draft of Study Report
16/11/2004
9 WAPCOS to NVDA , inception report submitted 19/11/2004
10 WAPCOS to NVDA requesting for more data, mentioning that - R&R policy for Indira Sagar Project was required - Maps, Index maps of Punasa Scheme, General Target Plan, Map of Narmada Basin - ownership as break up of total land (govt. , private, forest) - private land , number of owners, list of affected families etc
25/11/2004
11 NVDA to "VanMandaladhikari" , for payment of 10% as first installment to WAPCOS
6/12/2004
12 Money sent to WAPCOS 7/12/2004
13 WAPCOS to NVDA, Progress Report 15/12/2004
14 WAPCOS to NVDA , Data Collection Report and Construction Stage Impact Report
18/2/2005
15 WAPCOS to NVDA, Baseline Report 18/2/2005
16 WAPCOS to NVDA requesting for 2nd and 3rd installments 28/2/2005
17 WAPCOS To NVDA, officials visiting for Socio-Economic survey of project affected families, requesting cooperation
2/3/2005
18 Member (E&F) to other departments, requesting for comments on baseline report
5/3/2005
19 WAPCOS to NVDA, EIA/EMP First Draft 21/3/2005
20 Member (E&F) to other departments, requesting for comments on baseline report (reminder)
23/3/2005
21 Replies based on mail sent on 5/3/2005 and 23/3/2005 6/4/2005
22 DFO to Chief Engineer requesting Rapid EIA 18/5/2005
23 EIA Report for Punasa sent by WAPCOS 14/6/2005
24 Bank Guarantee sent by WAPCOS to DFO 27/7/2005
25 NVDA to WAPCOS , mentioning that the list of data needed for Master Plan of Command Area not submitted
17/8/2005
26 WAPCOS to NVDA comfirming the submission 23/8/2005
27 WAPCOS to NVDA providing a list of comments received from various dept. of NVDA on the EIA Report
21/10/2005
28 WAPCOS to NVDA mentioning that no further comments would be entertained as review comments were still coming in
23/12/2005
29 NVDA to WAPCOS requesting 50 copied of Executive Summary
29/12/2005
30 NVDA to WAPCOS requesting to submit the required documents
19/1/2006
31 NVDA to WAPCOS asking them to add all comments in the EIA report , raised by various departments
23/1/2006
32 NVDA to WAPCOS, request for duly filled schedule-2 and other relevant docs and the final EIA/EMP reports
24/1/2006
33 WAPCOS to NVDA, EIA/EMP Report and Schedule -2 27/1/2006
34 Member (E & F) to other departments to review the EIA/EMP
31/1/2006
35 MoEF requests for further clarification on EIA 2/3/2006
36 NVDA to WAPCOS , provide details of the seasons surveryed as well as the executive summary to MoEF
10/3/2006
37 Installment sent by NVDA to WAPCOS 3/4/2006
38 NVDA to MoEF, all relevant documents 18/4/2006
39 MoEF further queries on EIA 31/5/2006
40 NVDA to WAPCOS , questioning the innaccuracies in the report
16/6/2006
41 Reminder sent again to WAPCOS of the letter dated 16/6/2006, as well as a request for clarification of comments raised by MoEF
23/6/2006
42 WAPCOS to NVDA requesting additional details and payment for the extra work
26/6/2006 and 12/7/2006
43 NVDA to WAPCOS, providing the additional details required by WAPCOS
12/7/2006
44 Reply by NVDA to the points raised by WAPCOS and the request for additional funds
31/7/2006
45 Request for pending payment, WAPCOS to NVDA 1/8/2006
46 NVDA to WAPCOS, details sent 10/8/2006 and 22/8/2006
47 WAPCOS responds to NVDA's letter dated 31.7.2006 1/9/2006
48 Member (E & F) to other departments like Engg. And Rehab to send details to WAPCOS
14/11/2006
49 WAPCOS's request for details on : - PAF list - ground water potential - flow velocity - forest related data
14/11/2006
50 Clarify the 15 points raised by MoEf ( NVDA to WAPCOS) 25/11/2006
51 Member (E&F) to Chief Enginner requesting them to send required details to WAPCOS to provide clarifications to all its queries
30/11/2006
52 WAPCOS - NVDA , Clarifications to MoEF comments 11/12/2006
53 MoEF requests for further clarification 23/1/2007
54 WAPCOS to NVDA , ecological survey required , payment of additional 1.5 Lakhs required for the same
23/1/2007
55 MoEF mentions its going to close the files if clarifications not received within 2 weeks
7/3/2007
56 WAPCOS agrees for ecological suvey without additional cost
16/3/2007
57 WAPCOS requests additional details from NVDA 20/3/2007
58 NVDA to WAPCOS, submit report for final payment 22/3/2007
59 WAPCOS sends modified EIA/EMP May-07
Public hearing process followed for Punasa Project
S.NO Event Date Comments
1 MoEF to NVDA , Site Clearance 27/9/2004
2 Member (E & F) to Chief Engineer to fulfill all the conditions of site clearance like EIA/EMP , public hearing etc
21/10/2004
3 Mukhya Nagar Paalika Adhikari to Karyapalan Yantri - NOC to the balancing reservoirs being made as part of the Punasa Project
19/11/2004
4 Gram Panchayat to Karyapalan Yantri - NOC to balancing reservoirs
Nov-04
5 Punasa Project details along with Executive Summary, EIA/EMP, DPR submitted to MPPCB
24/11/2004
6 NVDA requests collector Zila Khandwa to elect the panel and confirm the date and location of public hearing
21/12/04 and 29/1/2005
7 Member (E & F) to Chief Engineer informing that the collector has already been requested to suggest the panel for public hearing, please follow up with the collector
9/2/2005
8 Collector orders Public hearing for Omkareshwar and Indira Sagar Project instead of Punasa
11/2/2005
9 NVDA requesting Collector to kindly rectify the mistake in his letter dated 11/2/2005 where he had ordered for the public hearing if Omkareshwar Project and Indira Sagar Project which have already received EC, request to change it to Punasa
28/2/2005
10 Public hearing conducted 20/4/2005
11 MoEF to NVDA mentioning that public hearing documents have not been made available
7/6/2005
12 MPPCB to MOEF , NOC of Public hearing 7/6/2005
13 Chief Engineer confirming that public hearing documents have been sent to Member (E & F)
24/6/2005
14 NVDA sends Public hearing documents incorporated into the EIA/EMP to MoEF
28/3/2006
Appraisal Process for Environmental Clearance for Punasa Project
S.NO Event Date Comments
1 NOC obtained from MPPCB 7/6/2005
2 NVDA to WAPCOS to submit the relevant documents needed to pursue the case further with MoEF
27/11/2005
3 NVDA to MoEF - EIA/EMP Report - Public hearing documents
2/2/2006
4 MoEF to NVDA mentioning that the questionaires, public hearing documents have not been receieved by it, also for the EIA report it is not clear how many seasons have been surveyed, exec summary of EIA not submitted
2/3/2006
5 NVDA to MoEF mentioning that questionaire , public hearin documents have already been sent earlier and the EIA summary would be submitted shortly
10/3/2006 and 28/3/2006
6 MoEF to NVDA mentioning that the EAC meeting for Punasa would be held on 19.4.2006
29/3/2006
7 EAC meeting 19/4/2006
6 MoEF to NVDA - documents not received on time, on 19th April 2006 only - next meeting on 17.5.2006
1/5/2006
13 NVDA to MoEF confirming docs sent 6/5/2006
14 Member (E & F) to Chief Engineer to be present at the EAC meeting on 17.5.2006
10/5/2006
15 NVDA to WAPCOS to kindly have a representative at the meeting
12/5/2006
16 MoEF to NVDA, following comments raised 1) figure of land given is inaccurate 2) No. of families affected is 388 instead of 122 3) Irrelevant information in the questionaire at some places 4) Data for terestrial flora and fauna not verified after directly using it from the forest department data 5) Incorrect names used at places 6) Catchment areas of balancing reservoirs not studied for soil erosion and treatment 7) Poor Map Quality , no evidence of GIS survey 8) Incorrect botanical names of plants 9) Plantation for canal bank, acacia should be avoided 10) Copied material from other project 11) FCC , land cover maps not available 12) Quantitative analysis of natural vegetation should be planned 13) Submit in tabular form original land holding of PAF 14) Available ground water potential, number of ground water structures feasible and conjuctive use of water should be mentioned 15) Recheck soil phosphate and report all figures in terms of kg. of available Nitrogen and Phosphate 16) River water quality does not show coliform count, turbidity exceeds twice the permissible limit for C grade water 17) Flow velocity in canal missing 18) Plantation of eucalyptus to be avoided as it is a water exhausitng plant
31/5/2006
17 NVDA to WAPCOS , requesting clarification for comments raised by MoEF
16/6/2006
18 WAPCOS to NVDA requesting for more details from NVDA like catchment area treatmetn plan, list of PAF
26/6/2006
19 NVDA to GoI to provide clearanc urgently 11/9/2006
20 WAPCOS to NVDA requesting for - PAF details - ground water potential - flow velocity - additional forest related data
13/11/2006
21 Member (E & F) to Chief Engineer to provide the details requested by WAPCOS
14/11/2006
23 WAPCOS to NVDA , draft replies to queries raised by MoEF 24/11/2006
24 Chief Engineer to Member (E & F) replies to some of the queries raised by MoEF
4/12/2006
25 WAPCOS to NVDA replies to queries by MoEF 11/12/2006
26 NVDA to MoEF, clarifications to queries raised in the letter on 31.5.2006
18/12/2006
27 NVDA to MoEF, requesting EC accordance 12/1/2007
28 MoEF asks for further clarifications - FCC not proper - Additional information on bio diversity and conservation - Micro flora fauna information - density , frequency and abundance - IVI, Shannon Weaver biodiversity indices to be measured for all vegetation types - Maps to be submitted - Groundwater details
23/1/2007
29 MoEF to NVDA asking for clarifications for its queries in letter on 23.1.2007 in two weeks, else it will close the file
7/3/2007
30 WAPCOS to NVDA requesting for further data 26/3/2007
31 NVDA to MoEF requesting not to close the file 3/4/2007
31 NVDA to MoEF requesting not to close the file 1/5/2007
32 WAPCOS to NVDA , replies to queries raised by MoEF 3/5/2007
33 Information submitted by NVDA to MoEF 7/5/2007
34 MoEF Accords Environment Clearance to Punasa Project 16/7/2007
Site Clearance Process for Halon Project
S.NO Event Date Comments
1 Application process for Environment Clearance of Halon Project begins from NVDA's end, All relevant documents sent to MoEF
6/3/2002
2 MoEF to NVDA requesting clarification a) confusion in the area of project mentioned for total project and for irrigation b) break up of the area under existing land usage c) Reasons for not considering alternate sites d) Comments receieved from Director , Kanha, MP and Chief Wildlife Warden, MP
15/3/2002
3 Letter to Directos Kanha to provide the required comments
8/8/2002 and 30/11/2002
4 Member (Engg.) to Chief Engineer requesting the following information - performa of questionaire - Application form, schedule -2 - feasibility report - relevant maps
2/11/2002
5 NVDA to All India Soil and Land Use Survey requesting for prioritization of catchment area of Halon Project in Mandla District
5/4/2003
6 Member (E & F) to Chief Engineer to clarify queries of MoEF
20/6/2003
7 NVDA to MoEF, clarification sent for the queries of MoEF
22/8/2003
8 MoEF to NVDA , Site clearance accorded for Halon Project
18/11/2003
9 NVDA to MoEF, requesting permission for construction purposes at Halon Site
11/2/2004 ,7/3/2004 , 15/3/2004
10 Member (E & F) to Chief Engineer to prepare the necessar documents, paperwork for the Environment Clearance of Halon
30/4/2004
11 MoEF to NVDA , no constuction at site possible until EC is accorded
8/7/2004
EIA EMP events in chronological order for Halon Project
S.NO Event Date Comments
1 Invitation of tenders from various consultants 5/2/2004
2 MoU Signing with WAPCOS 28/7/2004
3 WAPCOS to NVDA, bank guarantee sent 22/9/2004
4 WAPCOS to NVDA , site visit by one of their experts 27/9/2004
5 NVDA to Indian Overseas Bank, asking to confirm the bank guarantee
26/9/2004
6 WAPCOS to NVDA, Inception Report 19/11/2004
7 Member (E & F) to DFO, please send the I installment to WAPCOS
6/12/2004
8 DFO to Finance Team, Confirming that first installment is bein sent to WAPCOS
7/12/2004
9 NVDA to WAPCOS, informing that details of public hearing should also be included in the EIA
8/12/2004
10 WAPCOS to NVDA requesting the following details: 1) Ground water balance study report 2) Soil maps of command area
10/12/2004
11 Progress Report, WAPCOS to NVDA 15/12/2004
12 WAPCOS to NVDA mentioning that some experts would be visiting the Halon sote and also requesting more details
29/12/2004
13 WAPCOS to NVDA , sending data collection report, construction stage impact report
28/2/2004
14 Member (E & F) to other departments to review the data collection report and construction stage impact report
16/3/2005
15 WAPCOS to NVDA, operation stage impact report 22/3/2005
16 Draft EIA/EMP report 29/3/2005
17 Modified EIA/EMP report, WAPCOS to NVDA 21/6/2005
18 WAPCOS to NVDA confirming that modified EIA/EMP reports have already been sent
30/6/2005
19 NVDA to WAPCOS , confirming WAPCOS's letter on 30.6.2005
5/7/2005
20 WAPCOS to NVDA, bank guarantee sent for next installment
22/7/2005
21 Comments received on draft EIA/EMP report 4/8/2005
22 WAPCOS to NVDA, sending checklist for master plan of command area development
5/8/2005
23 NVDA to WAPCOS mentioning that checklist has not been received
17/8/2005
24 WAPCOS to NVDA, checklist sent again 22/8/2005
25 WAPCOS to NVDA, requesting - comments in R & R plan - catchment area maps sent by AISLUS
26/8/2005
26 WAPCOS to NVDA confirming the various comments received on 2.6.2005, 6.6.2005, 10.6.2005, 19.7.2005, 26.7.2005, 1.8.2005, 31.8.2005, 1.9.2005, 5.9.2005, 9.9.2005, 28.9.2005
21/10/2005
27 NVDA to WAPCOS requesting to attend the meeting on 23.11.2005 to finalize the schedule -2 of questionaire
14/11/2005
28 WAPCOS to NVDA, inability to attend the meeting requesting for change of date
16/11/2005
29 Meeting between WAPCOS and NVDA 6/12/2005
30 Letter from WAPCOS to NVDA , no further comments on EIA/EMP would be entertained as discussed in the meeting
23/12/2005
31 NVDA to WAPCOS , requesting executive summary for public hearing
27/1/2006
32 Executive Summary and Rapid EIA required, NVDA to WAPCOS
1/2/2006, 7/2/2006
33 NVDA to WAPCOS to send the R&R Plan, Rapid EIA, Executive Summary in English as well as local language
16/2/2006
34 Member (E&F) to Chief Engineer to Confirm if WAPCOS have sent the relevant documents, else inform WAPCOS about the same
6/3/2006
35 NVDA to WAPCOS, please send the relevant documents within 3 days
6/3/2006
36 WAPCOS to NVDA requesting review of - Data Collection Report - Construction Stage Impact Report - Operation Stage Impact Report Kindly approve EIA/EMP and then only final EIA/EMP would be approved
7/3/2006
37 NVDA to WAPCOS, Rapid EIA , executive summary not received
4/5/2006
38 WAPCOS to NVDA , request for more funds 8/5/2006
39 Member (E&F) to Chief Engineer , the final EIA/EMP report and R&R plan are now made available by WAPCOS kindly make the necessary arrangements for public hearing and send the relevant documents to MPPCB
24/5/2006
40 Chief Engineer to Member (E&F), documents need to be submitted in English as well as local language
14/6/2006
41 NVDA to WAPCOS requesting EIA/EMP in Hindi as well 3/7/2006
42 Vice Chairman (NVDA) to WAPCOS request for Rapid EIA, R&R Plan. Executive Summary in both Hindi and Englih
25/7/2006
43 Reminder from NVDA to WAPCOS for the documents 2/8/2006
44 MEG meeting 30/8/2006
45 Payments to be made to WAPCOS 8/9/2006
46 NVDA to WAPCOS, EIA/EMP not available 12/12/2006, 27/12/2006
47 Additional TORs sent by MoEF 10/1/2007
48 TORs forwarded to WAPCOS 12/1/2007
49 WAPCOS to NVDA to send details for the additional TORs 15/1/2007
50 Final documents submitted, meeting at WAPCOS on 30.3.2008 or 31.3.2008
26/3/2008
51 EIA/EMP with comments incorporated sent by WAPCOS to NVDA
28/4/2008
52 WAPCOS to NVDA, mentioning the summary would be submitted once EIA/EMP is approved
2/5/2008
53 NVDA to WAPCOS, comments on Draft EIA/EMP 5/6/2008
54 WAPCOS to NVDA , EIA/EMP , Executive Summary sent and requesting for final payment
5/3/2009
Public hearing process followed for Halon Project
S.NO Event Date Comments
1 Member (E & F) to Chief Engineer requesting for executive summary of EIA, Jal Adhiniyam and Vayu Adhinayam documents to be presented to MPPCB
30/6/2004
2 Member (E & F) to Chief Engineer to prepare all documents for Public Hearing
5/8/2004
3 NVDA to MPPCB request for conducting public hearing, forms already submitted
25/8/2004
4 MPPCB to NVDA mentioning that the relevant documents have not been submitted for Public Hearing, submit within 15 days
28/9/2004
5 NVDA to MPPCB requesting around 1 years time to get the EIA/EMP Report ready as the consultant has been decided recently
13/10/2004
6 MPPCB to Collector (Mandla) , request to conduct Public Hearing
19/10/2004
7 Public Hearing conducted 15/12/2004
8 NVDA to Collector requesting for Public Hearing Documents
28/1/2005
9 MPPCB to NVDA , NOC sent 11/2/2005
10 NOC forwarded to WAPCOS by NVDA 3/3/2005
11 MoEF asks for a fresh public hearing as the EIA/EMP was not submitted at that time
10/3/2005
12 MPPCB to NVDA requesting for EIA/EMP for fresh public hearing
12/4/2005
13 NVDA to WAPCOS ,Incorporate comments of previous hearing into the EIA
16/5/2005
14 Member (E & F) to Chief Engineer to do the necessary ground work for the fresh public hearing
19/9/2005 , 16/11/2005 , 16/1/2006, 27/1/2006
15 NVDA to WAPCOS, Rapid EIA and Executive Summary Required
1/2/2006, 25/3/2006 and 4/5/2006
16 Chief Engineer to Member (Engg.) request Member (E &F) for providing EIA/EMP and R&R plan
15/4/2006
17 Member (E&F) to Chief Engineer informing that WAPCOS has been asked to send the Rapid EIA report, and the R&R Plan and EIA / EMP have been sent to Chief Engineer
12/5/2006
18 Chief Engineer to Member (E&F) to provide all the documents in Hindi as well
29/5/2006
19 NVDA to WAPCOS requesting for EIA/EMP and Rapid EIA in Hindi
3/7/2006
20 Member (E & F) to Member (Rehab) to provide the R&R Plan in hindi
3/8/2006
21 Member(E&F) to Chief engineer expressing inability to translate documents into hindi as the department does not have anyone with the skills required for the same
5/8/2006
22 Member (E & F) to Member (Rehab) to provide the R&R Plan in hindi
21/8/2006
23 Member (E &F) to Chief engineer to start the public hearing process as all documents are ready
26/8/2006
24 NVDA to MPPCB to start process for Public Hearing 7/9/2006 and 18/9/2006
25 NVDA to MoEF, informing that documents have been submitted for public hearing
10/11/2006
26 MoEF to NVDA mentioning that TOR needs to be examined on the basis of Notification- 2006
14/11/2006
27 MoEF sets additional 14 TORs for Halon 10/1/2007
28 New TORs forwarded to WAPCOS 12/1/2007
29 WAPCOS to NVDA requesting additional details with regards the new TOR
15/1/2007
30 Member( E& F) to Chief Engineer asking to send details to WAPCOS as requested by them
19/1/2007, 20/2/2007, 5/3/2007
31 Clearance of the R & R plan of NVDA by Ministry of Tribal Affairs
25/1/2007
32 NVDA to WAPCOS, details sent as requested 29/3/2007
33 NVDA to WAPCOS to send the clarifications to the queries of MoEF
20/4/2007, 1/6/2007, 17/8/2007
34 Additional details sent by Karyalaya Yantri to be included in EIA/EMP forwarded to WAPCOS by NVDA
28/4/2007
35 NVDA requests some clarification in TOR from MoEF 14/8/2007
35 WAPCOS to NVDA requesting details of AISLUS report 21/8/2007
36 NVDA to WAPCOS , details of AISLUS report 24/8/2007
37 Clarification to NVDAs queries by MoEF 5/9/2007
38 Comprehensive EIA/EMP prepared as per new TOR, sent by WAPCOS to NVDA
28/7/2008
39 Fresh Public hearing conducted 12/2/2009
40 MPPCB sends proceeedings of public hearing to MoEF and NVDA
9/3/2009
41 MoEF mentions that only one public hearing was conducted whereas 2 were required
29/6/2009
42 Fresh Public hearing conducted in Mandla 31/7/2009
Appraisal Process for Environmental Clearance for Halon Project
S.NO Event Date Comments
1 MPPCB sends proceeedings of public hearing to MoEF and NVDA
9/3/2009
2 WAPCOS requests NVDA to send their representatives for EAC meeting on 19/20 March
12/3/2009
3 Member (E & F) to Member (Engg.) , requesting to prepare a ppt and other details for the EAC meeting
13/3/2009
4 MoEF mentions that Halon would not be considered for the meeting on 19/20th March
16/3/2009
5 MoEF to NVDA requesting clarification on the following: - Public hearing was conducted in on district Balaghat only and not in Mandla which was the other district being affected, why is this so? - Gross Comand Area, CCA and ICA not mentioned properly - Compensation package must be better than NRRP-2007 - Baseline data should provide information about data and time of monitoring - Details of degraded forest, local fish required - factors affecting drinking water, steps to mitigate them
3/6/2009 (meeting held on 14.5.2009)
6 NVDA to MPPCB , requesting to confirm whether Public hearing was conducted in 2 districts or one
21/5/2009
7 MPPCB replies that hearing was conducted in Balaghat, and district collector from Mandla was asked to be a part of it
29/5/2009
8 NVDA sends the clarification by MPPCB to MoEF 9/6/2009
9 MoEF mentions that only one public hearing was conducted whereas 2 were required
29/6/2009
10 Fresh Public hearing conducted in Mandla 31/7/2009
11 MPPCB forwards publci hearing details to MoEf, NVDA 24/8/2009
12 MoEF needs further clarifications as replies provided during the public heairng were not proper
14/9/2009
13 Member (E & F) to Member (Engg.), requesting to reply to the queries raised by MoEF and send it to MoEF through MPPCB
16/9/2009, 25/9/2009, 8/10/2009
14 Chief Engineer to MPPCB, clarifications to queries raised by MoEF
3/10/2009
15 Member (E & F) to Member (Engg.) and Member (Rehab) to come prepared for their clarifications for the queries raised by MoEF for the meeting on 6/11/2009
26/10/2009
16 Chief Engineer to MoEF, clarifications to queries raised by MoEF
4/11/2009
17 EAC meeting 16/11/2009
18 Environment Clearance Accorded, letter by MoEF 4/1/2010