IN FORCE 2015-12-15

15वीं विशेषज्ञ समिति की मिनट्स

Document text

Page 1 of 18

MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE EXPERT COMMITTEE FOR DECLARATION OF ECO-SENSITIVE ZONE (ESZ) AROUND WILDLIFE SANCTUARIES/NATIONAL PARKS HELD ON 15th DECEMBER, 2015

A meeting of the Expert Committee for declaration of Eco-Sensitive Zones around wildlife sanctuaries/national Parks was held in the Ministry on 15th December, 2015 under the chairmanship of Shri Hem Pande, Special Secretary. The proposals for finalization of draft Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ) notifications were taken up for discussion during the meeting. The list of participants is annexed. 2. At the outset, the Chairman welcomed the members of the Expert Committee and representatives of Bihar, Telangana, Maharshtra, Rajasthan, Haryana and Punjab. Chairman invited the representatives of various States to make presentation on their proposals.
2.1 Eco-sensitive Zone around Baraila Lake Salim Ali Jubba Sahni WLS, Bihar: Shri S S Chaudhary, APCCF & Chief Wildlife Warden, Department of Forests, Government of Bihar made a presentation. The salient features of the Wild life Sanctuary are as follows: Area: 197.91 ha. Location: Revenue village: Jheel Barailla
Block: Jandaha; District: Vaishalli;
Distance: Dist. Hq. Hajipur: 40 km; From Patna: 60 km
River basin: Baya R., Close to Left Bank of Ganga
Bio-physical nature: Wetland, River Noon drains in the wetland Ecological significance: Important wetland habitat for birds - 58 species of 26 families and 13 orders reported - 31 resident and 17 migratory: 32 wetland dependent water birds; Also– IBA enlisted;
Fish diversity: 50 spp. – 4 Near threatened; Mammals: 8 spp.

SALIENT FEATURES OF ECO-SENSITIVE ZONE Area: 1083.55 ha.
Villages: Jheel Barailla in Jandaha Block: 1080.55 ha and Loma in Patepur Block: 3.0 ha.
Width: Varies from 100 m to 2 km

Page 2 of 18

Nature & Status of ESZ area :Non-forest land with tenancy rights;
Part of Barialla Jheel wetland.
Configuration: Major chunk of wetland enclosing the notified area of sanctuary has been included in the ESZ leaving only small parts of peripheral wetland portions.
The Committee was informed that no objections or suggestions were received on the draft notification declaring Eco-sensitive Zone around Baraila Lake Salim Ali Jubba Sahni WLS in Bihar. It was informed that the extent of ESZ remains the same.
He suggested modification in para 4- listing of activities:
Entry no.11 “Construction activities” should be shifted from Prohibited activity to Regulated Activity with stipulation of Environmental Impact Assessment; Because relatively large area (5 times of the notified sanctuary) has been included in ESZ.
Corrections: In the Zonal Monitoring Committee – 5(d) “Divisional Commissioner, Saran” to be replaced by “Divisional Commissioner, Tirhut” and Divisional Forest Officer, Saran to be replaced by Divisonal Forest Officer, Vaishali.

Committee agreed that the activities proposed to be regulated in the ESZ are as per established practice in similar notifications. It was also decided that the Chairman of Monitoring Committee to be the ‘Concerned Collector’ and Member Secretary of Monitoring Committee to be the ‘Concerned DFO Territorial’. After detailed deliberations, the Expert Committee recommended for finalisation the Draft Notification for Declaring the Eco-Sensitive Zone around the Baraila Lake Salim Ali Jubba Sahni WLS in the state of Bihar with the above amendment.
Chairman suggested that the funds for protection of wetland may be approached from the Ministry under the National Wetland Conservation Programme.

2.2 – 2.3 Eco-sensitive Zone around Eturnagaram Wildlife Sanctuary, and Mrugavani Wildlife Sanctuary in the state of Telangana.

Page 3 of 18

The Committee was informed that one objection/suggestion, each, was received on the draft notifications declaring Eco-sensitive Zones (ESZ) around Eturnagaram Wildlife Sanctuary and Mrugvani National Park, respectively. The same were circulated as part of Agenda papers in the meeting. Shri M Prudhvi Raju, Addl. PCCF, Forest Department, Government of Telangana informed the members of the Committee that the State Government has concurred the ESZ proposal for finalization. He submitted the written response of the State Government. It was informed that ESZ for the two sanctuaries were delineated after due consultation with the District Administration and other line Departments in a meeting convened by the concerned District Collectors. The extent and the biodiversity and wildlife value of the two sanctuaries was also explained. It was informed that the activities proposed to be prohibited/regulated in the ESZ are as per established practice being followed.

It was pointed out that the coordinates of 15 villages falling in the ESZ around Mrugvani Wildlife Sanctuary, Rangareddy District, Telangana need to be rectified as per the letter of the State Government. The Committee noted that the extent of the Eco-sensitive Zone in case of Mrugvani National park was 3 km along the boundary towards Mancherevula Village and 5 km along the boundary in area falling under Government Order dated 8.3.1996 (MS No. 111/Municipal Administrtion and Urban Development Department). In the case of Eturnagaram Wildlife Sanctuary, the Committee noted that the extent of ESZ varies from 1 km towards the east of the sanctuary along River Godavari to 10 km along the southern, western and northern side of the sanctuary and the ESZ is spread over an area of 892.18 sq. km.

In response to the objections/suggestion received with respect to the regulated and prohibited activities in the ESZ, the State Government stated these were more in nature of recommendations for strict protection and management and their implementation depends on feasibility on the ground level. The Committee observed that the objection/suggestion could be adequately addressed within the provisions of the draft notification and the existing rules and regulations.

Page 4 of 18

After detailed deliberations, the Expert Committee recommended the Draft Notification for Declaration of Eco-Sensitive Zone around the Mrugvani National Park and Eturnagaram Wildlife Sanctuary in the state of Telangana for finalization subject to the change of coordinates suggested by the State Government in case of Mrugvani National Park.

2.4 – 2.8 Eco-sensitive Zones around Tadoba Andhari Tiger Reserve, Melghat Tiger Reserve, Karnala Wildlife Sanctuary, Gautala Autramghat Wildlife Sanctuary, Painganga Wildlife Sanctuary in the state of Maharashtra

The PCCF (WL), Forest Department, Maharashtra along with the concerned Chief Conservator of Forests and DFOs attended the meeting.

2.4
Tadoba Andhari Tiger Reserve

The Committee was informed that three objections and suggestions were received on the draft notification declaring eco-sensitive zone of Tadoba Tiger Reserve in Maharashtra. The same were circulated as part of Agenda papers to the Committee members. The Field Director, Tadoba Tiger Reserve, gave a detailed presentation inter alia covering the following (i) physical boundary and map of ESZ, (ii) land use categories in the ESZ, (iii) Existing Legal Rights, Privileges & Obligations to Local Community, (iv) Biodiversity Value, (v) Inventory of Activities to be prohibited, regulated and permitted, (vi) item-wise response to objections and suggestions on the draft notification. The Committee noted that the extent of the ESZ is 1346.61 square kilometer and that it included the complete buffer zone of the Tiger Reserve. The extent of ESZ varied from 3 km to 16 km.

While deliberating on the activities proposed to be regulated/prohibited in the ESZ, the State Government representative mentioned that complete prohibition on the establishment of new hotels and resorts within one kilometer from the boundary of the PA except for temporary accommodation of people for eco-tourism activities is not advisable. The PCCF (WL) explained that the Government of Maharashtra has recently brought out Guidelines regarding establishing Community Nature

Page 5 of 18

Conservancy in order to boost eco-tourism in areas around PAs on private farm land on voluntary basis. The PCCF (WL) stated that the Guidelines provide adequate measures for protection of environment and minimizing any adverse impact on wildlife movement. The PCCF (WL) stressed that it is considered view of the State Government that the establishment of hotels and resorts within one kilometer of the PA boundary shall be regulated as per the Community Nature Conservancy guidelines of the State Government of Maharashtra. Hence, the establishment of new hotels and resorts should be allowed within one kilometer from the boundary of the PA in a regulated manner as per the Guidelines of the State Government.

It was informed to the Committee that the establishment of hotels and resorts were prohibited within one kilometer of the boundary of the Protected Area in order to maintain integrity of the Eco-sensitive Zone in the immediate vicinity of the PA. It was stated that in order to provide opportunities for eco-tourism near the PA, temporary accommodations for tourists made from wood, cloth etc. have been allowed. As such the livelihood of the local people shall not be severely impacted. It was also explained that beyond the distance of one kilometer from the boundary of the PA up to the extent of ESZ establishment of hotels and resorts is allowed as per Zonal master plan in predefined designated area. The main thrust is on regulating the establishment of hotels and resorts so as to allow for planned development of the area rather than prohibition of hotels and resorts. Such an approach has been adopted to control un-planned sprawl of hotels and resorts in the immediate vicinity of the PA boundary. The establishment of new hotels and resorts could be taken up beyond 1 km as per the zonal master plan for the ESZ and the guidelines of NTCA. The State Government representative informed that application of NTCA guidelines has not been uniform across different Tiger Reserves in the country.

The Committee noted that the TATR is an important Tiger reserve with a large thriving population of tigers. There are many instances of tigers moving beyond the boundary of the Reserve. Thus, hotels and resorts could be established beyond 1 km as per Tourism Master Plan and Guidelines of the State Government and NTCA. The number of hotels and resorts to be established should be judiciously examined and planned, keeping in view, the associated disturbances and impacts that they

Page 6 of 18

may have on the Tigers. Within the Reserve within one km of the boundary of TATR no new commercial hotels and resorts shall be permitted except for accommodation for temporary occupation of tourists related to eco-friendly tourism activities.

The Committee deliberated upon the objections and suggestions received on the draft notification from the Stakeholders in detail. The State Government supported the inclusion of representative of Industry Department/MIDC in the Monitoring Committee. This was agreed to by the Expert Committee. One of the comments had stated that no restrictions can be imposed on private land till land is acquired and that relocation should be done only after prior informed consent. It was clarified that the declaration of ESZ does not involve any relocation of people. The concept of the ESZ is living in harmony with nature. It was also informed that the ESZ notifications are brought out by the Ministry under Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and Rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986, which provide the power to the Central government for regulating industrial processes and operations in the identified areas. As such, the statement that restrictions can be imposed for protection of environment can only be imposed after acquisition of land is factually not correct. Further, the Ministry had also issued guidelines for declaration of ESZ around Protected Areas.

The Committee noted that the generic comments received with respect to the regulated and prohibited activities also for other notifications being considered in the meeting could be adequately addressed within the provisions of the draft notification and the existing rules and regulations.

The Committee recommended the finalization of the draft notification declaring Eco- sensitive Zone of the Tadoba Andhari Tiger Reserve subject to the conditions mentioned above.

2.5
Melghat Tiger Reserve

The Committee was informed that 12 objections and suggestions were received on the draft notification declaring eco-sensitive zone of Melghat Tiger Reserve in

Page 7 of 18

Maharashtra. The same were circulated as part of Agenda papers to the Committee members and were also sent to the State Government for obtaining their views/response. The Field Director, Melghat Tiger Reserve, gave a detailed presentation inter alia covering the following (i) physical boundary and map of ESZ, (ii) land use categories in the ESZ, (iii) Existing Legal Rights, Privileges & Obligations to Local Community, (iv) Biodiversity Value, (v) Inventory of Activities to be prohibited, regulated and permitted, (vi) item-wise response to objections and suggestions on the draft notification. The Committee noted that the extent of ESZ is around 1268 square kilometers while the area of Critical Tiger habitat is 1500 square kilometers. The ESZ includes the complete buffer area of the Tiger Reserve.

The Committee deliberated upon the objections and suggestions received on the draft notification in detail. While responding to the objections and suggestions received from individual quarry owners, it was informed by the State Government representative that on-going quarrying activity may be allowed in the ESZ in a regulated manner so as to have minimum impact on wildlife. It was mentioned that as a matter of safeguard the existing mines will not be allowed to expand the area of operation or increase their production capacity. It was also stated that on expiry of their lease the same may not be extended. The State Government highlighted the fact that while including private areas under the Buffer zone of Tiger Reserves in Vidharbha region the local people were assured that their livelihoods will be maintained. The State Government proposed that commercial mining shall be prohibited in the ESZ while existing stone quarrying and crushing units be made regulatory activity as per EPA without harming wildlife conservation and with additional safeguards as mentioned before.

It was enquired from the State Government representative that as the area falls in the buffer zone of Melghat Tiger Reserve whether quarrying is a permissible/regulated activity in the said buffer zone notification and concurrence given by NTCA.

The Committee observed that as the Eco-sensitive Zone includes Buffer Zone of the Melghat Tiger Reserve it is important to align the regulatory and prohibitory activities

Page 8 of 18

as per the approved Tiger Conservation plan/Buffer Zone plan of the NTCA. As a general principle quarrying and stone crushing activities are prohibited in the ESZ.
Also, it was informed to the State Government representative that as per the interim order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 04.08.2006 in the matter of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs. UOI in W.P.(C) No.202 of 1995 and order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 21.04.2014 in the matter of Goa Foundation Vs. UOI in W.P.(C) No.435 of 2012 mining cannot be carried out within one kilometre from the boundary of the National park and Wildlife Sanctuaries.

The Committee recommended the finalization of the draft notification declaring Eco- sensitive Zone of the Melghat Tiger Reserve.

2.6
Karnala Wildlife Sanctuary

The Committee was informed that a total of 9 objections and suggestions were received on the draft notification. The objections and suggestions received by the Ministry were sent to the State Government for their views/response on the same. The same were circulated as part of Agenda papers to the Committee members. The CCF (T) and Dy. CF, Alibag, Forest Department, Government of Maharashtra gave a detailed presentation inter alia covering the following (i) physical boundary and map of ESZ, (ii) land use categories in the ESZ, (iii) Existing Legal Rights, Privileges & Obligations to Local Community, (iv) Biodiversity Value, (v) Inventory of Activities to be prohibited, regulated and permitted, (vi) item-wise response to objections and suggestions on the draft notification. The Committee noted that the area of the ESZ is 31.66 sq. km. while that of the Protected Area is 12.1 sq.km. The extent of ESZ is up to 8 km.

The major objections and suggestions received on the draft notification inter alia relate to the following (i) increase the extent of ESZ 10-15 km, (ii) clarification with respect to inclusion of private non-forest property bearing survey no. 74 & 75, Village Sangurli, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad, (iii) inclusion of SPA-NAINA as member of the Monitoring Committee, (iv) the extent of ESZ should be decreased, (v) the survey number wise boundary description of ESZ is inadequate and not precise and the

Page 9 of 18

latitude and longitude coordinates given are of general nature, and (vi) the additional Patalganga Industrial Area has been intentionally excluded. The State Government provided the point wise responses to the objections/suggestions.

While responding to the objections and suggestions received on the draft notification declaring Eco-sensitive Zone around Karnala Bird Sanctuary, the State Government informed that most of the forest areas around the Karnala Bird Sanctuary have been included in the Eco-sensitive Zone. It was also stated that only 176.15 ha of private area was included in the ESZ. The representative of State Government also informed that the local people had strongly objected to declaration of the ESZ as there are 4 Protected Areas in Raigad District. All areas which could be included in the ESZ have been included. Therefore the extent of ESZ proposed in the draft notification is justifiable.

Regarding the objection raised by Associate Infratech (I) Pvt. Ltd. with reference to Survey No. 74 and 75, it was mentioned that both the survey numbers were private lands and not forest areas and that the same were wrongly included in the ESZ by the State Government presuming it was forest land. The State Government recommended that the land parcel could be excluded from the ESZ. However the Committee did not agree with the same. The Committee was of the view that the concept of ESZ did not mean that only forest land will be declared as ESZ.

Based upon the objections received the State Government had provided rectified Survey numbers which along the boundary of the ESZ. The State Government also recommended the inclusion of the representative SPA-NAINA and representative of industry Department / MIDC as member of Monitoring Committee.

The Committee deliberated upon the objections and suggestions received on the draft notification in detail. The Committee recommended finalization of the draft notification subject to the following:

Page 10 of 18

(a)
The standard provision with respect to Commercial Mining, stone quarrying and crushing, wherein, new and existing mines are prohibited in the ESZ and Establishment of hotels and resorts shall be prohibited within one kilometer of the Protected Areas except for temporary accommodation of tourist for eco-tourism facilities shall be included in the draft notification.
(b)
Representatives of SPA-NAINA and Industry Department/MIDC may be included as member of Monitoring Committee.
(c)
Survey no. 74 & 75, Village Sangurli, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad will not be excluded from the ESZ.
(d)
The rectified Survey numbers will be used for boundary description of ESZ. Accordingly, the revised map of the ESZ may be used.

2.7
Gautala Autramghat Wildlife Sanctuary

The Committee was informed that no objections or suggestions were received on the draft notifications. Shri Ashok P.Girhepuje, Dy. Conservator of Forests, Aurangabad Forest Division gave a detailed presentation inter alia covering the following (i) physical boundary and map of ESZ, (ii) land use categories in the ESZ, (iii) Existing Legal Rights, Privileges & Obligations to Local Community, (iv) Biodiversity Value, (v) Inventory of Activities to be prohibited, regulated and permitted, (vi) item-wise response to objections and suggestions on the draft notification. The Committee noted that the area of the ESZ is 483.45 sq. km. while that of the Protected Area is 260.61 sq.km. The extent of ESZ is up to 1 km. It was informed by the representative of the State Government that one village was inadvertently excluded in the draft notification and the same may be included while finalizing the draft notification.
The State Government proposed the same regulations with respect to quarrying and stone crushing activity and establishment of new hotels and resorts as mentioned for Melghat Tiger Reserve and Tadoba Tiger Reserve for the present case also. After detailed deliberations the Committee recommended the finalization of the draft notification subject to inclusion of the village left out in the draft notification.

2.8
Painganga Wildlife Sanctuary

Page 11 of 18

The Committee was informed that one objection/suggestion, has been received on the the draft notification. The objections and suggestions received by the Ministry were sent to the State Government for their views/response on the same. The same were circulated as part of Agenda papers to the Committee members. Shri Kamlakar Dhange, Dy. Conservator of Forests, Pusad Forests division gave a detailed presentation inter alia covering the following (i) physical boundary and map of ESZ, (ii) land use categories in the ESZ, (iii) Existing Legal Rights, Privileges & Obligations to Local Community, (iv) Biodiversity Value, (v) Inventory of Activities to be prohibited, regulated and permitted, (vi) item-wise response to objections and suggestions on the draft notification. The Committee noted that the area of the ESZ is 31.66 sq. km. while that of the Protected Area is 12.1 sq.km. The extent of ESZ is up to 8 km. The Committee noted that the generic comments received with respect to the regulated and prohibited activities also for other notifications being considered in the meeting could be adequately addressed within the provisions of the draft notification and the existing rules and regulations.

After detailed deliberations the Committee recommended the finalization of the draft notification.

2.9 – 2.10 Eco-sensitive Zone around Bandh Baretha Wildlife Sanctuary and Phulwari Ki Naal Wildlife Sanctuary in the state of Rajasthan

The Committee was informed that one objection or suggestion each was received on the draft notifications declaring Eco-sensitive Zones around Bandh Baretha Wildlife Sanctuary and Phulwari Ki Naal Wildlife Sanctuary respectively. The same were circulated as part of agenda papers in the meeting. Shri V.S Bohara, CCF (WL), Forest Department, Rajasthan informed the Committee that the Government of Rajasthan concurs the proposals for finalization of the draft notifications declaring eco-sensitive zones around Bandh Baretha Wildlife Sanctuary and Phulwari Ki Naal Wildlife Sanctuary.
The Committee noted that the extent of ESZ around Bandh Baretha Wildlife Sanctuary is up to 1 km from the outer boundary of the Sanctuary and that as per the

Page 12 of 18

draft notification the ESZ extends into the State of Uttar Pradesh. The Committee also noted that the activities proposed to be regulated/prohibited are as per standard practice adopted for ESZ notifications. The Committee enquired from the representative of the State Government as to whether consultation was held with Government of Uttar Pradesh prior to proposing ESZ in that state. It was informed by CCF (WL) that a uniform extent of ESZ all around the Sanctuary including in the state of UP was proposed by the Rajasthan State Government. The Committee informed the representative of the Rajasthan State Government that as per the guidelines for declaration of ESZ in case where inter-sate boundary is involved in the ESZ prior consultation between the neighboring states is required before proposing inter-state ESZ. Accordingly, in the instant case the ESZ around Bandh Baretha Wildlife Sanctuary the ESZ should be restricted to the areas falling in the state of Rajasthan only. With reference to the area falling in the state of UP, a separate proposal needs to be sent by the State Government of UP. As mentioned earlier, the Committee noted that the comments with respect to the regulated and prohibited activities could be adequately addressed within the provisions of the draft notification and the existing rules and regulations. The Committee recommended the finalization of the draft notification declaring ESZ around Bandh Baretha Wildlife Sanctuary in the state of Rajasthan only.

The Committee noted that the extent of ESZ around Phulwari Ki Naal Wildlife Sanctuary is up to 7.5 km from the outer boundary of the Sanctuary and that as per the draft notification the ESZ extends into the State of Gujarat. The Committee also noted that the activities proposed to be regulated/prohibited are as per standard practice adopted for ESZ notifications. As in the case ESZ around Bandh Baretha Wildlife Sanctuary, it was informed by the representative of State Government that Government of Gujarat was not consulted before proposing ESZ in the state of Gujarat. Accordingly, the Committee recommended the finalization of the draft notification declaring ESZ around Phulwari Ki Naal Wildlife Sanctuary in the state of Rajasthan only, excluding the ESZ area falling in the state of Gujarat. A separate proposal needs to be submitted by the Government of Gujarat for the area of ESZ falling in their jurisdiction.

Page 13 of 18

2.11 Eco-sensitive Zone around Khol Hi Raitan WLS, Haryana PCCF & CWLW, Government of Haryana briefed the proposal. The salient features of the Wild life Sanctuary are as follows:  Total area: 4883 Ha  Proposed ESZ: Extent- 925 Mts. Area- 1320 Ha.

It was informed that the comments received from Ms. Alka Sarin, were communicated to the Department of Forests, Govt. of Haryana for their views. The comments were discussed during the meeting. After detailed deliberations, the Expert Committee recommended for finalization the Draft Notification declaring Eco- Sensitive Zone around the Khol Hi Ratan WLS in the state of Haryana.

2.12 Eco-sensitive Zone around Bhindawas WLS, Haryana PCCF & CWLW, Government of Haryana briefed the proposal. The salient features of the Wild life Sanctuary are as follows:  Total area: 412 Ha  Proposed ESZ: Extent-100 Mts. Area- 119 Ha.

Comments received from Conservation Action Trust, Mumbai, Maharashtra were discussed during the meeting. After detailed deliberations, the Expert Committee recommended for finalization of the Draft Notification declaring Eco- Sensitive Zone around the Bhindawas WLS in the state of Haryana.

2.13 Eco-sensitive Zone around Khaparwas WLS, Haryana PCCF & CWLW, Government of Haryana briefed the proposal. The salient features of the Wild life Sanctuary are as follows:  Total area: 83 Ha  Proposed ESZ: Extent- 100 Mts. Area- 38 Ha.

Page 14 of 18

No comments were received from stake holders/public. After detailed discussions, the Expert Committee recommended for finalization of the Draft Notification
declaring Eco-Sensitive Zone around the Khaparwas WLS in the state of Haryana.

The Haryana officials requested the deferment of the proposal for finalization of ESZ for Shikargadh. Chairman accepted the request.

2.14 Eco-sensitive Zone around Kathlaur Kushalia WLS, Punjab Shri Dhirendra Singh, APCCF(WL) & CWLW, Govt. of Punjab made a brief presentation on the proposal for declaration of Eco-Sensitive Zone around Kathlaur Kushalia WLS. The salient features of the Wild life Sanctuary are as follows:  Notified in 2003 under Section 26A of the Wildlife(Protection) Act, 1972.  Total area: 758.40 Ha.  Location: Gurdaspur District on Left Bak of Ravi River.  Proposed ESZ: Extent-100 Mts. Area -193 Ha.

Comments received from Conservation Action Trust, Mumbai, were discussed during the meeting. After detailed discussions, the Expert Committee recommended for finalization of the Draft Notification declaring Eco-Sensitive Zone around the Kathlaur Kushalia WLS, in the state of Punjab.

2.15 Eco-sensitive Zone around Abohar WLS, Punjab APCCF(WL) & CWLW, Govt. of Punjab made a brief presentation on the proposal for declaration of Eco-Sensitive Zone around Abohar WLS. The salient features of the Wild life Sanctuary are as follows:  Notified in 2000 under Section 26A of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.  Total area: 186.5 Sq. Km. 13villages.  Location: Abohar Sub-division, District Fazilka(District Ferozepur reorganized in two districts Ferozepur reorganized in two districts Ferozepur and Fazilka. Now this area is in district Fazilka)  Proposed ESZ: Extent- 100 Mts. Area- 852.82 Ha.

Page 15 of 18

Comments received from Conservation Action Trust, Mumbai, were discussed during the meeting. After detailed discussion, the Expert Committee recommended
finalization of the Draft Notification declaring Eco-Sensitive Zone around the Abohar WLS, in the state of Punjab.

2.16 Eco-sensitive Zone around Bir Dosanjh WLS, Punjab

APCCF(WL) & CWLW, Govt. of Punjab made a brief presentation on the proposal for declaration of Eco-Sensitive Zones around Bir Dosanjh WLS. The salient features of the Wild life Sanctuary are as follows:  Notified in 1952 under Fauna of Patiala Act.  Total area: 518 Ha.  Location: Near Nabha, Patiala District.  Proposed ESZ: Extent-100 Mts. Area- 170 Ha.

(Agriculture 10 ha)

Comments received from Conservation Action Trust, Mumbai, were discussed during the meeting. After detailed discussion, the Expert Committee recommended
finalization of the Draft Notification declaring Eco-Sensitive Zone around the Bir Dosanjh WLS, in the state of Punjab.

2.17 Eco-sensitive Zone around Bir Mehas, Punjab APCCF(WL) & CWLW, Govt. of Punjab made a brief presentation on the proposal declaring Eco-Sensitive Zones around Bir Mehas WLS. The salient features of the Wild life Sanctuary are as follows:  Notified in 1952 under Fauna of Patiala Act.  Total area: 123.43 Ha.  Location: Near Nabha, Patiala District.  Proposed ESZ: Extent-100 Mts. Area- 48 Ha.

Page 16 of 18

Comments received from Conservation Action Trust, Mumbai, were discussed during the meeting. After detailed discussion, the Expert Committee recommended finalization of the Draft Notification declaring Eco-Sensitive Zone around the Bir Mehas WLS, in the state of Punjab.

2.18 Eco-sensitive Zone around Bir Bhunehri WLS, Punjab Shri Dhirendra Singh, APCCF(WL) & CWLW, Govt. of Punjab made a brief presentation on the proposals for declaration of Eco-Sensitive Zones around Bir Bhunehri WLS. The salient features of the Wild life Sanctuary are as follows:  Notified in 1952 under Fauna of Patiala Act.  Total area: 661.66 Ha.  Location: Patiala District.  Proposed ESZ: 100 Mts. 307.40 Ha. (Agriculture 292 Ha.)

No comments were received from stake holders/public. After detailed discussions, the Expert Committee recommended for finalization of the Draft Notification for declaration of Eco-Sensitive Zone around the Bir Bhunehri WLS in the state of Punjab.

     The meeting ended with vote of thanks to the Chair.

Page 17 of 18

List of Participants Members of Expert Committee

  1. Shri Hem Pande, Special Secretary, -Chairman
  2. Dr. T. Chandini, Adviser, MoEF&CC.
  3. Dr. SPS Kushwaha, Indian Institute of Remote Sensing, ISRO, Dehradun- Member
  4. Shri Sanjay Kumar Agarwal, Assistant Director, Forest Survey of India, Dehradun- Member
  5. Shri P.K.Duria, Town & Country Planner, TCPO, Ministry of Urban Development, GOI- Member;
  6. MS. Abha Agarwal, AP, TCPO, Ministry of Urban Development, GOI-Member;
  7. Dr. S.A. Hussain, Scientist G, WII Dehradun.
  8. Shri Paramjit Singh, Director, Botanical Survey of India-Member;
  9. Shri VRS Rawat, ICFRE, Dehradun;
  10. Shri Kireet Kumar, GB Pant Institute of Himalayan Env & Dev, Kosi, Almora- Member
  11. Shri Lalit Kapur, Director, MoEF&CC -Member Secretary;

Officials of State Government of Maharashtra, Punjab, Telangana, Bihar , Rajasthan and Haryana

  1. Shri Bhagwan, PCCF,WL/CWLW, Govt. of Maharashtra;
  2. Shri Kaushlesh Pratap Singh, CCF (T), Thane Circle, Thane, Govt. of Maharashtra;
  3. Shri G .P. Garad, CCF & FD, Chandrapur, Govt. of Maharashtra;
  4. Shri Ashok P.Girhepuje, Dy. Conservator of Forests, Aurangabad Forest Division, Aurangabad, Govt. of Maharashtra;
  5. Shri R.K.Wankhade, Dy. Conservator of Forests, Melghat Tiger Reserve, Govt. of Maharashtra;
  6. Shri Kamlakar Dhange, Dy. Conservator of Forests, Pusad Forests division, Govt. of Maharashtra;
  7. Shri NB Gudge, DCF, Alibag, Govt. of Maharashtra;

Page 18 of 18

  1. Shri Anurag Chaudhary, APCCF, WL, Nashik, Govt. of Bihar;
  2. Shri M . Prudhvi Raju, IFS, APCCF, Forest Department, Govt. of Telangana;
  3. Shri S S Chaudhary, APCCF & Chief Wildlife Warden, Govt. of Bihar;
  4. Shri Dhirendra Singh, CWLW, Govt. of Punjab;
  5. Shri V S Bohra, CCF (WL), Jaipur, Govt. of Rajasthan;
  6. Ms. Amarinder Kaur, PCCF cum CWLW, Govt. of Haryana;
  7. Shri K C Meena, IFS, CF, WL, Govt. of Haryana.

Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF & CC), GOI

  1. Shri S P Vashishth, DIG(WL), MoEF & CC;
  2. Shri Pankaj Verma, Scientist ‘D’, MoEF&CC;
  3. Dr. Amit Love, Scientist ’D’, MOEF&CC;

Verbatim extracted text (OCR/PDF). Older scans and tables may show extraction artifacts — verify against the original for anything you act on.

Analysis

No analysis has been generated for this document yet.

Citation copied