This report is an outcome of the efforts to analyze environmental issues in general, and wildlife issues in particular, associated with the NGT road. The report also addresses the generic and specific concerns of the MOEF related to the Andhra Pradesh road project, validates earlier findings of initial environmental analysis conducted by Kirloskar Consultants, and recommends environmental safeguards specific to the NGT road.

In general, the WII-CEC team found that the NGT road upgrade as proposed by the APRBD, when coupled with the mitigative measures proposed in Section 4 and Table 1 of this report, would result in essentially no negative effects. None of the road improvement activities proposed for the NGT road’s forested (sensitive) section, nor the road’s operation, suggest that there will be any significant impact on tigers, leopards or their prey. The alignment, width, and appearance of the road section through the forested section will not change, thus there will not be a change (from existing conditions) in the interaction of the road with the wildlife as a result of the upgrade[1]. If implemented, the mitigative actions proposed would greatly reduce the net environmental losses over the existing situation, and in effect improve the ability of the Park staff to control illegal activities and to manage local natural resources.

The following are the salient findings of the reconnaissance survey:

i. The NGT road does not traverse through any national park or sanctuary. The nearest boundary of the GBM Sanctuary is 2 km from the NGT road, except near Compartments no. 532 and 693 of Chelama and Kambham Ranges of the above Sanctuary and Compartment no. 681 of the Uyyalavada Reserve Forest outside the GBM Sanctuary.

ii. The alignment of the NGT road does not overlap with the boundaries of the Rajiv Gandhi Tiger Reserve or any other reserve in Andhra Pradesh.

iii. The proposed road surface improvement activities along the NGT road will be confined to within the spatial limits of the existing right-of-way of the road. Therefore these activities can only have modest impacts, for which appropriate mitigative measures have been suggested (see Section 4).

iv. Anecdotal statistics on large animal road kills along the NGT road, collected from local residents, suggested low numbers (4-5/year). Such numbers suggest that this issue is a minor concern. Although well substantiated data on incidences of road kills and poaching in this road section are lacking, suitable measures have been proposed in Section 4 to mitigate these impacts effectively.

v. Although the impacts of earth work, water impoundment and clearing of vegetation associated with this road project are not likely to assume greater significance than those of the broad gauge railway line project (which has recently been completed), necessary measures to mitigate the construction phase impacts have been suggested in Table 1. These impacts, particularly in the 24-km long forest and Ghat section will be negligible.

The conditions imposed by the MOEF for environmental clearance of the project have been extensively dealt with through a consultative process involving all agencies responsible for the implementation, management and monitoring of the project and the site environment (See Annexure III). The consultative process has been useful in resolving the following key issues linked to the conditions specified by the MOEF vide their letters (Annexure I).

a. Clearance under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 is not warranted since no forest land is to be acquired.

b. Transfer of the Atmakur-Kurnool road from the APRBD to the APFD is also not warranted considering that better expertise for handling road repair and maintenance work is available within the APRBD.

c. It is not obligatory on the part of project authorities (APRBD) to strengthen the anti- poaching squad of the APFD since the project does not include any part of the Rajiv Gandhi Tiger Reserve or the GBM Sanctuary, nor has the APFD sought any assistance from the APRBD on this matter.

d. The APFD will assist the APRBD in the implementation of safeguards outlined in Section 4 and Table 1 to mitigate impacts on wildlife values and promote wildlife conservation.

The step-by-step actions have been outlined in Table 1. These actions address the issues and concerns expressed by the MOEF and are comprehensive enough to be a useful tool in the development of the Environmental Action Plan by the APRBD. The EMP is a prerequisite to World Bank loan approval.

The success of the mitigative measures hinges on the establishment of a good communication link between the APRBD and the Chief Conservator of Forests, Andhra Pradesh Department of Forestry. To that end, the APRBD’s environmental officer should be supported by the APRBD in carrying out all actions related to monitoring and consultation with any agencies. He should also be given responsibility to alert and train the contractor in the implementation of measures presented here in this document as well as in the EMP contained in the revised Techno-Economic Feasibility Report to be prepared by Kirloskar Consultants.