The Techno-Economic Feasibility (TEF) Study, completed by Kirloskar Consultants Ltd. (1997), was prepared as the key response of the APRBD to the MOEF’s conditions. Section 6 of the TEF Report document, the Initial Environmental Examination (IEE), was examined in terms of how well it covered the issues raised by the MOEF and the provision of an adequate level of detail on technical points.

Adequate coverage of the wildlife-related issues is not provided in Kirloskar’s report. The IEE study does not provide an accurate description of the project road in relation to sensitive habitats or adequate details on key sources of environmental impact, e.g., labour camps which each accommodate 150 people. Secondly, the IEE did not provide adequate coverage of the road construction and operation activities as they impinge on the wildlife ecosystem. The tiger was the only wildlife species mentioned, while the entire prey-complex and general dry-thorn-bamboo forest ecosystem, through which the road passes, was not discussed. The studies were deficient in providing the crucial and exacting details about the proximity of the NGT road to reserve forests, wildlife reserves and sanctuaries. The inaccuracies in the map shown as Figure 6 in the TEF report further compounded the conservation concerns related to the GBM Sanctuary (it showed the road passing along the southern border of the GBM when in fact the two are several kilometers apart). Finally, the Environmental Management Plan, as requested by the World Bank, was not included with the IEE.2

In conclusion, the inaccuracies on the study area map, the missing Environmental Management Plan and the general lack of technical detail and attention to wildlife issues, casts doubt on the credibility of the draft IEE.

2  In early 1998, the newly appointed APRBD environmental officer prepared the draft Environmental Management Plan in early 1998.  It is considered to be marginally acceptable.