Minutes of the 61st Meeting of the Expert Appraisal Committee for ...

ii. Form-I does not mention the details of river/tributary on which the barrage isproposediii. The proposed TOR is not available with Form-I. The standard TOR for irrigationproject may be collected from the Ministry and accordingly the different items forinvestigation/study should be added based on the site specific conditionsiv. For a study of 25,000 ha of command area, a minimum of 15-20 sampling sitesare needed for determination of soil, surface water and groundwater parametersv. There should be at-least 10% of the command area earmarked forcommissioning pressurized irrigation system (sprinkler/drip etc) with suitablecropping pattern which may different than the rest of the command area.Accordingly, there should be 5 parcels of command area @ 500 ha each shouldbe earmarked for introducing pressurized irrigation which is to be commissionedand maintained at the project costvi. The EMP of the project is to contain a section on Command Area Development(CAD) wherein the CAD and the OFD plan should be discussed along with asample plan for an outlet command. The sample plan is to show the watercourse, field channels, field drains and the other relevant features of CAD andOFD activities. A Table should be given to indicate the target date of progress ofthe CAD and the OFD activities, which are to be co-terminus with the projectcompletion time.vii. The plan (if any) of conjunctive use of surface water and groundwater forirrigation and the energy availability situation for pumping groundwater may begiven in the EMP.viii. In form 1 part III (Environmental Sensitivity) the answer to point no. 1 should beyes since the forest land coming under submergence is protected under nationallegislation. Annexure IV referred in point no 2 has not been provided. In pointno. 3 the answer should be „yes‟ since there is a possibility of area being usedby sensitive species of the region since 442 ha of forest land is beingsubmerged/utilised.The committee mentioned that the project proponent is not able to provide/sendminim required documents i.e. Pre-feasibility Report (PFR), detailed hydrological data forthe project and a draft TOR for irrigation project in order to go through documents by themembers to get an clear view, idea and understand the details of the project beforecoming to EAC meeting.The Committee mentioned that the project proponent should resubmit the PFR andForm-I incorporating the above information for further consideration of the project.3. Other items pertaining to extension of the validity of TORThe following projects were taken-up for the extension of the Validity Period for TOR:3.1 Extension of the Validity Period of TORs for Simang-I HEP (67 MW) andSimang-II HEP (66 MW) project in Arunachal Pradesh by M/s. AdishankarPower Pvt. Ltd.The project proponent requested the Ministry for the extension of their Simang-IHEP (67 MW) and Simang-II HEP (66 MW) projects in Arunachal Pradesh on the plea that