Evaluation Report 2008-09

KARNATAKA FOREST DEPARTMENT
INTERNAL EVALUATION REPORT, 2008-09
Evaluation of
Plan and Non-Plan works implemented during
2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07
Issued by:
Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests
(Evaluation, Working Plans, Research & Training),
Aranya Bhavan, Bangalore-560003.
FOREWORD AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The document contains the result of in-house evaluation carried out during 2007-08 and
2008-09 pertaining to works implemented under Plan and Non-Plan schemes in the year 2004-
05, 2005-06 and 2006-07 in different Divisions and Circles of Karnataka Forest Department.
Projects having their own evaluation mechanism like KSFMBC, FDA and several centrally
sponsored schemes are also included for internal evaluation. The recommendations of earlier
evaluation reports are made available to all the Deputy Conservators of Forests and Conservators
of Forests in the state of Karnataka for their guidance. Likewise, recommendations of this
evaluation report are also being forwarded to all Deputy Conservators of Forests and
Conservators of Forests, so that they are equipped with better planning and implementation of
different projects. As evaluation report of Bellary Circle, Mysore Circle and FDPT, Mysore
remained pending for a long time with Sri K.S. Saibaba, Chief Conservator of Forests
(Personnel), the team leader for all the three units, the publication of final report was delayed.
However, during the meeting conducted by Principal Chief Conservator of Forests on 03-04-
2009 in the afternoon session the essential points observed during evaluation is communicated to
all Deputy Conservators of Forests, Conservators of Forests, Chief Conservators of Forests and
Additional Principal Chief Conservators of Forests, and the same is reflected in the proceeding
issued vide No: APCCF(EWPRT)/MePr/CR-1/2009-10 dated: 16th April 2009.
The evaluation was carried out by forming five-member team, each headed by a Chief
Conservator of Forests and assisted by two Conservators of Forests and two Deputy
Conservators of Forests. Deputy Conservators of Forests of respective Social Forestry, Wildlife
and Territorial divisions furnished the list of works implemented in their Divisions during 2004-
05, 2005-06 and 2006-07. Works of 51 Territorial and Wildlife Divisions and 29 Social Forestry
Divisions are evaluated. 31 Schemes, which were implemented are evaluated for the three years
under evaluation. A team of officers comprising of Additional Principal Chief Conservator of
Forests, (Evaluation, Working Plan, Research And Training), Chief Conservator of Forests,
(Working Plan) Chief Conservator of Forests, (Evaluation) has randomly selected 10% of
plantation works implemented in each division, and forwarded it to respective team leaders for
laying of sample plots with 2% intensity. Team leaders were authorized, to randomly select, the
sample in respect of distribution of seedlings, logging works, civil works etc. The lists of NAP-
FDA plantations were received from some of Deputy Conservators of Forests belatedly. During
KTP review meeting at Aranya Bhavan on 02-01-2008 and 03-01-2008 it was resolved to
randomly select 25% of NAP-FDA plantations for evaluation. Accordingly Team leaders were
also authorized to randomly select balance 15% samples from NAP-FDA plantations, where
10% is already selected and 25%, in case of lists received belatedly.
It was earlier thought that jurisdictional Working Plan Range Forest Officers would be
entrusted with the work of laying of sample plots with 2% sampling intensity and record the
inventory. As these Range Forest Officers were busy in survey and Working Plan works, it was
decided to use the services of jurisdictional Range Forest Officers for laying of sample plots for
recording the inventory. The inventory work was started immediately. Subsequently, teams for
evaluation of works in a Circle splitted themselves and took up the field visits from February-
2008. Because of rush of work, the evaluation work was suspended in March-2008 and restarted
in April-2008. The evaluation reports pertaining to the field work in a number of Circles were
concluded and reports were received by December-2008. However, the evaluation report
pertaining to Mysore Circle was received on 22-05-2009, the report for the Bellary Circle was
received on 27-5-2009 and evaluation report for the Field Director Project Tiger unit was
received on 01-06-2009. This has delayed the State-wise compilation and publication of this
report.
It is expected that implementing officers would take care of the recommendations of this
report in future. We are happy to place on record the guidance given by the Principal Chief
Conservator of Forests and the services rendered by each and every official and officers of
Karnataka Forest Department, who have contributed and helped in bringing out this report. But
for their active co-operation, it would not have been possible to bring out this report. We once
again thank them for the efforts put in by them.
Sd/-
(B.K. Singh)
Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests,
(Evaluation, Working Plan, Research & Training),
Bangalore.
Sd/-
(S. Shivaprakash)
Chief Conservator of Forests,
Evaluation, Bangalore.
Bangalore
June 1, 2009
CONTENTS
Page
1. Internal Evaluation Report, 2008-09…………………………………….1
2. Appendix – 1 : Guidelines on Methodology……………………………6
3. Appendix – 2 : Evaluation Teams …………………………………….10
4. Appendix – 3 : Evaluation Formats…………………………………...15
5. Appendix – 4 : Expenditure Statement………………………………..28
6. Appendix – 5: Executive Summaries of Circles…………………...….29
7. Appendix – 6: Survival Percentage of Plantations…………………....67
8. Detailed Circle Reports
8.1 Annexure I : Bangalore………………..……..….91

8.2 Annexure II : Belgaum………………………….127
8.3 Annexure III : Bellary…………...………………184
8.4 Annexure IV : Chamarajanagar………….………201
8.5 Annexure V : Chikmagalur……………..………223
8.6 Annexure VI : Dharwad………………….………247
8.7 Annexure VII : Gulbarga…………………………287
8.8 Annexure VIII : Hassan……………………………331
8.9 Annexure IX : Kanara……………………………364
8.10 Annexure X : Kodagu…………………………...421
8.11 Annexure XI : Mangalore…………………..……443
8.12 Annexure XII : Mysore…………...………………474
8.13 Annexure XIII : Shimoga…………………...……..494
8.14 Annexure XIV : FDPT, Mysore…………………...518
INTERNAL EVALUATION REPORT, 2008-09
B.K. Singh,
APCCF, (EWPRT)
(Evaluation of Plan and Non-Plan works implemented

in 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07)
SALIENT FEATURES
The reports received from all the fourteen units of evaluation teams (one each from
thirteen circles and the fourteenth from Field Director, Project Tiger, Mysore) are analyzed.
The Circle-wise and Division-wise summary is provided in a separate chapter of this report.
The following are the salient features culled out from all the fourteen reports.
1. Survival and performance:
Overall, the survival rate in the plantations raised under different schemes are found
to be 65%, which is quite encouraging. It is observed that Acacia aurifuliformis, Eucalyptus,
Casuarina and teak have performed well in malnad, semi-malanad and coastal belt of the
state. Some block plantations of Neem, Cassia siamia, Pongemia, Glericidia and Melia
composita and Neem plantations along the roadside in drier tracts are also found to be
performing equally well. However, a large number of miscellaneous species such as
Bamboo, Artocarpus integrifolia(Halasu), Artocarpus hirsuta(hebbalasu), Pterocarpus
marsupium(Honne), Mahogany, Eugenia(Nerle), Holoptelia(Tapsi), Annona
sqamosa(Seetaphal) etc., have not registered equally good survival. As these miscellaneous
species are mixed with species such as Acacia auriculiformis, Eucalyptus, teak etc., in
comparatively lesser proportion, the overall survival percent of the plantation has marginally
reduced. Miscellaneous species planted with Acacia are often found to be over-topped by
Acacia plants. Performance of plantations and general health of plants is found to be severely
affected in the elephant infested areas of Chamarajanagar, Kollegal and Cavery Wildlife
Divisions. Existing root stock in these divisions are promising, hence there is no need to
raise plantations. The overall success of plantations is not so badly affected, as
miscellaneous species are planted in smaller proportions. It is further found in the evaluation
that plantations are not successful in Bijapur division, some of the Wildlife divisions such as
Cauvery Wildlife, Kudremukh Wildlife etc., and some Social Forestry Divisions such as
Bijapur, Chamrajnagar, Karwar, Dharwad, Haveri, Gadag, Bidar, Raichur, Bagalkote, Koppal
and Bellary. Eucalyptus is generally found to be suffering from Gall disease, which has
affected the growth of the species. The main reasons for the poor survival in Wildlife
Divisions is inadequate protection, resulting in damage by cattle and wild animals. Due to
the presence of heavy root stock of native species in plantation areas, plantations in
pits/trenches have failed to grow vigorously. The evaluation has also found that the main
reason for failure of plantations in Social Forestry Divisions, is the delay in release of funds,
which has caused delay in seasonal operations. Planting of Acacia auriculiformis under
shade in gaps, has also contributed to the failure of plantations, as observed in evaluation in
some of the divisions such as Karwar territorial etc.
1,15,281.56 Ha. of plantations raised in all the schemes in various divisions during
2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07 are covered in this evaluation. Division-wise and scheme-
wise, survival of plantations is brought out in a separate statement of this report. Extending
the sampling data relating to survival percent, the overall survival under all the schmes
1
implemented in the state is found to be 65.06%. In 39643.45 Ha. of plantations raised during
this period under NAP(FDA), 62.10% survival is registered. 22,739.43ha is raised under
KSFMBC, where survival is 64.42%. The survival under NREGS and SGRY is found to be
58.5% and 52.79% respectively. 5943.43ha of plantation is raised under 12th Finance, where
overall survival is found to be 79.62%. Similarly 3758.25 ha raised under “Development of
Degraded Forests” has registered 85.07% survival. Among the overall survival percent in the
division under all the schemes implemented during the period, Cauvery Wildlife division has
registered the lowest survival percent of 6.32%, followed by Bellary Social Forestry division
having 11.75% survival. Survival percent in many Social Forestry divisions are found to be
below 50%. There are some exceptions also. Chickmaglur Social Forestry division has
registerd 98% survival and Udupi Social Forestry division has registered 88.21% survival.
Considering the Circle-wise overall survival percent under all schemes implemented, it is
found that Hassan, Kodagu, Mangalore and Shimoga Circles have registered more than 70%
survival.
2. Miscellaneous species:
More intensive care is necessary to succeed in plantations of bamboo and other
miscellaneous species. Maintenance is provided only for three years in most of the schemes.
In semi-malnad and malnad areas, weeds cover the miscellaneous species planted and the
plantations are suppressed. Sowing of seeds are generally found to be unsuccessful. Thus,
the model 1 plantations under KSFMBC project have failed, except in Madikeri and Virajpet
divisions, where natural growth got a boost due to protection. It is observed in the evaluation
of FDA plantations in Virajpet division, that the sample plots could not be laid to know the
survival percent and growth. It is heartening to note good success of bamboo plantation in
Madikeri Wildlife Division; however success of bamboo plantations in Shimoga, Koppa and
Kollegal Divisions is discouraging. The failure in Kollegal division is on account of poor
selection of site and poor quality planting stock, while that in Shimoga division is an account
of poor maintenance. Cane plantations have also failed in Koppa Ddivision. Miscellaneous
species are found to have performed well in the Divisions which have provided adequate
protection and proper spacing in block plantations.
3. Protection:
The evaluation report of several Circles have revealed that the main reason for the
failure of miscellaneous species is inadequate protection. Further, protection of highly priced
land in and around Bangalore with barbed wire fencing, CPTs, Chain link mess, vegetative
fencing etc., are again found to ineffective. Encroachments in such lands are to be evicted
and compound wall to be provided for protection. It has been found in all the NAP(FDA)
plantations, fencing/cattle-proof trenching is not provided, and as a result, survival percent in
NAP(FDA) plantations is lower compared to the plantations(with provision for protection)
raised under the other Budget Heads. It has been found in the evaluation of Honnavar
Division that Cane plantation at Kurtwani is damaged by porcupines, plantations at Manki is
illicitly felled and another plantation at Beranki has failed owing to inadequate protection.
Similar observations are recorded in the evaluation of several other Divisions. It is therefore,
necessary to provide estate-like protection if successful miscellaneous plantations are to be
raised. Cattle-proof trenches around number of plantations were found to be discontinuous at
places defeating the objective of protection. Though similar recommendation in the earlier
Evaluation report in respect of Plan and Non-plan schemes implemented during 2002-03 and
2003-04, was very much in place, yet the same has not been followed. FDA schemes -
restricting the cost norms and not providing budget for adequate protection measures- should
not be implemented by KFD. In some cases like Kolar and Chickballapur territorial
Divisions, the failed areas of older plantations, have again been used for raising plantations
2
without the approval of Competent Authority, which should be avoided in future. We must
analyse the reasons for failure before we take up the area for reboisecement. It is reported in
the evaluation report of Mysore Circle that failed areas taken up for replanting have again
failed.
4. FDA Schemes:
FDA schemes are drawn with JFPM in focus. The funds are provided for entry point
activities, in addition to raising of plantations. Adequate protection measures are not
provided in the cost norms. Similarly money is not provided for maintenance of these
plantations, beyond three years. 25% of NAP(FDA) plantations raised in 2004-05, 2005-06
and 2006-07 were randomly picked up, in sample for evaluation. It has been found during
evaluation that survival percent in these plantations are lower than the plantations raised
under other schemes. Miscellaneous species in NAP(FDA) plantations have struggled to
grow. Plantation areas, in some of the divisions like Virajpet, are heavily infested by weeds
rendering it impossible to enter the area and lay sample plots. The survival percent in such
plantations could not be as-certained. NAP(FDA) plantations are raised under different
models such as Aided Natural Regeneration, Artificial Regeneration, Cane plantation, Mixed
plantation and Medicinal plantation; while first two of the above models are successful in
many divisions, success in other models have suffered for want of protection and
maintenance. Medicinal plant models are found to have generally failed. Under NAP(FDA)
there is digression from objectives and medicinal species are not raised, as noted in Haliyal
division. It is further found in the evaluation in Dharwad, Haveri, Chickballapur and many
other divisions that micro-plans prepared for concerned VFC have expired and new plan is
not in place. In Chikballapur Division, the records pertaining to VFC and microplans are
found to be still with the Kolar Division. Similar observations are recorded in the evaluation
of some other divisions as well. Some Deputy Conservators of Forests have applied their
mind and provided cattle proof trenching under entry point activities, for the protection of the
plantations. In some cases like Tumkur division entry point activities are not taken up. If
realistic cost norms are not approved and protection and maintenance is not taken care of, the
schemes should not be implemented. The overall survival percent under the scheme is found
to be 62.10%.
5. Survey and demarcation:
Despite adverse comments made in the previous evaluation reports, many forest
Divisions persist with the practice of assessing area-spread of the plantations, based on
number of pits/trenches. In practice, the spacing between pit/trench lines are found to be
much closer than what is provided in estimates and recorded in plantation journals.
Operations like weeding are charged on area basis, which may lead to audit objections.
Earlier recommendation of the evaluation are reiterated and all Deputy Conservators of
Forests are requested to take up survey of all proposed plantations and demarcate the area on
a village map, forest survey map or survey of India topo sheet, duly recording compass
bearing and chainage of all corners from a known reference point. Now-a-days, very
accurate GPS has come. However, it is observed that some Divisions have recorded accurate
GPS readings. It is recommended to take additional precautions and record GPS readings of
all corners of the plantations. The evaluation in most of the Divisions have confirmed that
appropriate survey sketches are not attached to the plantation journals. Despite being pointed
out in earlier evaluation reports, it is again found that Deputy Conservators of Forests and
Conservators of Forests have not recorded their observations on the plantation journal, in a
large number of cases. It is high time that we start caring about the recommendations of the
plantation evaluation reports. It is noticed in Bannergatta Wildlife division that 13 Ha area is
planted on farmers’ land. Deputy Conservator of Forests, Bannergatta National Park, has
3
reported that IGF(NAEB), MOEF, Government of India has allowed planting on farmers’
land. Conservators of Forests must take the responsibility of ensuring that plantation areas
are surveyed and suitable sketch is pasted on the journal.
6. Distribution of seedlings:
Farmers purchase seedlings from KFD after paying for it. It is found during
evaluation that farmers purchase Clonal seedlings (Bhadrachalam source) of Eucalyptus
raised by the Department. Coffee estates purchase Silver oak seedlings, while some other
farmers go for limited number of grafted fruit yielding species. Generally the survival
percent of these seedlings are found to be quite high, as many farmers as estate owners, have
taken interest in nurturing their plantations. Seedlings are also distributed by ZPs and
Watershed department, free of any cost. The distribution of seedlings of some of the species
in KFD have not taken off, as farmers can get these seedlings free. During the evaluation, it
is also noticed that the same farmer has obtained seedlings from different departments, in
which case, the evaluation of performance of seedlings distributed by KFD becomes
inconclusive. Many of the Divisions have not kept a proper record of seedlings distributed to
a farmer and planted in his survey number, which is another bottle-neck in carrying out a
proper evaluation. As seedlings are priced, the possibility of wastage is ruled out. Seedlings
raised for distribution are without demand survey and hence the scheme gets the set back.
The programme of distribution of seedlings in Belgaum Division has suffered, as seedlings
are utilized for departmental plantations and distribution is not carried out during early
monsoon. Demonstration plots under KSFMBC on farmers’ land, have generally failed. A
number of farmers have pulled out the seedlings and continued cultivation on their land.
7. Other works:
Construction of new buildings, maintenance of older buildings, several other Civil
works from entry point activities provided under FDA funds, soil and moisture conservation
works, percolation tanks, check dams, water storage ponds etc., have been taken up in many
territorial and wildlife Divisions. The general comments of the evaluation team, with regard
to these works, are positive. However, there are some adverse comments with regard to
design and implementation of engineering structures. In Canara Circle, the percolation tanks
are found to have been constructed at a wrong site, thus it benefits the garden lands and not
the forests. SMC works in Shimoga Circle are implemented on forest lands, other than the
land where plantations are raised. It is advisable to implement SMC works in plantation
areas. Locations of some of water storage ponds, especially in protected areas and its design,
are not proper. At the ingression point the levels of the bed of the pond is higher than that of
the inflow channel, resulting in lesser storage. It is found in Ranibennur Wildlife sanctuary
that all layers of silt is removed, while desilting the water pond, which has resulted in heavy
percolation and no water storage. While desitling a tank, it is recommended to retain a layer
of silt to maximize the storage of water. It is found in the maintenance of roads in
Bannerghatta National Park Division that side drains are not maintained. This will result in
reducing the life of the road. It is advisable to employ a civil engineer to prevent faulty
structures. Similarly location and effectiveness of power fencing and elephant-proof
trenching are criticized in many cases. This can be overcome by providing for maintenance.
Logging works have not come for any adverse criticism. Martyrs memorial in office
premises of Deputy Conservator of Forests, Yellapur has come for criticism. The
maintenance of residential buildings of Forest Guards quarters and Foresters quarters and
construction of more such buildings have been neglected. It is essential to consider the
housing of lower level staff on priority.
4
8. JFPM Activities:
VFCs/EDCs are constituted under KSFMBC and NAP(FDA) schemes with the
objectives of close interaction with local communities for protection and development of
forest wealth. Though Village Forest Committies are formed wherever plantations are raised
VFCs are generally found to have been neglected, except in few cases where interaction and
participation of the local people is found to be good. It is found that the micro-plans and
MOUs are not in place to take forward the JFPM process. Under the NAP(FDA) scheme, the
objective of interaction to protect and develop plantation areas and natural forest has not been
satisfactory. Had there been more interaction, survival percent would have been higher. It is
for the officers concerned to make a success of JFPM process in future.
9. General Observation on plantaions:
In some cases like Bijapur, Kolar and Chickballapur territorial Divisions, failed areas
of older plantations have been replanted without the approval of the competent Aurhority,
which should be avoided in future. Use of poor quality seedlings in some division have
resulted in failure as observed in Bannergatta National Park and Bijapur division. Plantations
in protected areas have generally failed, because of damage due to wild animals. The choice
of species in protected areas is very important; only wildlife-friendly species should be
chosen. Planting, weeding, soil working, fire-tracing etc., are seasonal operations and
success of the plantation depends upon timely execution of these operations. It is found in
the evaluation of Belgaum Division that these operations are not executed according to
calander. It is desirable that operations are executed timely and even check-measurement is
done in time. It is found in the evaluation of Mangalore division that CPTs are not effective
in protecting the plantation of KSFMBC model 1, however, it is serving the purpose of
boundary demarcation. Maintenance for slow growing miscellaneous species should be
provided for a longer period, irrespective of the scheme. The services of motivators in Social
Forestry division will have to be extensively used for extension purposes. Motivators must
contribute in imparting technical know how to farmers. It is also observed in evaluation,
particularly in Shimoga Circle that seeds used in raising seedlings are from unknown sources.
It is recommended to follow the norms and use seeds from the plus-trees and from the
seedling-seed orchards for raising seedlings. There is a lack of application of mind on the
part of Conservators of Forests in keeping plantations records. The evaluation has found that
Hassan Social Forestry has maintained good records, while Tumkur has kept poor records.
Widening of roads are noticed in some divisions like Haliyal, without clearance under F(C)
Act 1980.
These observations are not recorded in the evaluation report, for the first time. Many
of these, have already appeared in earlier evaluation reports. It is recommended that officers
bestow their personal attention and comply with the observations in future.
5
Appendix-1
GUIDELINES ON METHODOLOGY
1. The Chief Conservator of Forests(Evaluation), Bangalore in his office letter
No.A3.CCF.EVA.CR-1/2007-08, dated 2.6.2007 addressed to all Conservators of Forests
providing different formats for conducting and submitting a report on evaluation of works
implemented under plan and non plan scheme in 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07. CCF
(Evaluation) has also sent reminders on 18.7.2007 and 02.8.2007. The guidelines for the
task is worked out.
(a) The forms are to be prepared in three categories under all the schemes for plantations,
for distribution of seedlings and for other works. The other works include all those
works other than plantations and distribution of seedlings. The team should cover at
least one work in each type of other works.
(b) The evaluation team members shall spend a minimum of four days in each assigned
Circle. The intention is to cover all the type of works in a detailed manner.
(c) The team leaders should ensure that all the works executed during the period in each
unit are included by the Deputy Conservator of Forests of the division in form ‘A’
(Plantations) or ‘D’ (distribution of seedlings) or ‘I’ (other works). The purpose is to
cover all the expenditure incurred by the department, irrespective of the sanctioning
authority or the source of funds. The purchases of various equipment and materials,
where expenditure was incurred, shall also come under the purview of evaluation’.
2. “The evaluation will cover all works undertaken during 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07
under Plan and Non-Plan schemes, including Wildlife works and logging works, etc.,
3. The field work for the evaluation may commence on 1st November 2007 and can be
concluded by the end of December 2007. Teams are constituted with Chief Conservators
of Forests as its leader and comprise of two Conservators of Forests
(Territorial/Research/Working Plan) and two Deputy Conservators of Forests generally
drawn from Zill Panchayats. Territorial Deputy Conservators of Forests are not inducted
in the team, as they are expected to be available within their jurisdiction at the time of
visit of evaluation team. Each team is assigned the task of evaluation of one or two
circles.
4. The team leaders would carryout evaluation with respect to the implementation of field
works in relation to the sanctioned estimates and quantities worked, as well as in relation
to the objectives of each scheme and determine to what extent the objectives have been
fulfilled.
5. Chef Conservator of Forests (Evaluation) is receiving lists of all the works carried out in
2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07, who will put up a consolidated lists to Additional
Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (EWPRT).
6. A minimum of 10 percent of the works in each scheme implemented in the Division will
be selected by random sampling by a team of Officers in headquarters comprising of
APCCF (EWPRT), CCF(WP) & CCF(Evaluation). However, in seedling distribution
scheme, Civil works and logging works, the sampling should be done by Evaluation
Team. It should be ensured at the time of random sampling that where there are very few
works in a Division, at least one work in each Range of the Division is selected. This
may be in any scheme, i.e., no Range should be omitted entirely because of the random
sampling. The selection of works will be based on locations (Spots). Also in the
6
plantation works, the probability of selecting a sample is proportional to the size of the
plantations.
7. The list of plantations selected as sample for evaluation should be visited by the
Jurisdictional Working Plan Staff as well as the staff of territorial division, who will
carry out the assessment of survival, as per sampling detailed in para 8 below.
The concerned staff will also record GPS reading and ocularly observe the
following in the plantations.
a) To record whether of the same area has been planted more than once.
b) General condition of the plantations – survival percentage.
c) Average height, DBH, Basal area and approximate yield in the teams of timber / poles
/ Firewood.
8. Works selected by random sampling by headquarters team as detailed in para 5 should be
verified in the field and details like survival percentage, growth condition, quality of work
carried out, etc. should be recorded by the evaluation team. The performance of different
species is to be ascertained during the assessment of the percentage of survival while
assessing the seedling distribution scheme. Civil works & logging works may be
evaluated with reference to measurements recorded on a sampling basis.
9. Assessment of survival percentage of each plantation should be made on the basis of
systematic sampling with a random start. The sampling intensity for plantations may be
10% irrespective of the extent of the plantation. The same is reduced to 2% subsequently.
There could be 20 sample plots each of 1000 square meter in a plantation ranging from 20
to 40 ha.
To achieve an even spread of the sample plots, a grid of lines can be drawn at regular
spacing on the map at suitable spacing and sample plots located at regular intervals on the
grid lines, so as to achieve the desired intensity with the recommended plot size,
provided, however, that the starting point (first sample plot) can be located using random
numbers or other random methods.
10. The sample plots laid for assessing the performance of the plantations should, if possible,
be located with reference to grid lines on the sketch map, otherwise may be located on
the following the line on the field. The latitude and longitude readings may be recorded
for each field spot visited by the concerned with the help of GPS (Global Positioning
system) if possible, and the gridline distances may also be noted for precise location. The
corners of the sample plot may be marked by pegs or stones on the ground.
11. The team leaders will pay attention to the aspect of distribution of seedlings under
schemes other than those excluded and verify the villages randomly and assess the
success. The villages, for assessing the success of the distribution of seedlings, may be
selected at the rate of 1 to 2% of villages in each hobli (revenue circle).
12. In the report each team submit their assessment regarding:
a. the schemes to be continued,
b. the schemes to be modified and continued,
c. the schemes that can be clubbed together,
d. the schemes which may be given up.
13. Observations are to be recorded in the set of nine proformae, which are circulated among
implementing Officers, as Schedule III, in the last report of March 2003, and the team
leaders may also obtain any additional information from the field units in these
proformae, based on which they are to evaluate the works in the field and submit their
reports.
14. a) The teams shall be led by respective Chief Conservator of Forests.
7
b) The team may function as a single unit, but on any given day it could split itself to
cover more ground.
c) The team should invariably check the recording of latitude and longitude with the
help of GPS by concerned Staff. Further, verification regarding sample plot location
may also be carried out as per records in terms of distance between grid lines & along
grid lines (i.e. x-y co-ordinates).
d) Special emphasis in evaluation may please be laid to the aspect of performance of
older plantation under Compensatory afforestation, JFPM and Tree Patta. The last
two may please be evaluated with reference to the progress made during relevant
years.
e) In respect of number of spots visited, detailed notes may be kept and the same may be
reported.
f) The field work may be completed by 31st December 2007 and the final report may
please be submitted by the 15th February 2008.
15. It is herewith clarified that the most important aspect of evaluation work is to improve the
performance of the organization. The Chief Conservators of Forests, who have been
nominated as Team Leaders along with the Team Members may have a special meeting
with the Territorial Conservator of Forests, Deputy Conservator of Forests (Territorial /
Social Forestry) and the Asst. Conservators of Forests of the Circle regarding the action
taken on the earlier Evaluation Report and on improved performance in areas of concern.
Special efforts may be made to check on the status of plantation survey and posting up the
records in Field Note Books, Measurement Books & Plantation Journals.
16. The APCCF (EWPRT) is always available for consultation to sort out any problems, as
may arise, in the course of implementing the evaluation programme.
17. The Chief Conservator of Forests (Evaluation) will assist Additional Principal Chief
Conservator of Forests (EWPRT) in examining the reports received, undertake any
cheeks and prepare a consolidated report by March 31, 2008, for onward submission to
Principal Chief Conservator of Forests.
18. During combined meeting of Officers of different Circles conducted by Principal Chief
Conservator of Forests, on 2.1.2008 and 3.1.2008, certain issues relating to evaluation of
works implemented under plan & non plan schemes in 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07
were discussed. The following decisions were taken;
(a) The earlier decision of maintaining 10% sampling intensity for plantations below 20
ha. was reopened and discussed. The Deputy Conservators of Forests made out cases
for huge financial requirement for laying the sample plots and carrying out inventory.
As per SSR, the collection of inventory from each sample plot of 31.62m.x31.62m,
(1000 Sq.m) would require an expenditure of Rs.1281. The total financial requirement
was not forecasted and was not provided in annual plan of operations. After hearing
the arguments, Principal Chief Conservator of Forests ruled that sampling intensity
can be restricted to 2%, irrespective of the extent of the plantation and also the
financial expenditure should be limited to one third of the figure of Rs.1281 as
worked out from SSR.
(b) The choice of sampling technique was also discussed, whether the plantations could
be divided into 31.62 m x 31.62 m= 1000 Sq.m grids and 2% of these grids be chosen
at regular intervals for inventory or the line transact method could be employed. The
subject was discussed, and it was observed that plantation sketches are available on
village maps, where latitudes and longitudes are not recorded and therefore grids
drawn on the map cannot be easily located on the ground, even with the help of GPS.
The Conservator of Forests, Dharwad suggested that line transact method could be
8
easily employed for laying the sample plots. The Principal Chief Conservator of
Forests concluded that the plantation maps, in future, could be geosynchronous, so as
to follow the grid method of sampling. He further stated the method employed for
sampling be mentioned in the report.
(c) It is learnt that the area of the plantation is reduced by decreasing the espacement. The
evaluation teams are expected to go into the details of the survey carried out for the
plantation. Wherever team leaders suspect the extent of the plantation, they are at
liberty to order for a resurvey. It has come in the recommendation of earlier
evaluation that area of the plantation be correctly ascertained by carrying out a proper
survey for the plantations.
(d) The team engaged in ongoing Evaluation would ascertain whether recommendation and
suggestions made during the earlier evaluation are complied or otherwise. Finding to
this effect is to be clearly brought out in the report.
(e) During the discussion in the meeting, it was observed that the CFs and DCFs have not
completely involved themselves in FDA plantations. Though Survey of India has
already carried out evaluation of FDA plantations, it was thought proper that more
intense internal evaluation be carried out for FDA plantations raised during 2004-05,
2005-06 and 2006-07. The PCCF ruled that 25% of these plantations be selected for
sampling, inventory and inspection by Evaluation Teams. It is further observed that
large number of DCFs have not provided the list of FDA plantations to CCF
(Evaluation). They have been directed to provide the same without any further loss of
time. A team of officers comprising of APCCF (EWPRT), CCF (Evaluation) & CCF
(Working Plan) would draw 25% sample and communicate to team leaders for
evaluation. Wherever 10% sample is drawn, it has been decided to draw additional
15% sample in FDA plantations and communicate to team leaders for further action.
(f) It has been observed that all DCFs of Bangalore Circle except DCF (T), Kolar,
DCF(WL),Mysore, DCF(WL), Hunsur and DCF(SF), Gulbarga have not provided the
list of plantations for evaluation. Respective Conservators of Forests have promised to
provide the same and even complete the laying of sample plots within fifteen days.
(g) All CFs and Team leader have been requested to expedite laying of sample plots
recording inventory and inspection by evaluation team.
Additional Principal Chief Conservators Forests

(Evaluation Working Plan, Research & Training)
Bangalore.
9
Appendix-2
EVALUATION TEAMS
The Evaluation of plan and non plan works implemented during 2002-03 and 2003-04
and compensatory afforestation works upto ten years were carried out during 2004-05 and
report was published by the then PCCF(EWPRT) in July 2005. Further PCCF during
October 2007, decided to continue the evaluation of all Plan and Non-plan works
implemented during 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07. The Circle-wise evaluation works
entrusted to the teams is given in the following table.
Sl. Circle/Circles to
Team leader Other members
No. be evaluated
1 Bangalore Chief Conservator of 1. Conservator of Forests, Working
Forests (Evaluation) Plans, Bellary.
Bangalore. 2. Conservator of Forests, Mysore.
3. Deputy Conservator of forests,
(Zilla Panchayath) Chamrajnagar.
4. Deputy Conservator of
Forests,(Zilla Panchayath) Hassan.
Belgaum Chief Conservator of 1. Conservator of Forests, Working
Forests (Legal Cell) Plan, Dharwad.
Bangalore. 2. Conservator of Forests , Canara
Circle, Sirsi.
3. Deputy Conservator of Forests
(Zilla Panchayath), Bangalore
Urban.
(Zilla Panchayath), Karwar.
3 Bellary Chief Conservator of 1. Conservator of Forests, (Research)
Forests (Personnal) Dharwad.
Bangalore. 2. Conservator of Forests, Gulbarga
3. Deputy Conservator of Forests,
(Zilla Panchayath),Bidar
Deputy Conservator of Forests
(Zilla Panchayath),Bagalkote
4 Canara Chief Conservator of 1. Conservator of Forests(Research)
Forests Bangalore.
(Communication & 2. Conservator of Forests, Dharwad.
Information) Bangalore. 3. Deputy Conservator of Forest s
(Zilla Panchyath) Dharwad
(Zilla Panchyath) Bangalore Rural
5 Chamarajnagar Chief Conservator of 1. Conservator of Forests(Budget &
& Kodagu Forests (Evaluation) Finance) Bangalore
Bangalore. 2. Conservator of Forests, Hassan
(Head Quarters) Bangalore
4. Deputy Conservator of
Forests,(Zilla Panchyath) Mandya
6 Chickmagalur Chief Conservator of 1. Conservator of Forests (PF&P)
10
No. be evaluated
Forests (Working Plans) Bangalore
Bangalore. 2. Conservator of Forests, Shimoga
Social Forestry Research,
Bangalore
(Zilla Panchyath) Mangalore
7 Dharwad Chief Conservator of 1. Conservator of Forests, Working
Forests (Research & Plans, Shimoga
Utilisation) Bangalore. 2. Conservator of Forests,
Chamrajanagar
(Zilla Panchyath) Bellary
(Zilla Panchyath) Chithradurga
8 Gulbarga Chief Conservator of 1. Conservator of Forests (Research)
Forests (Head Quarters) Bellary
Bangalore. 2. Conservator of Forests, Belgaum
(Zilla Panchyath) Belgaum
Bijapur
9 Hassan Chief Conservator of 1. Conservator of Forests, Mangalore
Forests (Working Plan) 2. Deputy Conservator of Forests
Bangalore. (Development) Bangalore
(Zilla Panchyath) Shimoga
4. Deputy Conservator of Forests &
TA to Conservator of Forests,
Bangalore
10 Mangalore Chief Conservator of 1. Conservator of Forests (Research)
Forests (Project Tiger) Madikeri
Mysore. 2. Conservator of Forests,
Chikmagalur
(Zilla Panchyath) Madikeri
(Zilla Panchyath) Mysore
11 Mysore & Chief Conservator of 1. Conservator of Forests, Working
Project Tiger, Forests (Personnel) Plans, Chikmagalur
Mysore Bangalore. 2. Conservator of Forests, Kodagu
(Zilla Panchyath) Tumkur
(Zilla Panchyath) Kolar
12 Shimoga Chief Conservator of 1. Conservator of Forests, Working
Forests (Training) Plans, Belgaum
11
No. be evaluated
Gungarghatti, Dharwad. 2. Conservator of Forests, Bellary
(JBIC) Bangalore
(Zilla Panchyath) Haveri.
Further CCF(Project) and DCF (JBIC) were exempted by PCCF and were
substituted by CCF (C&I) and DCF, ZP, Davanagere respectively. CCF(C&I) found heavy
work load and he was also replaced by CCF (Evaluation) for Bangalore Circle. Again CCF
(FC) and CCF(WL) expressed their inability to carry out evaluation work and the tasks were
entrusted to CCF(Personnel) and CCF (WP) respectively.
Thus the final table showing the composition of team for Circle wise evaluation of
work is as follows:-
No. be evaluated
1 Bangalore Chief Conservator of 1) Conservator of Forests, Working
Forests (Projects) Plans, Bellary.
Bangalore. 2) Conservator of Forests, Mysore.
3) Deputy Conservator of forests, (Zilla
Panchayath) Chamrajnagar.
4) Deputy Conservator of Forests,(Zilla
Panchayath) Hassan.
2 Belgaum Chief Conservator of 5. Conservator of Forests, Working Plan,
Forests (Legal Cell) Dharwad.
Bangalore. 6. Conservator of Forests , Canara Circle,
Sirsi.
7. Deputy Conservator of Forests (Zilla
Panchayath), Bangalore Urban.
Panchayath), Karwar.
3 Bellary Chief Conservator of 4. Conservator of Forests, (Research)
Forests (Forest Dharwad.
Conservation) 5. Conservator of Forests, Gulbarga
Bangalore. 6. Deputy Conservator of Forests, (Zilla
Panchayath),Bidar
Deputy Conservator of Forests (Zilla
Panchayath),Bagalkote
4 Canara Chief Conservator of 5. Conservator of Forests(Research)
Forests Bangalore.
(Communication & 6. Conservator of Forests, Dharwad.
Information) 7. Deputy Conservator of Forest s (Zilla
Bangalore. Panchyath) Dharwad
Panchyath) Bangalore Rural
5 Chamarajnagar Chief Conservator of 5. Conservator of Forests(Budget &
& Kodagu Forests (Evaluation) Finance) Bangalore
Bangalore. 6. Conservator of Forests, Hassan
12
No. be evaluated
7. Deputy Conservator of Forests (Head
Quarters) Bangalore
8. Deputy Conservator of Forests,(Zilla
Panchyath) Mandya
6 Chickmagalur Chief Conservator of 5. Conservator of Forests (PF&P)
Forests (Working Bangalore
Plans) Bangalore. 6. Conservator of Forests, Shimoga
7. Deputy Conservator of Forests, Social
Forestry Research, Bangalore
Panchyath) Mangalore
7 Dharwad Chief Conservator of 5. Conservator of Forests, Working
Forests (Research & Plans, Shimoga
Utilisation) 6. Conservator of Forests,
Bangalore. Chamrajanagar
Panchyath) Bellary
Panchyath) Chithradurga
8 Gulbarga Chief Conservator of 5. Conservator of Forests (Research)
Forests (Head Bellary
Quarters) Bangalore. 6. Conservator of Forests, Belgaum
7. Deputy Conservator of Forests, (Zilla
Panchyath) Belgaum
8. Deputy Conservator of Forests, Bijapur
9 Hassan Chief Conservator of 5. Conservator of Forests, Mangalore
Forests (Wild Life) 6. Deputy Conservator of Forests
Bangalore. (Development) Bangalore
7. Deputy Conservator of Forests, (Zilla
Panchyath) Shimoga
8. Deputy Conservator of Forests & TA
to Conservator of Forests, Bangalore
10 Mangalore Chief Conservator of 5. Conservator of Forests (Research)
Forests (Project Madikeri
Tiger) Mysore. 6. Conservator of Forests, Chikmagalur
Panchyath) Madikeri
Panchyath) Mysore
11 Mysore & Chief Conservator of 5. Conservator of Forests, Working Plans,
Project Tiger, Forests (Personnel) Chikmagalur
Mysore Bangalore. 6. Conservator of Forests, Kodagu
Panchyath) Tumkur
Panchyath) Kolar
13
No. be evaluated
12 Shimoga Chief Conservator of 5. Conservator of Forests, Working Plans,
Forests (Training) Belgaum
Gungarghatti, 6. Conservator of Forests, Bellary
Dharwad. 7. Deputy Conservator of Forests (Zilla
Panchyat, Davanagere).
Panchyath) Haveri.
Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests,

(EWPRT )
14
Appendix 3 - Evaluation Formats
EVALUATION FORM – “A”- ( OF ALL PLANTAIONS)
LIST
(To be filled by the Divisions office and signed by the DCF of the division)
1. Name of the District.
2. Name of the Division.
3. Details of the plantations, under the scheme.
No. Year Scheme Range Hobli Village Survey Area Main Species planted
Nos. (ha)
DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS

……………..DIVISION
15

EVALUATION FORM – “B”- (LIST OF SELECTED PLANTAIONS)
(To be filled by the evaluation team, after random selection)
1. Name of the District:
2. Name of the Division:
3. Year of planting: Total area planted in ha:
4. Total area planted during two years, under all the scheme:
5. Total area of the plantations, randomly selected, under all the schemes:
6. Details of randomly selected plantations:
No. Year Scheme Range Hobli Village Survey Area Model

Nos. (ha)
CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS/
of the Evaluation team
16

EVALUATION FORM – “C”- (INDIVIDUAL PLANTAIONS)
(To be filled by the evaluation team, from division office records)
1. Location of Plantations:
District: Taluk: Hobli:
Village: Survey Nos:
Forest Division: Sub-division: Range:
Section: Beat:
2. Nature of the land:
Parampoke/Gomal/Forest(Reserved/Village/Protected/District Forest):
Name of the Forest Block/Compartment (if any):
3. Year of planting:
4. Scheme:
5. Model of Plantations(including number if any):
6. Gross are of the plantation:
7. Net area of the plantation:
8. Number of pits: Number of the trenches:
9. Pit Size X X CM Trench size: X X CM
10. Spa cement of Pits: M Spa cement of Trenches:
11. Species Planted:
No. Species Number of Seedlings planted
17
12. Details of Maintenance operations carried out:
Period of operation from ………….. to ………… (Dates)
No Item of Work
Plantation year 1 year old 2 year old
1 Fencing
2 Casualty replacement
3 Fire weeding
4 Fertilizer application
5 Second weeding
6 Scrapping
7 Hoeing
8 Fire-tracing
13. Status of VFC’ & Micro plan in the village plantation:

a). Entry point activities: Item of Work:
Amount spent:
Date:
b). Registration Number and Date:
c). Number of members of the VFC: Male Female Total
d). Name of the VFC Chairman
e). Amount of seed-money paid to VFC: Rs: Date:
Rs. Date:
Rs. Date:
f). Revenue realized by VFC: Source:
Amount:
Dated:
14. Date of approval of Micro-plan:
(To be filled by the Evaluation team, after inspection of the plantation)
15. Selected Sampling intensity:

16. GPS readings of the field sample plot (centre):
Latitude: North of Equator:
Longitude: East of Greenwich:
Altitude: Above mean sea level.
18
17. Total number of seedlings planted in the sample plots:

18. Surviving plants in the sample plots: Survival percentage: %
19. whether the evaluation team agrees with the data given above, regarding:
a). Model of Plantation: Yes/No. (if no, give observed variation)
b). Pit/Trench size (visible): Yes/No. (if no, give observed variation)
c). Spacement: Yes/No. (if no, give observed variation)
d). Species Planted: Yes/No. (if no, give observed variation)
e). Maintenance operations: Yes/No. (if no, give observed variation)
f). Status of VFC Yes/No. (if no, give observed variation)
g). Micro-plan implementation etc: Yes/No. (if no, give observed variation)
h). Plantation Journal: Written Up to date/Partially written/
Not written
20. Performance of different species:
21. Qualitative aspects of the plantation:
a). Selection of site: Proper/Improper
b). Selection of plantation Model: Proper/Improper
c). Choice of species: Proper/Improper
d). Protection aspects: Proper/Improper
e). Average height of the plantations in sample plot:
22. General condition of the plantation:
19
EVALUATION FORM – “D”- (DISTRIBUTION OF SEEDLINGS)


3. Details of village-wise seedling distribution;
Number of seedlings Species of seedlings
No. Year Taluk Hobli Village
Distributed. distributed

20
EVALUATION FORM – “E”- (DISTRIBUTION OF SEEDLINGS

LIST OF SELECTED VILLAGES)

3. Total number of seedlings distributed during 3 years, under all the schemes:
4. Number of villages where departmental seedlings have been distributed;
Number of Number of
Number of villages
villages where villages where
Total number of where seedlings
No. Taluk Hobli seedlings seedlings
villages in the hobli distributed in
distributed in distributed in
2005-2006
2004-2005 2006-2007
5. Details of randomly selected villages (where seedlings have been distributed):

(To be filled by the Evaluation team)
No Taluk Hobli Village No. of total seedlings received from department in all the
two years i.e. 2004-2005, 2005-06& 2006- 2007
Conservator of Forests/
Deputy Conservator of Forests of
the Evaluation team
21
EVALUATION FORM – “F”- (DISTRIBUTION OF SEEDLINGS

INDIVIDUAL VILLAGE FARMER)
(To be filled by the evaluation team, after inspection)
1. Name of the Village:

2. Name of Hobli
3. Name of Taluk:
5. Name of the Farmer:
6. Nature of the land: Dry/Irrigated/Plantation:
7. Year of planting:
8. Type of planting: Block/Strip/Pit/Bund/Others(specify):
9. Source of seedlings planted by the farmer:
10. Details of private nurseries in the area:
11. Details of cost of seedlings in private nurseries:
12. GPS Latitude and Longitude reading of field spot:
13. Number of seedlings received:
14. Number of seedlings planted:
15. Number of pits: Number of the trenches:
16. Pit size: X X CM Trench size: X X CM
17. Spacement of Pits: M Spacement of TrenchesL M
18. Species Planted:
Species: Number of seedlings planted:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Total seedlings planted:
19. Survival percentage:
20. Performance of different species:
21. Qualitative aspects of the plantation:
22. Opinion of the farmer:
22
EVALUATION FORM – “G”- (LIST OF ALL OTHER WORKS)


3. Details of all other works, such as Buildings, Soil conservation works, Thinning,
Logging, JPRM, Tree Patta, NTFP collection, Watch towers, Salt licks, Desilting
of tanks, Fire line/View-line clearance, Roads,etc., under all the scheme:
Year of Survey
No. Taluk Hobli Village Scheme Work Sanctioned cost
sanction Nos.

23
EVALUATION FORM – “H”- (LIST OF SELECTED OTHER WORKS)

(To be filled by the Evaluation Team)

3. Details of randomly selection other works, such as Buildings, Soil conservation
works, Thinning, Logging, JPRM, Tree Patta, NTFP collection, Watch towers,
Salt licks, Desilting of tanks, Fire line/View-line clearance, Roads,etc., under all
the scheme:
Year of Survey
No. Taluk Village Scheme Work Sanctioned cost
sanction Nos.
24
EVALUATION FORM – “I”- (INDIVIDUAL OTHER WORK)

1. Name of the work:

2. Location of the work:
i. District: Taluk: Hobli:
ii. Village: Survey Nos:
iii. Forest Division: Sub-division: Range:
iv. Section: Beat:
3. Nature of the land:
Parampoke/Gomal/Forest (Reserved/Village/Protected/District Forest):
Name of the Forest Block/Compartment (if any):
4. Year of sanction of work:
5. Scheme:
6. Total cost of the sanctioned work:
7. Expenditure so far incurred:
(To be filled by the Evaluation team, after inspection)
8. Building:
a). Selection of site: Proper/Improper Yes/No
b). Whether the work is sanctioned by competent authority? Yes/No
c). Whether it is as per the approved design by Chief Architect of Govt.? Yes/No
d). Whether the work is entrusted to a Govt. agency? Yes/No
e). Whether the work is executed as per the sanctioned plan? Yes/No
f). Quality of the work:
i. Quality of materials (Bricks, Wood, Cement) Good/Bad
ii. Quality of construction: Good/Bad
9. Thinning:
a. Whether the work is as per the sanctioned working plan/scheme?
b. The year of the plantation-Teak/Acacia/Others (specify)
c. Grade of thinning:
d. Work executed by the department /KSFIC/others (specify)
e. Quality of out turn timber, poles and fire wood:
i. Timber Cubic meters.
ii. Poles (number)
iii. Firewood Cubic meters.
10. Logging of dead and fallen trees.
a). Whether the work is as per the sanctioned working plan/Scheme? Yes/No
b). Whether the marking list is approved by competent authority? Yes/No
c). What was the expected outturn of timber/firewood as per the approved making
list?
d). Work executed by the department/KSFIC/others (Specify):
e). What is the actual species-wise outturn of timber and firewood?
Reasons for variation, if any:
• Soil Conservation:
25
a). Type of soil/water conservation works: Check dams/Gully plugs/Pickups/Ravine
reclamation structure(RRS)/vegetative bunds/
b). Whether the works are as per the sanctioned? Yes/NO
c). Quality of the individual work:
• JFPM Status of JFPM VFC in the village of the plantation
a). Entry-point activities: Item of work:
Amount spent:
Date:
b). Registration Number and date:
c). Number of members of the VFC: Male Female Total
d) Name of the VFC chairman
e) Amount of seed-money paid to VFC: Rs. Date:
Rs. Date:
Rs. Date:
f). Revenue realized by VFC: Source
Amount:
Date:
• Tree patta:
a). Number of trees pattas issued:
b). Number of tree pattas to be given:
c). Activities of the tree patta holders:
• NTFP (MFP) collection:
a). Different products collected,
Agency:
Revenue:
Quantity collected:
b). Permits issued:
• Watch towers
• Salt licks
• Desilting /deepening of existing waterholes
• Creation of new waterholes
• Fire lines
• View line maintenance /clearance
• Road formation
• Road maintenance
• Clearance of Demarcation lines
• Painting of boundary stones
• Maintenance of firearms
• Maintenance of wireless sets
• Building maintenance
• Construction of Culverts/ cause ways
• Anti-poaching camps
• Maintenance of tourist lodge
• Clearance of weeds
• Chain gates
• Elephant proof trench works
• EPT walls
• Solar fencing
26
• Publication
• LPG units subsidy
• Gobargas units
• Solar heaters to tribal hostels
• Chullas
• Rehabilitation works:
(Only one of the above or other such work should be included in the form)
Qualitative and suitability to site aspects of the executed work:
27
Appendix-4-Expenditure Statement
SCHEMES IDENTIFIED FOR INTERNAL EVALUATION FOR THE YEARS
2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07.
Achievement (Rs. In Achievement (Rs. In Achievement (Rs. In
Sl. lakhs) (Phy. In Ha.) lakhs) (Phy. In Ha.) lakhs) (Phy. In Ha.)
Scheme
No 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07
Phy. Fin. Phy. Fin. Phy. Fin.
2406-01-101-2-05-Development of 510.00 208.346 1286.60 156.087 688.50 190.496
1 Degraded Forests-139 Major Works
2406-01-101-2-10-Greening of Urban 271.00 47.988 177.50 38.914 668.50 287.965
2
Areas-139-Major Works
2406-01-796-0-00-Tribal Sub Plan 97.00 6.000 N.A. N.A. N.A. 12.635
3
(State)
2406-01-800-0-05-Special Component 793.00 43.924 N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A.
4
Plan(State)
4406-01-070-0-02-Buildings-147-Land N.A. 40.000 N.A. 18.816 N.A. N.A.
5
and Buildings
2406-01-101-2-19-Conservation and N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. 371.12 83.925.
6 Management of Mangroves(State &
Central)
2406-01-102-2-17-Integrated Forest N.A. 73.856 N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A.
7
Protection (State & Central)
2406-02-110-0-02-Project N.A. 519.890 N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A.
8 Tiger,Bandipur-139 Works(State &
Central)
2406-02-110-0-35-Rehabilitation of N.A. 121.000 N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A.
9 Villages of Bhadra Wildlife
Sanctuary(State & Central)
2406-02-110-0-47-CSS for Development N.A. 812.980 N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A.
10 of Wildlife Sanctuaries and National
Parks-139 Works (State & Central)
2501-05-101-0-02-CSS-Area oriented N.A. 28.329 N.A. 11.389 N.A. 18.259
11
Fuelwood and Fodder Project
2406-01-102-2-25-Eco-Tourism(State N.A. N.A. N.A. 9.605 N.A. 145.672
12
Sector)
2501-05-101-0-02-CSS-Area oriented N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. 20.151
13 Fuelwood and Fodder Project (Swarana
Jayanthi Kunj Project)-139 Major Works.
14 12th Finance N.A. N.A. 1237.63 230.424 5803.97 432.472
2406-01-102-2-80-Karnataka Sustainable N.A. 2082.483 24487.00 230.11 20084.00 1635.02
15 Forest Management and Bio-diversity
Conservation/JBIC
Total 1671.00 3984.796 27188.73 695.345 27616.09 2826.595
Note:
1) Logging & extraction works and other major works under Non-Plan heads are also evaluated
during the field visits.
2) Similarly works of Wildlife Wing are also evaluated.
3) The above information is as furnished by the respective Wings.
28
Appendix-5- Executive Summaries of Circles
6.1 BANGALORE CIRCLE

The Circle comprises of Bangalore Urban Territorial Division, Bangalore Urban
Social Forestry division, Bangalore Rural Territorial Division, Bangalore Rural Social
Forestry division, Ramanagara Territorial Division, Ramangara Social Forestry division,
Kolar Territorial Division, Kolar Social Forestry division, Chikkaballapura Territorial
Divison, Chikkaballapura Social Forestry Division and Banneraghatta Wild Life Division.
6.1.1 BANGALORE URBAN TERRITORIAL DIVISION
The boundaries of the forests are demarcated by C.P.T/ Barbed Wire Fencing/Chain
Link Mesh/Vegetative Fencing. With increase in land prices in and around Bangalore and
lack of maintenance of boundaries, the encroachments are observed in forest land. Hence
there is an urgent need for boundary consolidation of the existing forest land, even erection of
protection walls all around the forest area and it’s regular maintenance should be considered
on priority. Action should be taken to evict forest encroachments.
The plantations are raised in Reserve forest areas and on roadside in towns. The
survival in two plantations are zero, three plantations are 95 and the remaining seven
plantations of the sample have average survival of 70%. The plantations raised under GUA,
COP, METRO and KSFMBC schemes are of species such as Mahogany, Silver oak, Neem,
Sampige, Pongemia, Thespesia populnea(Hoovarasi), Eugenia(Nerale) etc., Roadside
plantations are promising and are in good condition. Seed sowing has not been successful.
Evaluation team has found that the plantation journals are not posted up.
It is observed that only Eucalyptus seedlings were distributed to beneficiaries and
survival is 85 to 95%. Civil works like maintenance of building etc., are found to be
satisfactory.
6.1.2 BANGALORE URBAN SOCIAL FORESTRY DIVISION
In addition to afforestation works, the Division has distributed seedlings to farmers and
private entrepreneures, where the success rate is good. Tree- Patta Scheme is implemented in
this division. The plantations were raised in the premises of colleges and other public places.
The survival percentage varies from 33 to 100%. Average survival being 55%. The
plantations raised under SGRY, SF, and KSFMBC schemes are of species such as Mahogany,
Silver oak, Neem, Michelia(Sampige), Pongemia, Thespesia populnea(Hoovarasi),
Eugenia(Nerale), Bassia latifolia(Hippe) etc., The roadside plantations are promising and are
in good condition. Eucalyptus clones, Teak and Silver oak seedlings are distributed to
beneficiaries and their survival is good. In addition, 1250 Tree Pattas for road-side trees are
distributed in three villages in the ranges of Kaggalipur and Anekal. Concerned pattedars are
expected to protect the trees and enjoy usufructs.
6.1.3 BANGALORE RURAL TERRITORIAL DIVISION
The boundaries of the forests are generally demarcated either by C.P.T/ Barbed Wire
Fencing/ Chain Link Mesh/ Vegetative fencing, which are in-adequate. Due to high value of
land in areas around Bangalore and lack of maintenance of boundaries, encroachments have
occurred. There is an urgent need for boundary consolidation of the existing forest land, even
erection of protection walls all around the forest area and its maintenance should be
considered to be provided. The survival percentage varies from 13% to 81%. Out of nine
plantations evaluated in the sample, three have failed and average survival in remaining
plantation is around 70%. GUA, 12th Finance and JBIC schemes are planted with species like
Silver oak, Eugenia(Nerale), Ficus, Gmelina arborea(Shivane), Cashew, Acacia
auriculiformis, Eucalyptus, Teak, Emblica(Nelli) etc., The road-side plantations are
29
promising, but have been sacrificed in road widening work. Seed sowing has not been
successful.
The seedlings of Eucalyptus, Silver oak, Teak and Jack were distributed to beneficiaries.
Eucalyptus is failure due to gall disease. The performance of other species is good.
SMC and repair works implemented, are found to be satisfactory.
6.1.4 BANGALORE RURAL SOCIAL FORESTRY DIVISION
The division has distributed seedlings to farmers and private entrepreneurs, where the
success rate is found to be good. The plantations are raised in farmers’ field and roadside.
The survival percentage varies from 20% to 95%. One plantation selected in the sample has
failed, while the remaining three have registered average survival percent as 65%. The
plantations raised under SGRY and KSFMBC schemes are planted with species like
Mahogony, Silver oak, Neem, Michelia(Sampige), Eucalyptus, Pongemia (Honge), Ficus
etc., The road-side plantations are promising but there are heavy mortality due to road
widening work. Gall formation has been observed in case of eucalyptus seedlings distributed,
as observed in the evaluation carried out in respect of only one beneficiary.
6.1.5 BANNERAGHATTA NATIONAL PARK
Out of 240Ha plantations raised in the division, 100 Ha, in four spots are selected for
evaluation. One plantation has failed and the remaining three plantations have survival
around 46%, which is below average. Staff is found to be responsible for poor protection.
Damage by elephants is seen and Conservator of Forests, Bangalore, must initiate the action
of recovering the loss. Eco-Development Committe members have not taken adequate
measures to protect the plantation; however the quality of seedlings planted is good. Out of
20 Ha Tattekere plantation raised in the division, 13 Ha is found to be on the farmers’ land
and only 7 Ha of plantation area is in the Reserve Forest. Eucalyptus is performing very
well. The plantation to the extent of 13 Ha raised on farmer’s land, is highly objectionable
and this may create legal complications in future. Conservator of Forests may initiate action
to recover the cost of raising the plantation. The VFC activities are not fully implemented
and no entry-point activities are found to have been taken up. In an important Protected Area
like this, priority must have been given for protection of the wild animals existing there, but
these two plantations raised by planting non-browsable species like Eucalyptus and
Pongemia(Honge) doesn’t help the Wildlife. It appears that these plantations are raised
without any proper planning and the expenditure incurred is infructuous. There is lack of
application of mind on the part of Deputy Conservator of Forests and his team and the loss
caused may have to be recovered from the concerned.
Generally “other works” carried out are SMC works and are found to be satisfactory,
which helps in Soil & Water conservation enhancing the water availability to wildlife.
Maintenance of drains along the roads is not taken up and roads are damaged in rainy season.
6.1.6 CHIKKABALLAPUR TERRITORIAL DIVISION
13 plantations are selected in the sample for evaluation and found that eleven of them
are performing well and are in good condition. One plantation has failed and survival in
other is 30%. Under the KSFMBC scheme of model 01, it is observed that the germination
percentage of dibbled seeds is low. The JFPM activities are neglected in most cases and the
micro-plans are not written as per norms. In the evaluation of NAP-FDA scheme works, 14
plantations were selected for evaluation. Two plantations have failed and two plantations
have average survival of 45%. However, the remaining ten plantations are faring better and
survival is more than 67%. Eucalyptus hybrid has been affected by gall disease. The role of
VFCs is un-satisfactory and micro-plans are not written properly. JFPM process has yet to
take off. Plantation journals in large number of cases are found to be incomplete. In the
plantations, mostly Eucalyptus spp. Pongemia(Honge), Ficus spp. and Acacia auriculiformis
30
are used. In Kolar and Chikkaballapur Divisions, the plantations are raised on the older
failed plantation areas without seeking the approval of the competent authorities. Regarding
other works the quality is found to be satisfactory.
12 beneficiaries are selected for evaluation of performance of seedlings distributed
and found that all plantations are performing well and are in good condition, but Eucalyptus
hybrid has been attacked by the gall disease.
6.1.7 CHIKKABALLAPUR SOCIAL FOREST DIVISION
8 plantations are selected in the sample and the evaluation has found that all 8
plantations are performing well and are in a good condition. However, JFPM activities are
neglected and microplans are incomplete. Eucalyptus species has been affected by the gall
diseases. Mostly Eucalyptus spp. Pongemia(Honge), Ficus spp. and Acacia auriculiformis
are planted.
The plantations raised by the two beneficiaries using the seedlings distributed are
checked during evaluation and are found to be performing well.
6.1.8 KOLAR TERRITORIAL DIVISION:
Four plantations were selected for evaluation and all are found to be in good
condition. Recently the leaves of Eucalyptus hybrid are found to have been attacked by the
gall disease. JFPM, activities are failure. Though the VFC is formed, but micro-plans are
either not written or incomplete. Action has to be taken to strengthen the process of JFPM. 6
plantations were selected in sample for evaluation under FDA and it is observed that all the
plantations are performing well. However, though the VFCs are formed but the micro-plans
are not shown to the evaluation team. Eucalyptus hybrid , Pongemia(Honge), Ficus spp. and
Acacia auriculiformis are planted in different programmes as well as FDA. The SMC works
(Gully checks) are found to be in good condition.
19 beneficiaries were selected for evaluation. It is observed that plantations in all
cases are performing well, but the Eucalyptus spp. planted has been affected by gall disease.
6.1.9 KOLAR SOCIAL FORESTRY DIVISION
Out of five plantations selected in the sample, the two are found to have failed, the
performace of yet another is average and remaining two have registered more than 88%
survival. The failed plantation is located at Mulbagal Social Forestry Range, Kunibanda
areas and another one is located at Bangarpet Social Forestry Range, Mudgenahalli areas.
Under SGRY scheme, the reasons for the failure could be untimely release of funds and
inadequate protection. In the plantations, mostly the Eucalyptus hybrid, Pongemia(Honge) ,
Ficus spp. and Acacia auriculiformis are planted. Almost all the plantation journals are
incomplete. JFPM activities are not taken up. In none of the above plantations, VFCs has
been formed and hence public interaction is poor. The Eucalyptus spp. has been distributed
to the beneficiaries and the performance is satisfactory.
6.1.10 RAMNAGARA TERRITORIAL DIVISION
The plantations are raised in Reserve forest areas and on roadside in town. The
survival percentage varies from 16% to 90%. One plantation has failed, another is average
and remaining seven plantations selected in sample have survival above 68%. The
plantations raised under COP, NAP, DDF, KSFMBC and FDA schemes are of species such
as Ficus, Neem, Pongemia(Honge) , Hoovarasi, Eugenia(Nerale), Acacia, Bassia(Hippe),
Tamarind, Emblica(Nelli), Eucalyptus, Teak, Melia dubia etc., The forest areas are highly
susceptible for encroachment, since the pressure on land is very high, as land prices are
exhorbitant. Hence, the need for protecting the land by resorting to permanent structures is of
primary importance. The roadside plantations are promising but mortality is noticed due to
road widening work. Gall formation has been observed in case of eucalyptus seedlings
31
distributed to farmers and also in plantations raised by the department. The seedlings
distributed to farmers are mainly Teak, Silver oak and Melia dubia, where the survival
percentage is good. Eucalyptus, Melia dubia, Silver oak and Teak seedlings are distributed
and their survival is good. Civil works like Construction and renovation of buildings is found
to be good.
6.1.11 RAMNAGARA SOCIAL FORESTRY DIVISION
The division has distributed seedlings to farmers and private entrepreneurs, where the
success rate is found to be good. The plantations were raised in farmers’ field and roadside.
The survival percentage varies from 33% to 81%. The survival in two plantations are
average and the remaining five plantations selected in sample have registered survival above
50%. The plantations raised under SGRY and KSFMBC schemes are of species such as
Mahogany, Thespesia, Neem, Eucalyptus, Bauhunia, Peltaphorum, Terminalia arjuna,
Pongemia, Ficus spp. etc., The road-side plantations are promising but mortality is noticed
due to road widening work.
Eucalyptus, Teak, Silver oak, Pongamia, Neem and Melia dubia are distributed to
beneficiaries and are performing well.
32
6.2 BELGAUM CIRCLE

The Circle comprises of Belgaum, Ghataprabha, Bijapur and Bagalkot Territorial
Division as well as Belgaum, Bagalkote and Bijapur Social Forestry Divisions.
6.2.1 BAGALKOT TERRITORIAL DIVISION
25 plantations covering 826 Ha were picked up in the sample for evaluation. Based
on survival in sample plots, the total survival percent is 66%. Evaluation team found that
KSFMBC model-4 plantations are good, Model 1 is also serving the purpose of natural
regeneration. Plantations raised in NAP-FDA are good. Road side plantations done under
KSHIP are excellent. Hardwickia binata(Anjan) is performing best in the block plantations
and Bevu is most suitable for road side plantations.
Protection is satisfactory in most cases except the NAP-FDA plantations which do not
have enough provision for protection. It is observed by the team that CPTs are incomplete
and do not serve the purpose. Good work has been done under soil and moisture
conservation work. In irrigated condition the distributed seedlings are 90-100% successful.
The spots visited showed some good maintenance as well.
Regarding the effectiveness of VFCs, it is observed by the team that further efforts are
required to involve the members in all aspects of plantation and protection. The records are
found to have been maintained satisfactorily.
6.2.2 BAGLAKOT SOCIAL FORESTRY DIVISION:
15 spots are picked in sample plantations for evaluation. Based on survival in sample
plots the total survival percent is found to be 25%. Whatever success was observed, was in
school plantations. But road side works are found to be below average. Species like Neem,
Terminalia catappa(Badam) & Peltoform are preferred for school planting and are doing
well. Teak, in farm forestry, is also doing well. In irrigated condition the distributed
seedlings are 90-100% successful. The survival percent in farm forestry is encouraging. The
record maintenance is satisfactory.
6.2.3 BELGAUM TERRITORIAL DIVISION
77 plantations covering total extent of 1458.30 Ha were picked up in sample for
evaluation in different Ranges of Belgaum division. The overall survival percent is found to
be 81%, which is mainly because of planting of Acacia and Eucalyptus. Miscellaneous
seedlings such as Bamboo, Pongemia, Cashew, Emblica and Neem are planted in smaller
proportion. Survival percentage of these miscellaneous species are satisfactory. Eucalyptus is
affected by Gall disease. Barbed wire in 4-strands for fencing, in addition to CPT, is done for
protection of plantations. In some plantations, even brushwood fencing is done additionally.
The evaluation team observed that three-strand barbed wire fencing would be adequate and
would save cost. In some places, both CPT and barbed wire fencing are used for protection,
which involves wasteful expenditure. Officers must ensure that such wasteful expenditures
are avoided, in future. Deputy Conservator of Forests and Conservator of Forests have not
monitored the performance of the plantations, as evident from the plantation records.
Maintenance operations should be carried out in proper season. Accordingly check
measurement should also be done timely. In some cases the accounts are admitted without
check measurement. Evaluation team also found that the location selected for SMC works
are not proper. The programme of distribution of seedlings had a set back as seedlings are
utilized for departmental plantations and also the distribution is not carried out during early
monsoon.
33
6.2.4 BELGAUM SOCIAL FORESTRY DIVISION
50 plantations covering 220.24Ha.were picked up in the sample for evaluation in
different Ranges of Social Forestry division. The overall survival percent is found to be 67%.
The plantation maintenance has not received required attention due to lack of flow of fund
from ZP. Generally survival percentage in many locations are not satisfactory. Acacia,
Pongemia, Ficus bengalensis, Ficus religiosa, Holoptelia integrifolia, Gulmohar, Peltaform,
Neem, Eucalyptus and Albeggia lebek(Sirsal) are planted.
Further, plantations are raised in smaller extents, which are not viable and is
uneconomical to maintain and protect. Absence of lower level field staff, has also contributed
to the low survival. Many times plantation records are not produced.
6.2.5 BIJAPUR DIVISION
16 spots are picked up in sample plantations. Based on survival in sample plots, the
total survival percent is found to be 23%. The team found that KSFMBC model-I is not
suitable for this agro climatic zone. Most of the areas taken up for plantations are older failed
plantation areas. Urban area plantations are comparatively better. Species like Cassia
siamea, Glyricidia, Nilgiri, Sissoo have been planted in block plantations and performance is
very poor. (Reasons could be small seedlings untimely planting etc). Tall seedlings of
Hardwickia, Neem and Ficus would have produced better result.
The failure of plantation is on account of protection. NAP-FDA plantations are raised
without fencing, resulting in wasteful expenditure. In irrigated condition, the distributed
seedlings are 90-100% successful. The VFCs do not seem to be actively involved. More
efforts are required to involve them in all aspects of the plantation. The record maintenance is
found to be satisfactory; however VFC micro-plans were not made available to the team.
The overall performance of the plantations is below average. The main reasons for
failure being wrong-site selection, wrong species selection, wrong model selection untimely
planting, small sized seedlings and improper protection measures.
6.2.6 BIJAPUR SOCIAL FORESTRY DIVISION
22 plantations were picked up in five Ranges covering 160km along the road side.
Based on the survival in the sample plots, the average survival percent is found to be 41%.
Tall Bevu seedlings are found to be performing well. Individual protection is provided to
seedlings which is good enough to serve the purpose. The record maintenance is also found
to be satisfactory.
6.2.7 GHATAPRABHA FOREST DIVISION, GOKAK
25 plantations covering 823.50 Ha were picked up in sample for evaluation in
different Ranges of the division. The overall survival percent is found to be 73%. Further,
the evaluation team found that Eucalyptus, Acacia and Anjan are showing promising results
in the block plantations. Miscellaneous species like Neem, Pongemia, Holoptelia
integrifolia, Annona squmosa(Sitaphala), Sirsal, Sisu, Bore, Eugenia, Butea
monosperma(Muttuga), Casssia siamia and rain-tree are performing well in better soil
conditions. Emblica and Jatropa planted in some of the patches do not have any future. The
block plantations in Gokak and Saudatti Ranges are very promising. The plantations raised
in black cotton soil areas of Athani, Raibag and Chikkodi Ranges require better maintenance
and improved planting techniques. The roadside plantations carried out, are of good quality
with tall seedlings of species like Neem & Pongemia and are maintained and watered during
dry spell. The plantations on road-side are encouraging.
The overall protection status in Ghataprabha Division is quite satisfactory. Presently
the plantations are maintained only up to 3 years. Considering the refractory condition of the
area, the maintenance period is recommended to be up-to 5 years.
34
6.3 BELLARY CIRCLE

Bellary circle comprises of Bellary Division, Bellary Social Forestry Division,
Chitradurga Division, Chitradurga Social Forestry Division, Koppal Division and Koppal
Social Forestry Division.
6.3.1 BELLARY DIVISION
A sample of 19 plantations are picked up randomly, including 3 spots of seed sowing under
KSFMBC Model-1. 16 plantations are evaluated covering 382.00 Ha. which has registered average
average survival of 70.22%. Two plantations have found to have failed with survival is less than
20%. 153 Ha. Of seed sowing in 3 spots are found tobe good. It is found that, plantations raised in
failed areas are not performing well. Eucalyptus plantations are struggling because of gall formation.
Miscellaneous seedlings like Emblica, Tamarind, Pongemia are struggling on degraded lands and the
future appears bleak. One roadside plantation in Siruguppa is found with a survival of 61%. Under
distribution of seedlings 17 spots were evaluated and the survival was found to be 75.82%. The
species planted are Neem, Pongemia, Tamarind, Teak, Subabul and Eucalyptus. These species are
found to be performing well. Under ` Other Works ` 23 works are evaluated and found to be good in
quality and quantity ,except one CPT work (5 Kms.,) is found to be poor quality. The other works
carried out, are in the category Civil works and SMC works.
6.3.2 SOCIAL FORESTRY DIVISION, BELLARY
Out of 9 plantations covering 63 Ha. Are evaluated and 5 plantations have found
to be failed. The average survival is 15.93%. Out of 3 roadside plantations, one is failure and
another is found to be of poor quality.
6.3.3 CHITRADURGA DIVISION
16 plantations covering an extent of 415 Ha. Wre evaluated and the survival is found to be
82.40%. Two seed sowing areas are selected covering an extent of 146.50 Ha. Evaluated under the
scheme KSFMBC Model-1 and the condition is found to be very good, as per the observations made
by the team. It is found that plantations raised in failed areas are not performing well and Eucalyptus
plantations are struggling because of gall disease. Miscellaneous seedlings like Emblica, Tamarind,
Pongemia ,etc., are struggling on degraded lands. Distribution of seedlings could not be evaluated.
The main reason being inadequate records where beneficiaries can not be traced. Under ` Other
Works ` 3 (Nos.) of SMC works are selected randomly and the works are found to be of good
quality.
6.3.4 SOCIAL FORESTRY DIVISION, CHITRADURGA
Two plantations covering an area of 20 Ha. Under KSFMBC scheme are evaluated and the
survival is found to be 48.50%., which considered to be poor.
6.3.5 DAVANAGERE DIVISION
A sample of 29 plantations covering an area of 639 Ha. are picked up randomly and the
survival is found to be 58.60%. One plantation covering an extent of 20 Ha. At Mussinal village is
found to be failure. It is found that plantations raised in earlier failed areas, are not performing well
and Eucalyptus plantations are struggling with gall formation. Miscellaneous species like Emblica,
Tamarind, Pongemia ,etc., are struggling on degraded lands. One roadside plantation in Davanagere
Town under Greening of Urban Area scheme(2004-05) is found to have survival of 55%. It is found
that distribution of seedlings could not be evaluated for want of proper records to trace back the
beneficiaries. Under `Other Works` 5 SMC works are picked up randomly and these are found to be
good quality.
35
6.3.6 SOCIAL FORESTRY DIVISION, DAVANAGERE
Demostration plots on farmers` land are evaluated and the survival is found to be 15.86%.
These plots spread over 23 Ha, (23 farmers) raised under KSFMBC scheme are of very poor quality
and executed without addressing the objective, which is dissemination of a variety/technique.
6.3.7 KOPPAL DIVISION:
18 plantations covering an area of 488.20 Ha. are picked up randomly and evaluated.
Survival percentage is found to be 63.59%. It is found that plantations raised in failed areas are not
performing well and Eucalyptus plantations are struggling because of gall formation. Miscellaneous
species like Emblica, Tamarind, Pongemia etc., are struggling on degraded land. The distribution of
seedlings could not be evaluated.. Under ` Other Works `, 4 SMC works, One ladies toilet and One
borewell were picked up randomly and the quality is found to be good .
6.3.8 SOCIAL FORESTRY DIVISION, KOPPAL
11 plantations covering an extent of 134.50 Ha. are picked up randomly abd evaluated.
Survival percentage is found to be 55.49%. 3 plantations are found to have failed and the remaining
plantations are found to be good.
36
6.4 CHAMARAJANAGAR CIRCLE

The Circle comprises of Chamarajanagar Wildlife Division, Kollegal Division,
Cauvery Wildlife Division, Chamarajanagar Social Forestry Divisions.
6.4.1 CAUVERY WILDLIFE DIVISION
6 spots (155 Ha) were picked up in sample for evaluation. The overall survival
percentage is very low and unsatisfactory. All attempts to raise plantations have been futile.
No plantations should be raised in these areas, however protection can be provided to
available root stock of local species. Seed sowings have also resulted in failures. Action
should be initiated against insincere officials responsible for large scale failure of plantations.
The plantation journals are partially updated for the above plantations. Except one plantation
where survival is less than 30%, all plantations raised under FDA-NAP in the division have
failed. Once again erring officials will have to be proceeded against.
The building works include construction of anti poaching camps and maintenance of
existing staff quarters and an inspection bungalow. The construction of permanent anti-
poaching camps are undesirable as staff will tend to relax in one place and forest protection
will be a casuality. It is advisable to have temporary camps along Cavery river and go on
shifting them periodically. The existing roads have been maintained and the works are
satisfactory. The quality of Soil and moisture conservation works is found to be satisfactory.
The division has taken up de-silting of existing tanks and old check dams in the sanctuary
area, which is a welcome approach. There is no point in going for new works, when the old
works can be repaired at lesser cost. Bore well was dug at Sangam for supply of water to
visitors during the year 2005-06 and a motor was also purchased in the same year, but till the
time of inspection the motor was not fixed to the bore well defeating the very purpose of the
work and rendering the entire expenditure wasteful. No seedlings were raised or distributed to
the public by the Division during the period under evaluation.
6.4.2 CHAMARAJANAGAR WILDLIFE DIVISION
25 plantations (442 Ha) were picked up in sample for evaluation. The overall survival
percentage is found to be 70%. The plantations raised in this Wildlife Division are partly
damaged by wild animals. The root stock of the natural forest species is growing better than
the plantations. Seedlings in plantations, though surviving, are not healthy. The germination,
as a result of seed sowing, has failed. FDA plantations have lesser survival percent as
compared to the plantations in other schemes. The funds provided for Entry Point Activities
under FDA have been utilized for revenue generating works, de-silting and creation of water
ponds, digging of EPT and for construction of temples etc., In EDCs such as Hongalwadi-II,
Kullur, Chikkemuddehalli, Kolipalya, revenue generating works like erection of Flour mill,
and articles required for functions such as shamiana, chairs, tables, utensils have been
purchased. However, the details regarding revenue realized from these resources are not
available. In Kathegal podu EDC, a new water tank has been constructed, which was very
useful to wild animals as no perennial stream is in the neighborhood. The quality of work is
found to be good. Plantation journals are not updated. Survey sketches in several cases are
not properly done. EPTs created are in good condition and are serving the purpose. SMC
works and civil works are satisfactory, in general. No seedlings were raised or distributed to
the public by the division during the period under evaluation. Other works like Construction
of Gully checks, Construction of Cause way, Construction of Check dam, Improvement of
Tank, Excavation of EPT, Construction of Compound wall and Creation of Water hole are
evaluated and found to be satisfactory.
37
6.4.3 CHAMARAJANAGAR SOCIAL FORESTRY DIVISION
7 Demonstration plots were picked up in sample for evaluation. The overall survival
percentage is found to be 40%.The plantations raised are observed to have very poor survival
percentage and also the efforts are found to be un-satisfactory. In the Demonstration Plots
the survival percentage is good where farmers have shown interest in protecting the seedlings
planted. In chikkalur village only 15 seedlings are surviving out of the 277 grafted mango
planted. The farmer has not shown any interest in the planting. In Yergemballi, the farmer
cultivated sugar cane as intercrop and due to severe root competition and competition for
light, the plantation is a total failure. In demonstration plots where seedlings are planted on
the bunds, the results are better. Teak, Nelli and Silver oak planted on bunds have shown
better result as compared to grafted mango and other horticultural species.
The team visited 41 spots and interviewed the farmers where seedlings of Eucalyptus,
Teak, Silver oak, Melia dubia, Pongemia and Drum-stick were distributed. The performance
of Teak and Eucalyptus is found to be better. Though the seedlings were planted by the
beneficiaries, but a large number of farmers have not taken up any cultural operations and
watering, which has affected the survival and growth. Where irrigation is made available, the
seedlings’ performance is good. Wherever farmers have neglected maintenance, seedlings
have died. The department should educate the farmers.
6.4.4 KOLLEGAL DIVISION
6 plantations (101.00 Ha) were picked up in sample for evaluation. The overall
survival percentage is found to be 75%. The plantations suffer from damage due to wild
animals and though the stock is good the plants are not healthy and promising. The survival
percentage varies from 43% in case of road side plantation in Gundlupet range to 93% in
Sathegal jagir section 4 notified areas. All the areas selected for block plantations are having
moderate scrub vegetation with good root stock of Azadrachta indica, Chloroxylon switenia,
Albizzia amara, Acacia leucophloea, Anogeissus latifolia, Butea monosperma etc., with open
gaps. Plantations are raised in open gaps in pit model, except KSFMBC Lokkanalli
plantation, which is trench mound model. All the areas selected for plantations are prone to
biotic interference, particularly by wild animals. In all the plantations, though survival is
good, damage due to wild animals is observed and the future of the plantations is not
promising. Even well-grown saplings are damaged by wild elephants. Except one plantation
raised under KSFMBC, none of the plantations are having VFCs. Plantation journals are
maintained for all the plantations. Under FDA-NAP scheme in Kuduvale VFC, 40 Ha of
Bamboo and 100 Ha of Assisted natural regeneration (ANR) model plantations have been
raised. The area selected is not suitable for bamboo model as it is rocky and with fairly dense
vegetation. The bamboo seedlings planted are also very small and their future is not
encouraging. The ANR model area is also with fairly good natural vegetation and suited to
the model, but due to poor protection and damage due to wild animals, the survival
percentage and growth is not satisfactory. Except Pongamia, all other species are struggling.
The area is having good potential for soil and moisture conservation works, but very little
attention is paid. In fact, good soil moisture conservation works could have helped the
existing natural vegetation and also the wild animals. The village is facing severe elephant
problems and under entry-point activities solar fencing has been done by spending
Rs.1, 90,360 to restrict the movement of elephants in villages. In addition, seed sowing
operations are evaluated, the germination is found to be unsatisfactory.
The building maintenance works and road maintenance works are satisfactory.
Shattarakatte tank, which is out side the forest area has been taken up for desilting under
project elephant scheme. The work is satisfactory. The excavation of EPT from Beladahalla
to Suvarnnagara is found to be not continuous due to hard soil and rock, rendering the work
38
in-effective for containing the movement of elephants. SMC works and road maintenance are
found to be satisfactory. The village is facing severe elephant menace.
Kollegal division has raised 34,000 seedlings during 2006-07 for public distribution.
The seedlings were not distributed to the public, as there was no demand. However, the
seedlings were utilized for the FDA plantations, as stated by the DCF.
39
6.5 CHIKKMAGALUR CIRCLE

Chickmagalur Circle comprises of Chickmagalur Forest Division, Koppa Forest Division,
Bhadra Wildlife Division and Chickmagalur Social Forestry Division.
6.5.1 BHADRA WILDLIFE DIVISION
Excavation of EPT is carried out satisfactorily. Civil works, including anti-poaching
camp works are found to be satisfactory. Tank maintenance works are also found to be
carried out satisfactorily. Though Survey and Demarcation works are done for re-
organization of Muthodi and Thanigebyle Ranges, yet no maps are prepared so far.
Plantations raised are damaged due to grazing and trampling by wild animals. In future, such
areas should not be taken up for plantation purposes. Trekking paths are maintained
satisfactorily, but the attempt to develop grass land by raising fodder grass plot, is not
successful, due to damage by wild animals.
6.5.2 CHICKMAGALUR FOREST DIVISION
Four plantations were picked up in evaluation under FDA scheme, while 8 were
picked up in other schemes. The average surivial percent of FDA plantation is found to be
75%, while that under other scheme is found to be 52%. The evaluation team found that
performance of Acacia auriculiformis and Casurina in low rain fall areas like Kadur Range is
poor. However growth of Acacia auriculiformis and other miscellaneous species are found to
be satisfactory in other Ranges of High forest. The plantation in areas such as Muthodi
Range is found to be damaged by wild animals. Officers have not applied their mind and
taken appropriate precautions so as to succeed in such areas. Town planting under “Greening
of Urban Areas” in Chickmagalur town is partly successful because of widening of roads and
formation of new layouts. The team also found that the success rate of distribution of
seedlings is quite good. Civil works and SMC works are generally found to be effective.
6.5.3 CHICKMAGLUR SOCIAL FORESTRY DIVISION
Only three plantations were picked up for sample inspection by team. It is found that
the success of Acacia auriculiformis plantations raised under DWG and SGRY have very
high percentage of survival, while Honne plantations raised under SGRY is not so successful
(61%), because of lack of adequate protection. The distribution of seedlings could not take
off very well, as the seedlings were priced high as compared to price of seedlings distributed
by watershed department. However, whatever seedlings are distributed the survival ranges
from 60% to 80%.
6.5.4 KOPPA FOREST DIVISION
19 plantations were picked up under FDA and eight under other schmes for
evaluation. The average survival under FDA plantation is found to be 56.62%, while under
the other Schemes is found to be 82.47%. Acacia auriculiformis has been planted in nearly
60% of the plantations, which is found to have succeeded irrespective of the location of the
plantations. Cane and bamboo plantations have generally failed for want of adequate
protection. In FDA plantations, proper protection by way of fencing was not done resulting
in less survival, as observed in K.Kusbur plantation. Madaboor bamboo plantation raised
during 2004-05 under FDA has failed due to cattle grazing and trampling, despite brush wood
fencing. The involvement of VFCs in the protection and maintenance of plantation raised
under FDA during 2004-05 is found to be un-satisfactory.
Seedlings distributed to farmers are doing well in the field. The survival percentage
ranges between 60% to 80%. Further it is noticed that large number of Silver oak and Teak
seedlings are supplied from the Watershed Development Department at a lower rate.
40
Territorial Deputy Conservator of Forests, where seedling price was higher, have struggled to
dispose off their stock. It is also noticed that there are private nurseries in the divisions,
which raise Silver oak seedlings and seedlings of other miscellaneous species.
In the extraction work of Acacia auriculiformis, it is noticed that, no felling hammer
mark is put on the stumps. However, in dead and fallen extraction these marks are noticed.
In case of tank constructed during 2006-07 at Yadur Sy.No 50 of Kalasa Range, no proper
outlet is provided. The check-dam constructed during 2006-07 at Kushboor(Sathkoli) in Sy
No.48 of N.R. Pura range is also having faulty design. Logging works and Teak plantations
thinning are carried out satisfactorily. Thinning of teak plantations have been carried out
duly following the working plan and the approved list. However there is a huge backlog of
plantations due for thinning. Civil works, SMC works, Eco-tourism and desilting works are
satisfactory.
41
6.6 DHARWAD CIRCLE

The Circle comprises of Dharwad Territorial Division, Dharwad Social Forestry
Division, Gadag Territorial Division, Gadag Social Forestry Division, Haveri Territorial
Division, Haveri Social Forestry Division and Wildlife, Sub-division, Ranebenur.
6.6.1 DHARWAD TERRITORIAL DIVISION
Fifteen FDA plantations, five plantations from Non-plan schemes and three SMC
works were selected in the sample for evaluation. Generally survival percentage in FDA
plantation is found to be 75% except kedanatle and Chikkamalliwada plantations of Dharwad
Range, where survival is found to be around 50%. Among the planted species, Bamboo
(Dowga), Acacia auriculiformis (springvale variety), Acacia auriculiformis (local variety)
and Eucalyptus are the better performing ones. Emblica, Terminalia belerica, Pongemia,
Terminalia arjuna and Lagerstoremia indica, have comparatively shown good performance.
Deputy Conservator of Forests and Conservator of Forests are requested to pay more
attention for selection of species, otherwise wrongly chosen species would always result in
failure of plantations. Generally pitting and planting have been resorted, because of the
presence of natural root stock and tree growth. Ripping is done in areas devoid of tree
growth. Though miscellaneous species are surviving, but their growth is not satisfactory.
Protection of the plantations also has improved the quality of the natural forest. In ripping
areas, ripping has accelerated the growth of dormant natural stunted seedlings. It is observed
in most of the FDA plantations that Micro plan prepared for concerned village forest
Committee has expired and new plan is to be prepared, so as to include the fresh plantations
undertaken under FDA scheme.
The SMC works have been carried out inside the forest area, which has helped in Soil
and Moisture Conservation leading to improvement of the existing vegetation.
It is observed in distribution of seedlings that the farmers prefer Teak seedlings. Teak
has been planted either in one row or two rows along the border/fence/inner roads of the farm
land. Teak seedlings have attained the height of 1 to 2mts in two years time. Mostly the
survival percentage is above 90% and farmers have taken lot of interest to protect the
plantation. Nugge (hybrid) planted in some areas is already yielding fruits. Some farmers
have provided irrigation to plants.
6.6.2 DHARWAD SOCIAL FORESTRY DIVISION
13 plantations raised under SJRY are picked up in the sample for evaluation.
Though the survival percent varies between 3% and 40%, the plantations hardly have any
future. Out of the 3 roadside plantations, one plantation has 85% survival rate and the other
two have 57% & 33% respectively.
Among the planted species, Neem, Pongemia, Mahogani, Eugenia, Sisso and Acacia
auriculiformis are coming up satisfactorily. However, other miscellaneous species such as
Mango, F.religosia, Rain tree, Jack, Emblica, Tamarind have not done well. Miscellaneous
species need protection for a longer duration.
The quality of plantations in Social Forestry division is poor as compared to
Territorial division. In a number of plantations, pitting and planting is done, where growth
of the plants especially miscellaneous species are not satisfactory. Protection of the
plantations also has improved the quality of the natural vegetation. Social forestry division
does not take care of maintenance of plantations on a regular basis. For lack of proper
maintenance, the plantations fail.
42
The farmers prefer teak seedlings. Generally teak has been planted either in one row
or two rows along the border / fence / inner roads. Pitting and planting is the general
practice. Teak seedlings have attained the height of 1 to 2Mtrs in two years time. In many
spots, the survival percentage is above 80% and farmers have taken lot of interest to protect
the planted seedlings. In a couple of farmers lands Drum-stick(hybrid) planted in few
patches is already yielding fruits. Causuarina and Eucalyptus have also been preferred by
the farmers. Wherever irrigation facility is there, plantation is irrigated. One farmer has
planted karibevu seedlings in a block and is planning to harvest the leaves for commercial
purposes.
All the three VFCs that have been evaluated are registered in March-2002. In the
year 2007 new office bearers should have been elected. They should have also revised
micro-plan, MOU, etc., but the same is not complied.
A discussion was held with the Conservator of Forests, Dharwad with regard to
action taken on earlier evaluation report and the concerned Deputy Conservator of Forests
has said that the observations made in the previous report are complied. However, the same
is not found to be so.
6.6.3 GADAG TERRITORIAL DIVISION
The performance of block plantations raised under FDA is good with survival ranges
from 49% to 92%. Eucalyptus is coming up well. However miscellaneous species mixed
with Eucalyptus are not performing well. Amongst the miscellaneous species Anjan,
Holoptelia, Pongemia, Neem, Tamarind and C.siamia are doing better than species like
Seetaphal, Sisoo and Albzzia lebek, on account of inadequate protection. The survival
percentage of block plantations raised under various other heads ranges from 55% to 95%.
The failure is found to be more common in roadside plantations. It is necessary to avoid
ripping work, wherever the root stock is found, so as to prevent damage of naturally
occurring plants. Hence it must be made mandatory for Deputy Conservator of Forests to
certify the site specific plan regarding criteria for selection of specific model. Greening the
urban area has to be given more attention.
Construction of tank is the preferred work in SMC works. This work has been carried
out satisfactorily. Presence of water in the tanks is noticed at the time of evaluation in many
spots. This work helps in storing the run off rain water and percolation of the same to re-
charge the ground water.
6.6.4 GADAG SOCIAL FORESTRY DIVISION
The plantations have not been maintained properly due to paucity of funds from Zilla
Panchayath. The forestry work taken up at gram Panchayath level is not known to district
level Officers of Zilla Panchayath. Thus, poor quality work is turned out and department gets
a bad name. With an average survival percentage of 40%, it is concluded that the plantations
are not successful. Conservator of Forests, Dharwad must initiate action against responsible
persons. The plantation practices is needed to be changed. The areas in Gadag district are
highly refractory. The selection of species should be done carefully depending upon locality
factors. The Naragund, Ron and Gadag areas need different treatment as compared to areas
of Shirahatti and Mundargi taluks. The maintenance needed, is also for longer period than
what has been provided so for. The Eucalyptus planting should be avoided as gall disease is
prevalent, throughout these tract. The team felt that, all the ongoing schemes can continue.
No modifications are required and no new schemes are suggested.
43
6.6.5 HAVERI TERRITORIAL DIVISION
The performance of block plantations raised under FDA are good with survival
percentage generally ranging from 30% to 76%. By and large Acacia auriculiformis
(springvale variety) and Clonal Eucalyptus (Bhadrachalam Variety) have performed well. In
FDA plantations of AR Model, ripping is done, and thus the performance of the plantations
are good. Old Eucalyptus have coppiced vigorously and have started suppressing the planted
seedlings in the ripped lines. In the MI Model, pitting work is taken in natural forest areas,
where the natural growth has rejuvinated, because of protection and has suppressed the
planted species. In SP Model, the selection of the site, choice of species and the protection
aspects are all improper. In fact, this model should not be chosen in low rain fall areas. The
performances of block plantations taken up under various other heads, are good with the
survival percentage ranging from 52% to 95%. By and large Acacia auriculiformis
(springvale variety) and Clonal Eucalyptus(Bhadrachalam Variety) have performed well.
Ripping is done, which has contributed for the good performance of the plantations. The
coppicing of old hacked eucalyptus stumps have grown vigorously and have started
suppressing the planted seedlings in the ripped lines. The performance of town plantation is
good with a survival of 95%. Pongamia has performed well.
The de-silting of tanks is found to have been the preferred, among all types of other
works. This work has been carried out satisfactorily. In many of the spots presence of water
in the tanks has been noticed. This work helps in storing the run off rain water and
percolation of the same to re charge the ground water. But, at Gudugul in Ranebennur Range,
maximum money has been spent in creating a nala bund. In an area where the rain fall is
meager, money is not spent on excavation of a pit to store water but spent on creating a nala
bund to stop over flow of rain water. Adoption of minor irrigation tank construction works in
forests and SMC works may be avoided in future.
No VFC was evaluated for its functioning in the division. However, the micro-plan of
the concerned VFC, the Entry Point Activities and the general active participation of the VFC
members are evaluated. Except one or two VFCs, the currency of the micro-plan in the
remaining have expired and no efforts are put in to prepare the fresh micro-plans. The MOU
does not disclose as to what is the area assigned to VFC. The works undertaken in FDA
programme for the period from 2003-04 to 2006-07 including plantation work, EPA
activities, SMC works are not visible in micro-plan documents. In Ranibennur range, the
VFCs of Social Forestry Division are included in the FDA implementation, but no efforts are
made to effect legitimate corrections. The FDA programme for Haveri division is sanctioned
for the period from 2003-04 to 2006-07. Though there is a provision of Rs.2.171 lakhs for
preparation of micro-plans including revision of the old micro-plans, no revised micro-plans
are shown to the evaluation team. The funds provided for FDA has not been properly
utilized.
Very few samples for distribution of seedlings are checked, as records for distribution
of seedlings are not produced. Hence, no evaluation is done for distribution of seedlings.
6.6.6 HAVERI SOCIAL FORESTRY DIVISION
The performances of the block plantations are not satisfactory. The main reason
being the discontinuance of maintenance, due to paucity of funds from Zilla Panchayat. It is
also not viable to maintain plantations of smaller extent and that too scattered all over.
Roadside plantations have also been neglected. Survival percentage is not encouraging. The
road side plantations of Social Forestry division will bring bad name to Forest department.
There has to be introspection. Conservator of Forests, Dharwad must initiate action against
the officials responsible for failure.
No evaluation regarding distribution of seedlings has been carried out.
44
6.6.7 RANEBENNUR (WL) SUB-DIVISION
De-silting of tanks have been under taken in sanctuaries. It is observed that the entire
silt is removed, which has caused increased percolation. In future it must be ensured that one
thick layer of silt is retained to minimize percolation and store water for wild animals.
Construction of cause ways is not necessary in low rainfall areas due to the absence of all
seasonal water flowing nallas and streams. Rubble checks are a soil conservation measure.
Construction of rubble checks along steep nallas will not help in conserving any soil. Wild
life mangers must apply their mind and bring in, necessary improvement.
The plantation practices Eucalyptus plantation with miscellaneous species are needed
to be changed. The locality factors must be ascertained for selection of species. The site
specific plan should be asked to be certified by the Deputy conservator of forests before start
of work. The Eucalyptus planting should be avoided as gall disease is prevalent. The team
felt that, all the ongoing schemes can continue. No modifications are required and no new
schemes are suggested.
45
6.7 GULBARGA CIRCLE

Gulbarga circle comprises of three Territorial Divisions of Gulbarga, Bidar, Raichur
and three Social Forestry Divisions in the districts of Gulbarga, Bidar and Raichur.
6.7.1 BIDAR TERRITORIAL DIVISION
21 plantations raised under various head of accounts such as FDA, SCP, KSFMBC,
DDF were picked up in the sample for evaluation by the team. Based on the survival in the
sample, overall survival in Bidar division is found to be 42%. Tall seedlings in bigger bags
have yielded better result as compared to smaller seedlings. The survival in roadside and
town planting is around 50%. Some exceptional cases of town planting using tall seedlings,
from large bags, have shown exceptionally high rate of survival. The block plantations raised
with trenches formed either manually or by machines have slightly better survival than the pit
plantations. Of the species used in Bidar, Hardwickia binata, Pongamia pinnata and
Holoptelia integrifolia have shown comparatively better results. These species have come up
luxuriantly, wherever initial protection is provided. It is observed by the Evaluation Team
that Eucalyptus is suffering from Gall disease and hence is recommended to be discontinued.
In Bidar Forest Division, out of 21 plantations inspected, only 14 VFCs are formed. There is
considerable progress in IGA activities in VFC. The IGA amount released to VFC, has been
issued through loan to SHGs. Repayment of installments is satisfactory. The majority of
VFC members took loan for starting animal husbandry and poultry units, a few others have
invested the loan in petty shops and PCO. More of training to SHGs with regards to income
generating activates may bring in more returns on their investment. Efforts made in
Bidar division towards moisture and soil conservation works are found to be successful.
The performance of the seedlings planted on farm lands is 75%. This is based on the
performance observed in two talukas visited. A plantation journal without timely entry by the
inspecting officers makes it, an unacceptable document, as found in the evaluation.
6.7.2 BIDAR SOCIAL FORESTRY DIVISION
49 plantations raised under various heads of account such as SGRY, SCP, RSUY,
KSFMBC, NREGS, School Forestry etc., were picked up in the sample for evaluation. Based
on the survival in the sample, the overall survival percent in the division is found to be
48.9%. The better survival is on account of planting of tall seedlings raised in big bags. The
survival in road side and Urban plantations are found to be around 50%. Hardwickia
bianata, Pongamia pinnata and Holoptelia integrifolia have shown comparatively better
results, as compared to many other species planted. Eucalyptus is recommended to be
discontinued for Gall disease. Generally 40% of the plantations in Social Forestry division at
Bidar have failed or have recorded very poor survival. Conservator of Forests, Gulbarga
must initiate action against the officials responsible for failure.
6.7.3 GULBARGA TERRITORIAL DIVISION
27 plantations were picked up in the sample for evaluation. The team assessed the
performance of different species, quality of works and general condition of the plantations.
Based on the performance in sample plots the overall survival percent in the division is found
to be 48.65%. Tall seedlings in bigger bags have resulted in better success, as compared to
smaller seedlings. Similarly block plantations with trenches formed either manually or by
machines have slightly better survival than the pit plantations. Generally road side and town
planting have 50% survival. In an exceptional case of town planting using larger size bags in
Gulbarga, the survival is 98%. The species used in Gulbarga namely, Azadiractha indica,
Cassia siamea, Melia composite, Pongamia pinnata, Jatropha, Simaruba glauca, Ficus
religiosa, Ficus bengalensis, Dalbergia sissoo, Eucalyptus and some medicinal plant species
46
like Rauwolfia serpentina, withania somnifera, Aloe vera, Azadiractha indica, Melia
composite, Glyrecedia and Albezzia lebbek and several others, have proven to be the best
suited in most talukas of Gulbarga. It is observed by the evaluation team that Eucalyptus is
suffering from a leaf curling disease which is quite widespread. Out of 27 plantations
inspected by the team 11 VFCs are formed and micro-plans are written in all these cases.
Entry Point Activities are carried out in all the FDA scheme. Plantation journals are
maintained but timely entry of inspecting officers are not recorded. There is considerable
progress in IGA activities in VFC. The IGA amount released to VFC, has been issued
through loan to SHGs. Repayment by installments is satisfactory. With more training to
SHGs, the loan amount can be invested to earn more profit.
The performance of the seedlings planted in farmers’ land is above 50% on an
average in all the talukas. During the evaluation, it is found that the performance of
Azadrachta indica has been extremely good. In several other places Melia composita has
done very well. These are the species which should make the bulk of planting stock.
Treatment maps should be made according to a well thought out plan before taking up any
plantation. This culture is found to be missing in Gulbarga division and needs to be
inculcated in all future plantations.
6.7.4 GULBARGA SOCIAL FORESTRY DIVISION
39 plantations raised under SGRY, NREGA, KREGS were picked up for evaluation.
Based on the performance in the sample plots, the overall survival percent in the division
works out to be 60.31%. Though some plantations have totally failed, most of the plantations
are found to be performing above average. It is further noticed that tall seedlings in bigger
bags have contributed to better success. In-appropriate site selection, species selection,
model selection and inadequate protection are the chief reasons for failure. Of several
species listed, the performance of Azadrachta indica, Melia composita, Glyrecedia, Albizzia
lebek is better. As Eucalyptus suffers from Gall disease in the initial stage, its planting may
be discontinued.
Neem, Ala, Nerale, Bamboo, Teak and Mango seedlings were picked up by farmers
for their farm land. The survival is found to be around 60%.
6.7.5 RAICHUR TERRITORIAL DIVISION
16 plantations raised under different heads of account such as FDA, GUA, CO,
KFDF, KSFMBC, DDF, KSHIP, 12th Finance were picked up in the sample for evaluation.
Based on the survival in the sample plot, the overall survival percent is found to be 46.37%.
Tall seedlings in bigger bags have produced better result. The survival in road side, school
and town planting is around 50%, which is better than survival in block plantations. In
general, indigenous species such as Azadiractha indica, Pongamia pinnata, Tapasi are found
to be performing well, wherever proper protection is provided. Among roadside plantations,
it is again Azadiractha indica, Holoptelia, Raintree, F.religosa and Sissoo are faring better
in almost all talukas. In the past, Sissoo was planted apart from Eucalyptus, in many block
plantations and roadside plantations. In such areas, Sissoo regeneration through root suckers
is seen on large scale, in some of the plantations in Lingasugur. Since, the species is suitable
for both poor and black-cotton soils, it may be taken up for planting only in open and
roadside plantations in black soil talukas of the district. In general, it is local indigenous
species like Azadiractha indica, Pongamia piñata and Holoptelia are performing well. The
ACF and RFO should take special interest in selection of site for the models prescribed in
different schemes depending on the objectives of the scheme. For, none of the plantations,
site specific plan is drawn, which should be mandatory, while sanctioning the estimate. The
climatic and edaphic conditions being harsh in the district, the site specific plan would go a
long way in making the plantations successful. Choice of species is improper for 2
47
plantations, out of 16 plantations visited by evaluation teams. Site with shallow soils with
boulders, have been ripped with bulldozers and planted with Sissoo, Anjan, Neem and
Holoptelia. Such refractory sites are only fit to be planted with Agave. Fencing and CPT in
several plantations have not been foolproof to provide complete protection. In some schemes
like FDA due to limit on cost norm, protection measure like CPT or fencing are not done. In
most of the FDA plantations, it is the improper protection and lack of participation of VFC
members, which has resulted in low survival of plants. Wherever, protection is ensured, the
plantations have come up well with very good survival of plants, in spite of adverse climate
and edaphic conditions prevailing in the district. Three out of 16 plantations have very poor
survival and have failed. Extent of plantation is worked out based on Number of trenches and
pits. It is advisable to carry out survey to find exact extent.
For lack of proper records, seedling distribution sites could not be picked up for
evaluation. Because of enhanced irrigation potential in many areas, the adjoining forest lands
are in the process of encroachment for cultivation. Local Forest Administration must watch
out against it.
6.7.6 RAICHUR SOCIAL FORESTRY DIVISION
18 plantations raised under different heads of account such as SGRY, Scarcity Relief
works, KSFMBC were picked up in the sample for evaluation. Based on the survival in the
sample plot, the overall survival percent is found to be 36.15%. The seedlings in bigger bags
have produced better result. The survival in road side, school and town planting is around
50%, which is better than the survival in block plantations. Eight plantations, out of the list
of 18 sample have totally failed while yet another plantation has poor survival. Species like
Neem, Pongemia and Holoptelia have put in better survival and growth. Regeneration of
Sisoo through root suckers is noticed in older plantations, indicating a potential for future.
Five out of these eighteen sample plantations are found to have been raised on improper sites.
Large scale failure is on account of inadequate protection provided. Extent of plantation is
worked out, based on No. of trenches and pits. Survey must be carried out to know the exact
extent.
For lack of proper records, seedlings distribution sites could not be picked up for
evaluation.
48
6.8 HASSAN CIRCLE

Hassan Circle comprises of Hassan Territorial Division and Hassan Social Forestry
Division, Tumkur Territorial Division and Tumkur Social Forestry Division. Plantations and
other works including farm forestry raised during 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07 were taken
up for evaluation. These included, various State sector Plan and Non-Plan schemes, District
sector, Centrally sponsored schemes and Externally aided schemes. Schemes include NAP-
FDA, KSFMBC, SCP, KFDF-03, 12th Finance Commission, NOVOD, CRF, GUA, COP,II-
Forest Protection, DDF, RSPD, Compensatory Plantations, SGRY, KSF and DPAP etc.
Division wise Evaluation Reports are as follows.
6.8.1 HASSAN TERRITORIAL DIVISION
41 plantations were evaluated by the team, and it is observed that site selection, model
selection, choice of species etc are generally proper. Objectives of the schemes in plantations
are also taken care off. The overall survival percent of schemes other than FDA is found to
be 75%. In drier parts of the division, Eucalyptus and Acacia auriculiformis are found to be
performing well along with species such as Neem, Ficus bengalensis, Ficus religosa,
Holoptelia, Tamarind etc., In high rainfall areas, miscellaneous species such as Kurlirumavu,
Yalaga, Manthulli, Dhuma, Kainara are doing well and so also the Eucalyptus and Acacia
auriculiformis. However, performance of miscellaneous species in Arsikere Range is poor
for want of protection. Fuel wood species are surviving better than the miscellaneous
species. But protection works like fencing and CPT in the plantations older than three years
is not good and miscellaneous species are not performing well in a long run. The
performance of miscellaneous species in the compensatory afforestation is poor due to heavy
biotic pressure. The FDA scheme is implemented successfully, and are found to be slightly
inferior than the plantations under other schemes. The overall survival of FDA plantation is
found to be nearly 70%.
It is found that generally the farmers have taken adequate care of the distributed
seedlings and protected them well. The survival percentage is more than 60% in most of the
cases. The farmers have expressed opinion that seedlings should be made available at the
taluk headquarter, so that they can procure the seedlings without spending too much money
on transportation. The team has visited 39 spots, where other works are implemented.
The works carried out are generally found to be good.
6.8.2 HASSAN SOCIAL FORESTRY DIVISION
It is found during evaluation that the plantations are good and survival rate is more
than 60%. Protection aspects should be given priority involving local communities.
Miscellaneous species are generally not doing well, due to inadequate efforts in protection.
The upkeep of records has improved. Most of the plantations were surveyed and survey
sketches were pasted in the plantation journals. The miscellaneous species in the plantations
are generally not doing well due to the fact that the protection given to the plantation is not
adequate, the locals are not involved and VFC are not formed in many places.
In the distribution of seedlings, the miscellaneous species like Teak, Silver oak,
sapindus, Pongemia, Jack, Tamarind, Michelia champaca, Cherry and Fuel wood species like
Eucalyptus and Acacia auriculiformis are performing well. Seedlings sold or distributed free
of cost are found to be planted effectively and survival percentage is also encouraging.
49
6.8.3 TUMKUR TERRITORIAL DIVISION
Eighteen plantations under FDA (NAP) scheme were picked up in sample for
evaluation. Weighted average survival was found to be 67.44%. 14 plantations are in good
condition whereas One plantation in Sarigepalya of Gubbi Range is almost a failure. Nineteen
plantations were picked up for sampling under other schemes. The weighted average of
survival is found to be 61.94%. Fifteen plantations are having good survival whereas in three
plantations survival is very poor. One plantation in Bukkapatna Range planted with Bevu is a
failure. Eucalyptus plantations have suffered extensively due to the occurrence of Gall
disease. The disease has also affected the growth of the remaining Eucalyptus seedlings.
Casualties are replaced with Pongemia and other species but they are small and are not likely
to succeed. However, the disease has not affected Eucalyptus citriodora. In a number of
VFCs, there is no involvement of the local villagers and no Entry Point Activities are taken
up, though the funds were available for the purpose. Due to this, there is apathy by the local
VFCs towards afforestation activity.
The component earmarked for SMC works are generally utilized in trenching and
planting of permanent species in (one meter) cube pits. In most of the plantations Tamarind
has been planted as a permanent species. Big pits accompanied by effective soil working
have resulted in better water regime, which is appreciable.
One plantation raised under compensatory plantation scheme at Yerekatte in CN Halli
range was evaluated. The extent of plantations is only 1 Ha, which is not at all a viable
extent. It seems that it was not an originally planned plantation and was raised to achieve the
left over target under the scheme. There is no proper protection provided, nor the species
listed in the documents are surviving in the field. Most of the originally planted species have
died and to make up for the heavy casualties, very small Acacia seedlings are planted very
recently as evident from the extremely small size of seedlings, which are not at all in
commensurate with the age of plantations (raised in 2004). This plantation has been raised to
compensate the loss of forest area. Plantations like these, have no future and seem to have
been raised just to achieve the targets assigned and book the expenditure. The non forest area
used for raising under compensatory plantation must be mutated and proposed for Reserve
Forest. This is not being done, as found during Evaluation.
Roadside plantations in this division is doing satisfactorily with survival ranging from
30%-85% in evaluated plantations. Species doing well are Neem, Tamarind, Rain-tree,
Pongemia and Ficus etc.
Record keeping and documentation with regard to seedlings provided under farm
forestry is quite poor. Survival rate of seedlings is low and is rather not encouraging. On an
average success rate is better where farmers have purchased seedlings
It is observed that people are enthusiastic enough to tend to procure and plant large
number of seedlings on their lands but there is no aftercare and the planted seedlings either
dry up or suffer for want of maintenance. Due to lack of staff/their unwillingness to provide
technical guidance or interaction with the farmers, the success of distribution of seedlings
have suffered. It is also noted that survival rate and the health of planted seedlings is poor,
where the land owner is not staying or the lands have been left fallow.
It has been observed that Teak is in high demand, and lot of seedlings have been
planted too. However in most of the farm forestry plots, teak seedlings have been very
heavily pruned with the mistaken notion that pruning leads to fast and better growth of the
seedlings. It is noted that these heavily pruned plants have only grown lanky and without any
strength
It is felt that there should be uniform guidelines under various schemes for farm
forestry. Moreover it has been found that the rates fixed by the Government for selling
50
seedlings are quite high and the field officers find it very difficult to sell the seedlings at such
high rates, primarily because the private nurseries sell at comparatively low price. The policy
of fixing high rates is deterrent in achieving the target of having forests and trees on at least
33% of the geographical area within 2012, as envisaged under the National Forest Policy.
Therefore, a considerate view has to be taken in this regard.
Some of the Demo plots are not well planted and convincing enough, which defeats
the very purpose for which they are raised.
Other works such as Cattle-proof Trenches, Percolation Ponds, Nala-bunds etc., have
been satisfactorily done. In Nala-bunds good quantity of water has been impounded leading
to the overall improvement in the soil moisture status in the area. CPT has been satisfactorily
done. Seed dibbling has also been done, however, the success of such mound consolidation
component is good only in patches and it has to be improved. Seeds of suitable species have
to be dibbled again in proper season. To be effective, CPT has to be continuous without any
gap in between. Any break in CPT, the purpose is not served. In a number of places, CPT
has been found broken, in between. Planting a Bamboo and Agave suckers may also be
considered on the mounds of CPT.
6.8.4 TUMKUR SOCIAL FORESTRY DIVISION
In this division, a total of 30 plantations are picked up as sample for evaluation. The
weighted average survival is 12.26%. These plantations are raised under SGRY(ZP), DPAP
(Hariyal) and KSF schemes. Out of these plantations, seven of them have failed, because of
inadequate protection and Eucalyptus gall diseases. It is observed that one fourth of the
plantation works of the division has failed. Generally good efforts are made in raising road
side plantations. However, in this division a peculiar model has been devised at few places.
It consists of dibbling Jatropha seeds around the planted main seedlings. It was done
probably to protect main seedling from browsing by cattle, Jatropha being non browsable.
However it losses its utility once the main plant grows up above the browsable height and at
this stage Jatropha has to be removed to give main plant space to grow. It has not been done
with the result that in some instances main plant has withered and disappeared and only
Jatropha remains now.
Regarding the distribution of seedlings to the farmers, the success is found to be low,
wherever seedlings are distributed freely. Poor success is also noticed, because of lack of
technical guidance to the farmers. In Social Forestry division, Motivators are employed as
extension workers. This cadre of motivators has to be effectively used as an interface
between the farmers and the department. They have to be technically competent to advise
the farmers to take up farm forestry in a more meaningful and technically correct manner.
51
6.9 KANARA CIRCLE

The Circle comprises of Haliyal Territorial Division, Yellapur Territorial Division,
Sirsi Territorial Division, Honnavar Territorial Division, Karwar Territorial Division, Dandeli
Wildlife Division and Karwar Social Forestry Division.
6.9.1 DANDELI WILD LIFE DIVISION
Average survival percentage is 47.74% in 13 plantations picked up for evaluation
from all schemes. In FDA, the survival is found to be only 32.70% for 5 plantations
evaluated. Under 8 Non-FDA plantations survival is good and its is 75.12%. The choice of
species is found to be satisfactory. In certain cases the site and model selection is not proper
and more care should be taken in future. The details of formation of VFC/EDC, preparation
of micro-plan and Entry Point Activities are also evaluated. It is observed that except in few
cases, the process of people’s participation is not very satisfying and has to be given a boost.
Under Entry Point Activities, construction of Sababhavan and purchase of Shamiyana-Chairs
have been taken up only in two villages. Generally, the works that are taken up are, gap
planting/under plantations model etc., In such areas the Artificial Regeneration (AR) model
should be avoided, as Acacia auriculiformis does not fare well in shades.
Bamboo has flowered in the Division. Thus, fire protection measures and disposal of
culms as per working plan should be taken up. Plantation journals are incomplete. Area with
good natural regeneration may be avoided for being taken up for plantations. Both the
existing major schemes namely CSS WLS & NP and NAP-FDA may continue. However,
NAP-FDA may be modified suitably to include holisitic management of Wild Life Division
as per prescription of management plan.
6.9.2 HALIYAL DIVISION
19 plantations were picked up in the sample for evaluation. The average survival
percentage in all the schemes is found to be 58.05. Survey of plantation with sketch do not
clearly show gross and net areas of plantations. The espacement, as given in the plantation
records, does not tally with the espacement in the field. In certain FDA plantations, lack of
maintenance works, has adversely affected the survival percentage of the plantation. Some
civil work relating to Entry Point Activity under FDA-NAP is incomplete as the balance
money of the estimate is not provided. Quality of wood used in construction of buildings
should be good. Under CSS-NAP, raising of plants, herbs and shrubs having medicinal
values are not seen. This is digression from the objectives of the project, which should be
viewed seriously. Extraction of green Bamboos is mostly done by breaking it from the middle
of culms. Deputy Conservator of Forests and team should involve themselves in bringing
more scientific extraction. As Bamboo flowering is progressing in the division, action should
be taken as per the working plan to manage the flowered area. In some places in forest area,
widening/formation of road works were noticed without obtaining clearance under F(C)Act
1980. The Officers responsible for it must be booked.
6.9.3 HONNAVAR DIVISION
Under Non-FDA, 18 plantations are picked up in the sample for evaluation and
survival is 89.29%. Under FDA, 22 plantations are picked up and survival is 64.57%. The
overall survival is 74.88%. The performance of FDA plantations in terms of survival
percentage is significantly lower than Non-FDA plantations. It is found that VFCs have not
taken care of FDA plantations so well. The poor survival percentage in CSS(NAP) is
because cane plantation at Kuntawani is damaged by porcupines, plantation at Manki is
illicitly felled and plantation at Beranki has failed, owing to inadequate protection. Even
otherwise, survival percentage in CSS (NAP) plantations is poor, as they are raised close to
52
inhabitations, where biotic pressure is very high. VFCs are not found to be effective in
protection. The benefit of percolation tanks do not go to the forest as it is located near garden
lands. The work of contour trenching for water and soil conservation has not improved the
growth of vegetation. The greatest success of the division lies in raising low cost and low
input plantations of Acacia auriculiformis after harvest of the old crop. This is to be
demonstrated and replicated in Coastal areas where natural regeneration of the species is
profuse. The division has very aptly and appropriately tended logged areas by assisting
natural regeneration and sowing of seeds. The works of evaluation of distribution of
seedlings is very cumbersome and unreliable. This is because not very good records of
beneficiaries are kept in the range offices and the fact that people get seedlings from different
sources like Zilla Panchayath, KCDC, KFDC, MPM, etc., As suggested in the earlier
evaluation report, after felling the trees of Acacia plantations, the area should be closed, so as
encourage natural regeneration. Between 2004-05 and 2006-07, totally 438.50Ha of Acacia
plantations are reported to have been closed for natural regeneration.
6.9.4 KARWAR DIVISION
In Non-FDA plantations, survival is found to be 71.10%, while in FDA plantation it is
48.16%. The overall survival in plantations is 57.85% as observed in evaluation of 45
plantations selected in the sample. Under various schemes, it is observed that the protection
of plantations has to be adequate. The choice of species in plantations is found to be
satisfactory. The planting of Acacia in gaps should be avoided as its performance is not
satisfactory in shade. Under Compensatory Afforestation scheme, plantations are found to be
satisfactory. In JBIC and KFDF schemes, the survival percentage is found to be good. In
thinning of Teak plantations and Logging works, it is observed that marking register,
conversion/ kutch register, register of material transported and register of list of material
received at depot are maintained. Felling has been done as per the norms. Lops and tops
are salvaged properly. The extraction have been carried out as per the prescription of
working plan. It is further observed in the evaluation that no general prescriptions of
Working Plans are followed for protecting and replenishing the stock in the extraction areas.
All such areas are covered under intensive management of logged areas. In 21 buildings
evaluated, the quality of work is found to be good. SMC works are also found to have been
implemented satisfactory. The Entry Point Activities have played a vital role in building a
harmonious rapport between the department and community.
6.9.5 KARWAR SOCIAL FORESTRY DIVISION
In all, 32 plantations were picked up for evaluation and survival is very poor that is
19.72%. The low survival is because of the fact that plantation sites are under tremendous
biotic pressure. Moreover, the division is under-staffed. The performance of plantations
based on other parameters was also evaluated and it is found that choice of species, protection
aspects and general condition are bad in more than 50% of the plantations, whereas the site
selection and model selection are proper in remaining cases. There was no target for
distribution of seedlings in the year 2004-05 and 2005-06. However during 2006-07,
3,60,275 seedlings were distributed to 64 beneficiaries of which 6 beneficiaries were picked
up in the sample for evaluation. The informations regarding beneficiaries and the location
where these seedlings were planted are not recorded properly and are not available. The
evaluation is found to be thus difficult. Plantation journals are not maintained in this
Division.
6.9.6 SIRSI DIVISION
Under FDA 22 plantations are picked up in sample for evaluation and survival is
61.33%. Under Non-FDA schemes 33 plantations are picked in the sample for evaluation
and survival is 80.17%. Overall survival is 70.95%. Sirsi division has an excellent system
53
of keeping records related to works, with Computerization. The performance of FDA
plantations in terms of survival percentage is significantly lower than Non-FDA plantations.
It appears that VFCs have not taken enough care to provide adequate safe guard for FDA
plantation. The location of percolation ponds are found to be on lower slopes, thus depriving
the forests from the benefit of moisture regime. The work of contour trenching for water and
soil conservation is not visible in the growth of vegetation. Vermin-compost pits in nurseries
are found to be useful. In case of distribution of seedlings, the survival percentage is between
39 to 67%. The seedlings are bought from numerous sources like KFDC, MPM, Gram
Panchayat, Open Market etc. It is found that all the sources provide the same type of
seedlings. As suggested in the earlier evaluation report, the marking list, Kutch register and
measurement register are uptodate and found to tally with one another. Acacia thinning has
been done as per Silviculture description in the working plan. Re-afforestation has been
taken up in clear felled areas.
6.9.7 YELLAPUR DIVISION
The survival percentage in 18 FDA plantations picked up in the sample for evaluation
is 67.39. The survival percentage in 23 plantations raised in schemes other than FDA and
picked up in sample for evaluation is 70.75. The overall survival percentage is 69.63.
NOVOD, DDF and KSFMBC plantations have recorded highest survival percentage. The
plantations of Acacia auriculiformis in moist deciduous and dry deciduous tracks of
Mundgod and Kirwatti have registered high survival rate as compared to other ranges.
Although miscellaneous species are surviving, the growth is not satisfactory. The slow
growing miscellaneous plants are browsed and is less likely to produce a well formed tree.
Selection of the site and choice of species are generally not suitable. Under-planting in areas
with dense canopy has resulted in poor growth and failure, as several species have failed to
respond in shade. Generally, Acacia auriculiformis have done very well in grassy blanks and
open patches, irrespective of rainfall and depth of the soil. Teak has performed well in open
areas of moist deciduous and dry deciduous forests. Holoptelia and Pongemia also have
performed well. Miscellaneous species, which are surviving, have no future.
Three sites are visited for assessing performance of seedlings distributed. Number of
seedlings and species did not tally with the records. It is observed that the seedlings are not
distributed but sold for the actual price. People from various regions have purchased
seedlings in the name of local farmers and used for their own purposes. Generally, survival
of Teak, Acacia auriculiformis, Casurina equisitfolia and Eucalyptus are found to be
satisfactory on farm land.
Out of 92 spots for working of dead and fallen coupes, 11 spots are selected in sample
for evaluation. Out of 91 buildings 10, were selected for evaluation. In Bamboo extraction,
out of 54 spots 7 were visited. For Soil and Moisture Conservation works and Entry Point
Activities together, out of total number of 278 works, 62 works were evaluated. It is found
in evaluation that in all the cases of working of dead and fallen coupes, marking register,
conversion/katch register, register of material transported and register for list of material
received at depots are maintained. The works are done satisfactorily. Out of 10 buildings
evaluated, 3 are new constructions, 7 pertains to general maintenance works. All the works
are done satisfactorily. Martyrs memorial erected in Deputy Conservator of Forests office
premises could have been avoided and the amount could have been utilized for staff quarters.
The big bamboo in the Division is at flowering stage. Concrete action should be taken
to manage flowered bamboo. In general implementation, SMC works are found to be
satisfactory. Sometimes cattle proof trenching is implemented in lieu of SMC. Entry Point
activities have been taken up basically to provide drinking water for community and cattle.
Similarly steel plates and tumblers are provided to school children for mid-day meal.
54
6.10 KODAGU CIRCLE

The Circle comprises of Madikeri Division, Virajpet Division, Madikeri Wildlife
Division, (Brahmagiri wild life sanctuary, Pushpagiri wild life sanctuary and Talacauvery
wildlife sanctuary) and Madikeri Social Forestry Division.
6.10.1 MADIKERI TERRITORIAL DIVISION:
Out of 574Ha plantations raised in all schemes except FDA, 135 Ha is selected in
sample for evaluation. The survival percentage varies from 60 to 97%, but generally around
70%. The plantations under 12th Finance scheme are raised in areas prone to encroachment
and logged areas in accordance with the objectives of the scheme. The plantations under
KFDF and DDF schemes are planted with species like Mahogany, Hopea parviflora,
Artocarpus hirsuta, Vataria indica etc., which are the native species of the area and have the
potential to grow into big trees. Three KSFMBC plantations in Kushalnagar and Somvarpet
ranges are evaluated. In model 1, area has been closed and the results are found to be
encouraging. In model 4, fuel wood and small timber species are planted, and are found to be
successful with the involvement of villagers. Plantation raised under GUA scheme during
2004-05 requires some more protection and soil working. Madikeri division has raised 982.50
ha of plantations under NAP-FDA scheme during 2004-05 to 2006-07, out of which the team
selected 247 ha of plantations for evaluation. The plantations were raised under various
models such as Aided natural regeneration, artificial regeneration, cane plantation, mixed
plantation, and medicinal plantation. The survival percentage varies from 44 to 93%, but
generally around 70%. Under aided natural regeneration model, area has been closed and
planted with 200 plants per hectare and the results are encouraging. The artificial
regeneration model are planted with Acacia auriculiformis and other miscellaneous species in
the open areas. The results are good. In cane model different species of cane, such as Calmus
thwaitesii, Calamus nagbethai and Calamus spp. have been planted and are doing well. One
plantation raised at Andagove in Kushalnagar range during 2004-05, is burnt by the forest
fire occurred during March 2008 and the same has been recorded in plantation journal. The
local officers informed that under FDA, one major hurdle is the limited cost norms and very
less amount provided for maintenance operation in subsequent years. As a result, weeding
and other cultural operations could not be carried out, resulting in heavy weed growth and
lantana in open areas of Kushalnagar and Somvarpet ranges. It is recommended that FDA,
cost norms be revised so that the plantations could be maintained properly in the subsequent
years.
Construction of buildings and building maintenance works are satisfactory. Team
visited newly created EPT in Kushalnagar range. Though the quality of the work is good, but
because of discontinuity, it is not effective, rendering the entire expenditure as wasteful. The
evaluation further revealed that the EPT work done during past has also been ineffective,
rendering the entire expenditure as wasteful. The erection of Solar power fence and
maintenance of old solar fence in Kushalnagar and Somvarpet ranges, are found to have been
done in patches. No adequate funds are provided for regular maintenance of works completed
in the past. The fencing is ineffective, rendering the expenditure as wasteful. Deputy
Conservator of Forests must take up maintenance on priority.
No seedlings were distributed during 2004-05 and 2005-06 and 3,79,694 seedlings
were distributed in 2006-07. These seedlings are mainly Silver Oak purchased by coffee
planters @ Rs.2.50, and planted on bunds and in gaps of the coffee estates. The survival is
found to be good.
55
6.10.2 MADIKERI SOCIAL FORESTRY DIVISION
The team evaluated 43.75 Ha of plantations at 6 spots raised under SGRY and IDWG
schemes. The species planted are mainly Casurina, Acacia, and Silver Oak. The farm forestry
demonstration plot raised under KSFMBC scheme at Hosalli has come up well with 88%
survival. Teak and silver oak seedlings are planted on bund as a demonstration plot to raise
tree crops on farm lands. The two spots of school forestry, one at Kanur High school in
Virajpet and other at Ponnathmotte Govt. primary school in Somvarpet ranges are visited
during evaluation. The survival is 46% and 50% respectively, however surviving plants are
found to be in good condition. In Vanchil, 15.00 Ha plantation is raised on grass lands. The
survival is 91%, and Casurina is showing promising result. The 10 Ha of plantation raised at
Yavakpadi in Madikeri range has dried due to fire occurrence during March 2008.
Conservator of Forests, Madikeri may fix responsibility and proceed to recover the cost.
The division has distributed 13,05,293 seedlings in 3 taluks during the period under
evaluation. The team visited some spots to assess the performance of various species and to
know the interest of farmers in the Farm forestry. Free distribution as well as sale of
seedlings at subsidized rates, as fixed by Zilla Panchayat Kodagu was done. Mainly Silver
oak, teak, Balanji and other species are distributed to the beneficiaries. The team visited
several spots in all the three ranges to assess the performance of the programme and species.
The silver oak, which constitutes more than 90% of the seedlings, is performing well. All on-
going schemes are recommended to be continued. It is desirable to evaluate only those
plantations whose maintenance is already completed in order to get a realistic picture.
Recommendation of earlier evaluations are not complied.
6.10.3 MADIKERI WILDLIFE DIVISION
Wild life division has raised 70 Ha of Bamboo plantation at two spots during the
period under evaluation and the team visited both the spots. The plantations are raised in open
gaps having bamboo growth and other woody vegetation. Both the plantations are promising
with more than 70% survival, despite some damage noticed due to wild elephants. Regarding
other works, hanging bridge across the Lingadahally stream is in good condition and is very
much useful to the forest staff to enter into the sanctuary during the rainy season. The site
selected for the bridge is ideal, and maintenance work carried out is good. The Paragolas are
constructed in proper location and the quality of work is found to be good. Maintenance of
existing natural water ponds and their de-silting works would definitely help the wild animals
in summer season. Maintenance of sanctuary roads are generally satisfactory which helps the
movement of staff inside the sanctuary and also helps the visitor to view the wild life.
6.10.4 VIRAJPET TERRITORIAL DIVISION
In addition to afforestation works, the division has carried out seed sowing in
trenches, pits and bushes to an extent of 330 Ha, out of which 170 Ha evaluated covering
51% area. Excluding FDA, 247 Ha of other plantations were evaluated selecting sample
extending over 75 Ha. All the plantations are raised in Reserve forest areas. The team visited
2 plantations raised under KFDF scheme during 2004-05. The areas were planted with local
species, and the plants have attained height of 2ft to 2.5 ft with more than 90% survival. In
KSFMBC scheme, the team visited 3 plantations in Mundrote, Makut and Virajpet ranges.
Under model 1, the area has been closed, the protection given and the results are encouraging.
Visible improvement in existing natural vegetation is observed in areas taken up for model 1.
The division has raised 373.68 Ha of plantations under NAP-FDA schemes from 2004-05 to
2006-07, out of which 94.5 Ha covering an area of 25.28% was selected for evaluation. The
plantations were raised under various models such as Aided natural regeneration, artificial
regeneration, cane plantation, mixed plantation, and medicinal plantation. The Deverakadu
56
areas selected for treatment under FDA schemes are either dense evergreen forest or open
areas. Many plantations in open areas are invaded by weeds such as lantana for want of
adequate funds for maintenance. In Halugunda VFC, 11 ha of mixed model, in Betoli VFC,
10.53 ha of Aided natural regeneration model and in Palangal VFC, 34 ha of cane and ANR
model plantations are raised in dense evergreen forest areas of Devarakadu. The area is so
thick that with out clearing the natural vegetation, it is very difficult to enter or lay the sample
plots, and hence it could not be ascertained about the species, espacement, or survival
percentage. In Arapattu Padavada, 2 ha of AR model plantation was raised in Hookadu
devarabane. The plantation area is covered with lantana and other weeds and hence sample
plots could not be laid to ascertain the survival percentage or species planted. It is noted that
inadequate amount is provided for maintenance under FDA. Thus, weeding and other
cultural operations could not be carried out resulting in heavy weed growth and lantana in
open areas. It is suggested to revise. FDA cost norms so that the plantations can be
maintained properly in the subsequent years.
The soil and moisture conservation works done are found to be satisfactory. 32
sample works were selected to evaluate the quality. In Devamachi RF area, 4.8km of solar
fence erection work was carried during 2004-05. MOU was signed with Channagi EDC, to
maintain the fence subsequently. But due to non cooperation of EDC the fence is not
maintained, thus making it ineffective. The location and maintenance of anti-poaching camps
is satisfactory. Construction of temporary bridges in Makut and Mundrote ranges are
satisfactory and very much useful for staff to perambulate the forest areas in rainy season.
The maintenance of forest roads and beat paths work are also found to be satisfactory.
In the distribution of seedlings, mainly Silver Oak seedlings were purchased by coffee
planters @ Rs.2.50, and planted on bunds and in gaps of the estates. In all the spots visited
the survival is found to be good.
57
6.11 MANGALORE CIRCLE

Mangalore Circle comprises of Mangalore Territorial Division, Mangalore Social
Forestry Division, Udupi Social Forestry Division, Kundapura Territorial Division and
Kudremuha Wild life Division, Karkala.
6.11.1 KUDREMUKHA WILD LIFE DIVISION
Three plantations were picked up in the sample for evaluation, of which 2 plantations
under FDA, where cane is grown. One of these plantation is found to be good and another
plantation with artificial regeneration model is poor. It is further found that seedlings in
5”X8” bags planted in the wildlife areas, without adequate protection, do not succeed. Even
cane seedlings are required to be 2 years old. In all 84 works were evaluated by the team.
Generally good quality works are found except few works in Kollur Wildlife Range. The
team also found that fire line clearance works under Nature Conservation and CPT are of
poor quality. The culverts construction work are found to be of average quality in
Kudremukh Range and also it is not as per the sanctioned estimate. In the same range, stone
pitching & Toilet and bathroom construction works differ from dimensions in sanctioned
estimate. It is recommended that the defaulters be proceeded against. It is encouraging to
place on record that very good and permanent concrete structures of Cairns are constructed
on demarcation lines.
6.11.2 KUNDAPURA TERRITORIAL DIVISION
28 plantations raised under seven different schemes including FDA were picked up in
the sample for evaluation. Three social security plantations raised under SCP are evaluated,
of which one beneficiary has maintained it very well with 100% stocking. It is a plantation of
Grafted Cashew. Other two social security plantations have failed. Plantations under TSP
with species such as Teak, Cashew and Rampatre are doing well. The seeds sown in
KSFMBC model-I are of Vataria indica, Mango, Terminalia belarica, Terminalia tomentosa,
Cashew, Artocarpus hirsuta etc., where survival percentages are low. The performance of
these models are rated as poor. It is recommended that soil working and protection be
provided to the existing natural regenerations. Model IV plantations comprise of Acacia
auriculiformis and Casuarina and are faring well. This plantation in model VII of KSFMBC
is raised in the back water of Chakra river using Rhizophora, Candelia and Avicennia. The
survival is 65%. Cultural operation money is used for encroachment planting with species
such as Mahogani, Vataria, Mango etc. Though there is no protection, the plantation is good
with more than 80% survival rate. It is further recommended that cultural operation money
be utilised for maintenance of older plantations only.
In the distribution of seedlings, the main species raised and sold are Teak, Acacia
auriculiformis, Artocarpus integrifolia, Mahagani, Artocarpus hirsuta, Casuarina and
Cashew etc. The average survival percentage of these is 73.5%. Some of the farmers have
opiened that the seedlings should be free of cost to the poor. The demand for Teak, Acacia,
Casuarina and Cashew is high.
6.11.3 MANGALORE TERRITORIAL DIVISION
The evaluation was done by the team in respect of ten schemes such as KUDCEM,
D.D.F, GREENING OF URBAN AREA, CULTURAL OPERATION, AFFORESTATION IN OTHER AREA,
KSFMBC, 12TH FINANCE, F.D.A, KANDLA VANA & TSP (State), where 35 plantations were picked
up in the sample. In addition, ten more plantations were picked up in FDA schemes
implemented in the division. The species planted in DDF scheme are Teak along with
Vateria, Hopea parviflora, Mahogany etc., The survival is found to be 50-52 percent.
Plantations raised under “Greening of Urban area” are good with 72 percent of survival rate.
58
Pterocarpus marsupium, Vateria, Mahogani, Jack, Peltoforum etc were planted. In certain
sites Jack, Bauhenia was replaced with Pterocarpus marsupium, Artocarpus hirsuta and
mango. Pit plantations are raised on either side of the railway track under “Afforestation in
other area scheme”. The species planted are Jack, Artocarpus hirsuta, Mahogani, Michelia
etc., with 80% success. Evaluation team was pleased with the efforts. There are 8
plantations raised under “FDA” scheme. 7 plantations are raised in blocks, of which 3 are
with mainly Acacia springvale with Mahogany, Emblica etc. These plantations are good with
more than 90 percent survival rate, but the miscellaneous species planted are either struggling
or suppressed by the main species. The eighth plantation is of Acacia auriculiformis on the
road side, where survival is 75%. 6 plantations are raised under FDA, two plantations are
raised under sub head Assisted natural regeneration-Fuel wood plantations, where the main
species is Acacia. Survival percentage, in both the plantations is more than 75%. There are
two plantations under M.F.P. Both the plantations are good with more than 70 percent
survival rate. The species used are Rosewood, Bijasal, Teak, Mahagani, Artocarpus hirsuta
and Vateria. It is observed during evaluation that bamboo is planted at closer spacing and
also in smaller sized pits. There is a conflict between LAMP society and VFC, which should
be addressed by Deputy Conservator of Forests intelligently. Under 12th finance eight
plantations were evaluated by the team. Two out of three fuel wood plantations under the
scheme are successful while the third has failed for inadequate protection. The remaining
five plantations are gap plantation raised in pits with species like Mango, Emblica, Bijasal,
Rosewood etc., Two of these plantations are found to be good, while the remaining are
average. 8 plantations were picked up for evaluation under KSFMBC scheme. Under model-
1 of the scheme four forest areas are taken up. CPT excavated in these areas does not protect
the plantation effectively but serves the purpose of consolidation of boundaries only. In these
areas, soil work done to the existing natural regenerations is found to be performing better as
compared to sowing. Under model-IV, three fuel wood plantations are raised using mainly
Acacia seedlings with Pongemia, Emblica, Mahagani etc., The survival rate is 95%. Cultural
operation money is found to have been used for raising fuelwood plantation. It is strongly
recommended that this money should be used for maintaining older plantations.
As per the ‘D’ form submitted by the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Mangalore,
64000 seedlings have been sold/distributed during the year 2004-05. No seedlings were
distributed during 2005-06. During the year 2006-07, the total number of seedlings
sold/distributed was 162678. The main species distributed was Teak, Mahagani, Cashew,
Emblica, Soap-nut etc. For lack of proper records, the team could see two spots only.
6.11.4 MANGALORE SOCIAL FORESTRY DIVISION
34 plantations were picked up in the sample for evaluation. The team visited 6 school
plantations, 4 road side plantations, 3 TSP beneficiary plantations, 7 demonstration plots and
14 block plantations. The survival percent in school plantations are generally 70% except in
one Puttur school, where survival is 40% and seedlings are uprooted to expand play ground.
One of the three TSP beneficiary oriented plantation has failed and farmer has replaced with
rubber cultivation. The success of other two plantations are average. In three out of seven
demonstration plots, farmers have not evinced interest. For lack of proper records,
evaluation team could visit only one spot where seedlings distributed to a farmer, was
planted. Thus, distribution of seedlings in Mangalore Social Forestry division has not been
evaluated.
6.11.5 UDUPI SOCIAL FORESTRY DIVISION
Out of total 12 block plantations, 6 plantations of model 8 of KSFMBC, 3 plantations
of TSP and 2 of road side plantations were picked up in sample for evaluation. Block
plantations are generally good, so far as the survival of Acacia auriculiformis is concerned,
but miscellaneous species such as Magahani, Nelli, Teak etc., planted in some plantations are
59
found to be suppressed by Acacia auriculiformis. Wherever miscellaneous species are along
the inspection path, it has proved better. The demonstration plots under model 8 of
KSFMBC are found to have planting of grafted Cashew, grafted Mango, Casuarina, Jack,
Teak etc., five of these plots are in good condition while one is not so good. Despite
beneficiaries not showing sufficient interest in TSP plantations, the survival percent is above
sixty. The performance of the road side plantation is found to be average. Even selection of
site is not proper. Proper care is not taken for protection and maintenance of miscellaneous
seedlings planted along the road side.
60
6.12 MYSORE CIRCLE

Mysore Circle comprises of Mysore Division, Mysore Social Forestry Division,
Hunsur Division, Mandya Division, Mandya Social Forestry Division and Wildlife Division,
Mysore.
6.12.1 MYSORE TERRTORIAL DIVISION
24 plantations were picked up in sample covering an extent 639.20 Ha. including one
seed sowing area of 130 Ha. under KSFMBC Model-1. The average survival for 23
plantations (excluding the seed sowing area) is 39.67%. Overall the survival is found to be
poor. Out of these plantations, 5 plantations have failed with less than 20% survival.
Plantations raised in failed areas have again failed and are not performing well. Eucalyptus
plantations are struggling due to gall disease. Road-side plantations in rural areas have failed
due to damage by cattle. Miscellaneous species like Emblica, Tamarind, Pongemia etc., are
struggling on degraded lands. 22 spots were selected at random to evaluate the distribution of
seedlings programme. The species distributed are Casuarina, Teak, Silver oak, Eucalyptus,
Pongemia, Emblica, Acacia aurculiformis and Drum-stick. The survival is found to be 61%.
Poor record keeping of seedlings distribution makes it difficult to trace them for evaluation.
Seven works like SMC works, purchase of floor-mill under Entry Point Activities (under
NAP-FDA), Civil works etc., are found to be good in quality and quantity, except one civil
work of Twin quarters is incomplete, as the contractor is black-listed.
6.12.2 MYSORE SOCIAL FORESTRY DIVISION
8 plantations covering an extent of 92 Ha. were picked up for evaluation. The
average survival is 44%. Two plantations have failed, where survival is less than 20%.
Eucalyptus plantations are affected by gall disease and miscellaneous species like Emblica,
Tamarind and Pongemia have not performed well. Performance of demonstration plot raised
on farmers’ land under KSFMBC is very poor, as the objective of dissemination of technique
is not addressed. 8 spots were picked up randomly under distribution of seedlings to farmers
are found to be good with a survival of 62.30%. The species preferred are Eucalyptus, Teak,
Casuarina, Acacia nilotica, Acacia aurculiformis and Silver oak. Under ‘Other works’ one
work of rain water harvesting structure was picked up randomly under SGRY scheme, where
quality of work is found to be good.
6.12.3 HUNSUR TERRITORIAL DIVISION
22 plantations covering an extent 1009 Ha. were picked up in the sample and the
survival is found to be 49.98%. Six plantations are found to be of poor quality. Plantations
raised in failed areas, are not performing well. Miscellaneous species are found to be
struggling on degraded lands. Three (3 Nos.) spots randomly selected under distribution of
seedlings programme, is found to have a survival of 48%. Species distributed are Eucalyptus,
Teak, Casuarina and Silver oak. Nine (9 Nos.) ‘Other works’ selected randomly are check-
dams, gully checks, formation of new tanks, percolation tank and civil works which are found
to be good in quality and quantity.
6.12.4 MANDYA TERRITORIAL DIVISION
23 plantations covering an extent of 371.50 Ha. were picked up for evaluation and
survival found to be 61%, which is considered to be good. Plantations raised in failed areas
not found to be performing well. Eucalyptus spp. is affected by gall disease. Miscellaneous
species like Emblica, Tamarind, Pongemia etc., are found to be struggling on degraded lands.
‘Other works’ executed (9 works were sampled) like SMC works and repairs to staff quarters
are found to be good in quality and quantity. The report is silent regarding distribution of
seedlings to the public.
61
6.12.5 MANDYA SOCIAL FORESTRY DIVISION
9 plantations covering an extent of 44 Ha. were picked up in the sample and survival
is found to be 64.68% Performance of demonstration plot raised on farmers’ land under
KSFMBC is very poor since the objective of dissemination of technique is not addressed.
One road-side plantation in Maralinganahalli village road under SGRY scheme is found to be
fair in survival (46%). Eucalyptus plantations are observed to be affected by gall disease.
Miscellaneous seedlings like Emblica, Tamarind and Pongemia are struggling on degraded
lands. Under distribution of seedlings, 5 spots were picked up in sample and the survival is
85.53% planted with species like Teak, Silver oak and Eucalyptus. SMC works and one civil
work of seed storage building are found to be good in quality and quantity.
6.12.6 WILDLIFE DIVISION, MYSORE
19 works picked up in the sample, comprising of other works like, SMC works,
construction of watch towers(3 Nos.), drilling of bore well, construction of paragola,
construction of one interpretation centre, one kitchen-cum-watchman shed, water storage
tank, construction of three (3 Nos.) rubble masonry wall for boundary demarcation, are found
to be good in terms of quality and quantity.
62
6.13 SHIMOGA CIRCLE

Shimoga Forest Circle comprises of Bhadravathi Territorial, Sagar Territorial,
Shimoga Territorial, Shimoga Social Forestry and Shimoga Wildlife Divisions.
6.13.1 BHADRAVATHI TERRITORIAL DIVISION
It is observed that complete plantation details like name of village and Sy.No, are not
furnished nor APOs were produced. 8 plantations were picked up in the sample from all
schemes except FDA and also 8 plantations were picked up from FDA for evaluation.
Average survival percent is found to 85.49% for plantations other than FDA scheme and
74.04% for FDA plantations. In order of priority, the species found performing better are
Acacia auriculiformis, Pongamia pinnata, Eucalyptus hybrid, Tectona grandis, Schizigium
cuminii and Bassia latifolia.
Though the number of samples from the list of distribution of seedlings provided by
the division, was picked up but none of the jurisdictional person could lead the evaluation
team to the spot. Records maintained for distribution of seedlings is found to be incorrect.
The report pertaining to RSPD is to be treated as NIL.
The details of works like timber extraction, soil conservation measures, fire line
clearance, Construction work and any other works were not furnished to the team, hence the
same could not be evaluated.
It is further found that release of funds under FDA is delayed. Even cost norms in
FDA are insufficient to ensure good quality work and adequate protection. It is uneconomical
to raise and maintain plantations in small extent. Further plantations are found to be of mono
culture, which has to be discouraged. Earth work and SMC works are found to have been
carried out with machinery and equipments, which has to be avoided, as local persons lose
jobs. In the plantation programs, planting material used in the division is generally found to
be from un-known source. Though it helps in maintaining the bio-diversity and gene pool,
but production suffers. The reduction in allocation for school forestry/vanamahotsava, has
resulted in poor participation of public and school children in such programs. Certain
plantations have been provided with partial fencing. Systematic survey and the sketch are not
available in large number of plantations. Remarks of Inspecting Officers are available on
plantation journals.
6.13.2 SHIMOGA TERRITORIAL DIVISION
In Non-FDA schemes, 20 plantations were picked up in the sample for evaluation
covering an extent of 416.50 Ha. Average survival rate is found to be 78.32%. Two
plantations of 25 Ha at Chommadabylu and 20Ha at Shankarapura could not be verified due
to paucity of time. Acacia, Sissoo, Emblica, Vateria indica, Schizigium cuminii, Albizzia
lebek, Terminalia catappa, Neem, Michelia, Bassia latifolia, Gmelina arborea, Mesua ferria,
Terminalia belerica, Lagerstroemia lanceolata etc are found to be performing well. In FDA
scheme 25 plantations are picked up for evaluation. 21 plantations are found to be good, 2
plantations have poor survival and 2 plantations have failed. The weighted average survival
percentage is found to be 58.54%. Officials responsible for poor plantation survival may
have to be proceeded against. The performance of Acacia is good, while the miscellaneous
species such as Michelia, Bijasal, Emblica, Albizzia, Sisoo, Tamarind, Teak, Jack, Vateria,
Terminalia belerica, Artocarpus hirsuta, Soap-nut, Bamboo etc., have brought down survival
percentage. The logging works and SMC works were picked up for evaluation on 19 spots.
Except one SMC work, others are found to be satisfactory. Release of funds, especially
under FDA scheme is delayed. Cost norms provided under FDA are insufficient. Bamboo
and mix plantation models are not doing well. Plantations raised in smaller extent ie., less
63
than 5-00Ha. are un economical to manage Monoculture is commonly observed. CPT has
been excavated as an alternative to SMC works in many of the plantations. SMC works are
carried out in the adjoining areas, which has not helped the moisture conservation in
plantation area. Earth work and SMC works carried out with machinery and equipments,
have made local community jobless. Seedlings are raised for public distribution on adhoc
basis, without ascertaining the choice of species in demand. Different rate of subsidy for
seedlings is prevalent in different departments. Thus, farmers have not utilized the seedlings
of some species, which are priced high. This policy discourages farmers from utilizing the
seedlings. In the plantation programs, planting material used in the division is from unknown
source of seeds. Though it conserves bio-diversity and gene pool, but does not help the
production. The reduction in allocation for school forestry/vanamahotsava has resulted in
poor participation of public and school children. Plantations raised under canopy cover have
failed. Certain plantations have been provided with partial fencing. The survey is not carried
out in 50% of the plantations. More so, the sketches are not prepared. The remarks of
Inspecting Officers are available in the plantation journals. Timber extraction procedures are
not adhere to, generally estimates are split in two or more which is against the codal
provision.
6.13.3 SHIMOGA SOCIAL FORESTRY DIVISION
14 plantations were picked up in the sample for evaluation. The average survival
percentage is found to be 77%. One plantation has failed and the remaining plantations are in
good condition. Wherever, Acacia auriculiformis is planted, survival is very good, but
plantation of miscellaneous species are not successful.
The samples picked up for inspection under free distribution of seedlings could not be
verified as records are not maintained properly. However, 71.04% survival is noticed, when
a portion of the sample was identified on the ground and inspected by team.
It is uneconomical to raise plantations of smaller extent. Planting of monoculture is
common, which has to be discouraged. Earth work and SMC works are carried out with
machinery and equipments. The job opportunity for locals are lost. The seed source in the
plantations are unknown. This may be helpful in bio-diversity and gene pool, but not useful
for production. The reduction in allocation for school forestry/vanamahotsava, has reduced
the participation of public and school children in such programs. Plantations are not found to
have been surveyed in about 50% cases. Also, sketches are not prepared. Remarks of
Inspecting Officers are recorded in plantation journals.
6.13.4 SHIMOGA WILDLIFE DIVISION
4 plantations (16.00Ha) under KSFMBC scheme were picked up as sample for
evaluation. Out of these 3 plantations are average, while the 4th Basavapura plantation has
failed and survival is 20%. Similarly 4 plantations (55.00Ha) were picked up for evaluation
under FDA. Three plantations are good and one plantation has failed and survival is only
10%.
Certain works like view-line clearance, maintaining firelines are not verifiable at this
length of time. These works are recommended to be evaluated without any loss of time.
Other works like civil works, SMC works, Clearance of ‘D’ line etc are found to be
good.
Construction of buildings are found to be satisfactory. Some SMC works were found
to be good while some other such as contour trenches etc are not satisfactory as they are not
done strictly along the contour, which is technically incorrect. Conservator of Forests should
investigate and punish the guilty.
Funds under FDA scheme are not received in time. Cost norms provided under FDA
are inadequate for good quality work and ensuring protection. Plantations raised in smaller
64
extent are uneconomical. Monoculture is the common trend observed. CPT has been
excavated as an alternative to SMC works, in many of the plantations. SMC works are also
found to have been carried out in the adjoining areas which does not help in moisture
conservation for the plantation. Earth work and SMC works carried out with machinery and
equipments throw the local community out of job. Grassy blanks are brought under
afforestation. Salt licks have been formed beyond tourism zone. Senior Officers must step in
and correct some of these things. Certain plantations have been provided with partial
fencing. 50% plantations are not surveyed and also sketches are not prepared. The remarks
of the inspecting authorities are recorded in plantation journals. Generally estimates are split
in two or more than two, which is against the codal provisions.
6.13.5 SAGAR TERRITORIAL DIVISION
13 plantations (211 Ha) were picked up in the sample for evaluation in all schemes
other than FDA and all the plantations are good. The average survival percentage is 78.84.
Acacia is planted in all the plantations along with Teak, Emblica, Vateria etc., However in
FDA scheme, 42 (376.50 Ha) plantations were picked up for evaluation. Out of these 32
plantations are found to be in good condition, 6 plantations have poor survival percentage and
4 plantations are complete failure. The average survival percentage was 57.97.
Miscellaneous species like Shorea talura, Jamoon, Gmelina, T.tomentosa, Soap-nut,
T.belerica, Xylia xylocarpa, Cane and Bamboo are planted.
Regarding Seedlings for Public distribution, it is observed that the distribution is done
village wise. The names of farmers, the name of the village and survey number are not
recorded. Only seedlings disposed and amount realised, are recorded in the register. Short
recovery was noticed in some cases.
It is further noticed that release of funds especially under FDA scheme is delayed.
Cost norms provided under FDA are insufficient, which resulted in inadequate protection and
no maintenance. Bamboo model and mixed plantations model in FDA have failed. It is
uneconomical to raise plantations in smaller extent ie., less than 5-00 Ha. Mono-culture is
commonly practised, which must be discouraged. CPT has been excavated as an alternative
to SMC works in many of the plantations. SMC works are carried out in the adjoining areas,
which does not help the cause of moisture conservation in plantation area. Earth work and
SMC works are carried out with machinery and equipments, which deprives local community
from getting jobs. Seedlings raised for public distribution on adhoc basis and without
actually carrying out the demand survey, have resulted in wastage and hence the expenditure
is wasteful. Different subsidy for seedlings is prevalent in different departments, which
results in waste of seedlings in some department like KFD, where seedlings are priced high.
In the plantation programs, planting material used is from unknown sources, which may be
helpful in maintenance of bio-diversity and gene pool, but will not be sure of high
production. The reduction in allocation for school forestry/vanamahotsava, has resulted in
non participation of public and school children in such programs. Plantations of Acacia
auriculiformis raised under canopy cover have failed. Certain plantations have been provided
with partial fencing. Generally, survey is not done in about 50% of the plantations, and so
also sketches are not prepared. The plantation journals contain the remarks of the inspecting
authorities.
65
6.14 FDPT, MYSORE

FDPT comprises of Wildlife Division, Hunsur and Project Tiger Division, Bandipur.
It is reported by the team leader that no plantations were raised during the period under
evaluation, hence only works pertaining to wildlife management are picked for evaluation on
random basis.
6.14.1 HUNSUR WILDLIFE DIVISION
Hunsur Wildlife Division has Anechowkur, Veeranahosahalli, Antarasanthe,
D.B.Koppe, Metikoppe, Kalahalla, Nagarahole ranges in it’s jurisdiction. The division
consists of Rajiv Gandhi National park, which is a famous Project Tiger area and a National
park, rich in Wildlife. 41 Other works were selected randomly and evaluatedfor 2004-07.
Those works consists of Civil works namely construction of tanks, repairs to EPT,
construction of 30 tribal houses, construction of APC sheds, construction of Elephant proof
wall, Drilling of Bore well, Recondition solar power fence, SMC works, construction of
check post buildings, construction of causeway and culverts. It is found that out of 3 solar
power fences, two need maintenance and they are functional. The Eighty (80 Nos.) of tribal
houses constructed are found to be quality. The team has found that the quantities could not
verified and observations are limited to working conditions and the rest of the works were
found to be good quality.
6.14.2 PROJECT TIGER DIVISION, BANDIPUR
Project Tiger Division, Bandipur had Bandipur, Maddur,Moolehole, Nugu, Gundre,
N.Begur and Moliyur ranges during the period evaluated (2004-07). 33 works of various
nature are evaluated. Out of the 33 works 31 works are found to be good quality. All these
works are civil works like construction of EPT, curvert, water supply and sanitary connection
to quarters, formation of percolation tank, barbed wire fencing, construction of elephant-
proof wall, electrification of twin Forest Guards quarters etc. In case of one work comprising
of widening and rejuventation of Marabuthanakatte tank, desilting work is found to be carried
out in three patches on the river bed; this work should have been carried out in one patch for
more effectiveness. In case of another work of construction of culvert/causeway at
Mavinamaradahalla, it is found that stone pitching would have been adequate, without going
for culvert. The team has found that regarding certain items like tank repair, EPT repair,
quantites could not be verified and observations of the team are limited to its working
condition at the time of visit.
66
Appendix-6 Survival Percentage of Plantations
SUMMARY OF SURVIVAL RATES (WEIGHTED AVERAGE) OF PLANTATIONS
SCHEME-WISE AND DIVISION-WISE FOR THE YEARS 2004-05, 2005-06 AND 2006-07
COMPENSATORY Greening of Urban
FDA 12TH FINANCE
AFFORESTATION Area (GUA)
SI
DIVISION Exten
NO. Extent Survival Extent Surviva Extent Surviv Surviv
t in
in Ha. % in Ha. l% in Ha. al % al %
Ha.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
I Bangalore Circle
1 Bangalore Rural - - - - 40.00 79.27 12.00 64.50
2 Bangalore Rural - - - - - - - -
SF
3 Bangalore Urban - - - - - - 177.00 86.05
4 Bangalore Urban - - - - - - - -
SF
5 Bannerghatta NP 244.00 40.95 - - - - - -
6 Chikballapur 565.00 64.89 - - - - 20.00 83.88
7 Chikballapur SF - - - - - - - -
8 Kolar 570.00 81.34 13.00 83.00 - - - -
9 Kolar SF - - - - - - - -
10 Ramnagar 375.00 61.74 - - - - - -
11 Ramnagar SF - - - - - - - -
Sub Total 1,754.00 66.23 13.00 83.00 40.00 79.27 209.00 84.61
II Belgaum Circle
12 Bagalkot 510.00 80.23 1.84 25.00 - - - -
13 Bagalkot SF - - - - - - - -
14 Belgaum 715.00 80.17 5.00 36.00 741.30 84.68 20.00 55.00
15 Belgaum SF 25.00 83.00 - - - - - -
16 Bijapur 1,600.00 27.31 - - - - 33.00 82.80
17 Bijapur SF - - - - - - - -
18 Gokak 565.00 74.41 45.00 83.11 - - 2.50 64.00
Sub Total 3415.00 54.48 51.84 76.50 741.30 84.68 55.50 71.94
III Bellary Circle
19 Bellary Division - - 495.66 64.90 120.00 90.00 42.00 68.00
20 Bellary SF - - - - - - - -
21 Chitradurga 400.00 64.60 - - - - 31.75 72.13
22 Davangere 1000.00 49.89 - - 20.00 65.00 47.00 55.00
23 Koppal 250.00 58.44 - - - - 5.00 73.50
24 Koppal SF - - - - - - - -
Sub Total 1,650.00 54.75 495.66 64.90 140.00 86.43 125.75 64.40
IV Canara Circle
25 Haliyal 975.00 68.10 212.28 77.67 977.00 56.21 10.00 47.78
26 Honnavar 1275.00 64.57 71.88 92.94 244.50 96.54 - -
27 Karwar 1345.00 48.16 269.43 90.77 - - 36.00 53.80
28 Karwar SF - - - - - - - -
29 Sirsi 365.00 61.33 65.50 82.60 216.00 83.36 10.21 40.00
30 Yellapur 1101.95 67.39 230.00 64.00 232.63 74.17 - -
31 Dandeli WL 185.00 32.70 - - - - - -
Sub Total 5,246.95 60.26 849.09 79.80 1,670.13 68.13 56.21 50.22
67
Development of
KFDF-Other CULTURAL
SGRY Degraded Forests
SI Plantation OPERATION
(DDF)
NO DIVISION
. Survi
Extent in Extent in Surviv Extent Survival Extent Survival
val
Ha. Ha. al % in Ha. % in Ha. %
%
1 2 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
I Bangalore Circle
1 Bangalore Rural 161.00 79.00 52.00 22.00 - - 28.00 78.90
2 Bangalore Rural SF - - - - 33.00 71.00 - -
3 Bangalore Urban 70.25 72.00 790.00 65.43 - - - -
4 Bangalore Urban - - - - 58.49 56.68 - -
SF
5 Bannerghatta NP - - - - - - - -
6 Chikballapur 26.00 78.00 42.50 75.00 - - 48.00 55.53
7 Chikballapur SF - - - - 362.76 66.80 - -
8 Kolar - - - - - - 70.00 95.00
9 Kolar SF - - - - 83.48 86.48 - -
10 Ramnagar - - 145.50 49.77 - - 57.00 82.00
11 Ramnagar SF - - - - 39.00 56.00 - -
Sub Total 257.25 76.99 1,030.00 61.42 576.73 68.13 203.00 79.80
II Belgaum Circle
12 Bagalkot 80.00 66.64 - - - - - -
13 Bagalkot SF - - - - 1972.00 32.80 - -
14 Belgaum 649.50 79.41 90.00 90.00 - - 100.00 89.92
15 Belgaum SF - - - - 1292.78 64.38 - -
16 Bijapur 48.00 40.83 - - - - - -
17 Bijapur SF - - - - 550.00 41.21 - -
18 Gokak 80.00 70.36 - - - - 82.00 45.00
Sub Total 857.50 75.21 90.00 90.00 3,814.78 44.71 182.00 69.68
III Bellary Circle
19 Bellary Division 135.00 73.00 38.00 91.00 3.00 41.00 - -
20 Bellary SF - - - - 189.00 16.19 - -
21 Chitradurga 235.00 94.50 95.75 83.00 - - 194.50 77.35
22 Davangere 20.00 60.00 25.00 52.00 - - 51.00 50.67
23 Koppal 33.20 42.85 85.00 68.12 - - 20.00 67.00
24 Koppal SF - - - - 373.00 13.17 - -
Sub Total 423.20 81.96 243.75 75.88 565.00 14.33 265.50 71.45
IV Canara Circle
25 Haliyal 4181.35 34.83 - - - - 49.00 77.50
26 Honnavar 3041.72 83.92 101.00 94.94 - - - -
27 Karwar 874.72 70.50 5.00 86.86 - - 101.00 57.50
28 Karwar SF - - - - 138.96 19.72 - -
29 Sirsi 2620.50 78.89 387.00 89.58 - - - -
30 Yellapur 3870.00 66.20 235.00 74.57 - - 73.00 80.00
31 Dandeli WL - - - - - - - -
Sub Total 14,588.29 63.44 728.00 85.46 138.96 19.72 223.00 69.26
68
National Oil &
Vegetable Oilseed Special
Minor Forest
KSFMBC / JBIC Development Component Plan
SI Authority Produce (MFP)
(SCP)
N DIVISION (NOVODA)
O. Surv
Extent Surviv Extent Surviv Extent Surviv Extent
ival
in Ha. al % in Ha. al % in Ha. al % in Ha.
%
1 2 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
I Bangalore Circle
1 Bangalore Rural 382.00 20.00 - - - - - -
2 Bangalore Rural SF 5.00 32.50 - - - - - -
3 Bangalore Urban 180.00 70.00 - - 11.00 - - -
4 Bangalore Urban SF 40.66 89.24 - - - - - -
6 Chikballapur 726.00 62.62 - - - - - -
8 Kolar 319.00 82.00 105.00 91.00 - - - -
9 Kolar SF 27.55 10.00 - - - - - -
10 Ramnagar 712.00 83.08 - - - - - -
11 Ramnagar SF 43.60 80.00 - - - - - -
Sub Total 2,435.81 65.10 105.00 91.00 11.00 - - -
II Belgaum Circle
12 Bagalkot 940.00 28.16 - - - - - -
13 Bagalkot SF 72.00 0.00 - - - - - -
14 Belgaum 967.00 94.84 - - - - - -
15 Belgaum SF 19.10 69.00 - - - - - -
16 Bijapur 450.00 14.36 - - - - - -
17 Bijapur SF - - - - - - - -
18 Gokak 228.00 51.16 - - - - - -
Sub Total 2,676.10 51.43 - - - - - -
III Bellary Circle
19 Bellary Division 1064.00 73.00 - - 37.00 9.25 - -
20 Bellary SF 82.00 1.53 - - - - - -
21 Chitradurga 590.00 82.56 - - - - - -
22 Davangere 125.00 70.20 30.00 45.00 - - - -
23 Koppal 80.00 73.06 - - - - - -
24 Koppal SF 62.00 40.92 - - - - - -
Sub Total 2,003.00 71.72 30.00 45.00 37.00 9.25 - -
IV Canara Circle
25 Haliyal 822.00 80.04 - - - - - -
26 Honnavar 952.00 92.66 - - - - - -
27 Karwar 634.00 70.93 - - - - 20.00 55.00
28 Karwar SF - - - - - - - -
29 Sirsi 411.50 87.70 - - 21.80 0 - -
30 Yellapur 317.00 85.36 100.00 95.00 - - - -
31 Dandeli WL - - - - - - - -
Sub Total 3,136.50 83.57 100.00 95.00 21.80 - 20.00 55.00
69
Central Karnataka Uraban Western
Sponser NATURE Development & Coastal
Ghats
Scheme - CONSERVATI Environmental
Management Project Development
SI DWS/CSS ON
DIVISION (KUDCEMP) Projects
NO. (Central)
Exten Surv Exten Exten Exten Surv
Survi
t in ival t in t in Survival % t in ival
val %
Ha. % Ha. Ha. Ha. %
1 2 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34
I Bangalore Circle
2 Bangalore Rural SF - - - - - - - -
4 Bangalore Urban SF - - - - - - - -
6 Chikballapur - - - - - - - -
8 Kolar - - - - - - - -
9 Kolar SF - - - - - - - -
10 Ramnagar - - - - - - - -
11 Ramnagar SF - - - - - - - -
Sub Total - - - - - - - -
II Belgaum Circle
12 Bagalkot - - - - - - - -
13 Bagalkot SF - - - - - - - -
14 Belgaum - - - - - - - -
15 Belgaum SF - - - - - - - -
16 Bijapur - - - - - - - -
17 Bijapur SF - - - - - - - -
18 Gokak - - - - - - - -
Sub Total - - - - - - - -
III Bellary Circle
19 Bellary Division - - - - - - - -
20 Bellary SF - - - - - - - -
21 Chitradurga - - - - - - - -
22 Davangere - - - - - - - -
23 Koppal - - - - - - - -
24 Koppal SF - - - - - - - -
Sub Total - - - - - - - -
IV Canara Circle
25 Haliyal - - - - - - - -
26 Honnavar - - - - - - - -
27 Karwar - - - - - - - -
28 Karwar SF - - - - - - - -
29 Sirsi - - - - - - - -
30 Yellapur - - - - - - - -
31 Dandeli WL 812.00 54.92 25.00 74.40 25.00 96.40 - -
Sub Total 812.00 54.92 25.00 74.40 25.00 96.40 - -
70
Regularization of
Encrochment Karnataka State
Evicted Area /
Karnataka Highway Tribal Sub
Regularization of
Encrochment of Social Forestry Improvement Plan (State)
SI Project (KSHIP)
DIVISION Forest Land
NO.
(ROE / REFL)
Surv Exten
Extent Survi Extent Extent Survival Survi
ival t in
in Ha. val % in Ha. in Ha. % val %
% Ha.
1 2 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42
I Bangalore Circle
6 Chikballapur 35.00 77.00 - - - - - -
8 Kolar - - - - - - - -
9 Kolar SF - - - - - - - -
10 Ramnagar - - - - - - - -
11 Ramnagar SF - - - - - - - -
Sub Total 35.00 77.00 - - - - - -
II Belgaum Circle
12 Bagalkot - - - - 100.00 94.39 - -
13 Bagalkot SF - - - - - - - -
14 Belgaum 267.00 82.40 - - 56.00 85.75 9.00 42.00
15 Belgaum SF - - - - - - - -
16 Bijapur - - - - - - - -
17 Bijapur SF - - - - - - - -
18 Gokak - - - - 95.00 78.42 - -
Sub Total 267.00 82.40 - - 251.00 86.42 9.00 42.00
III Bellary Circle
19 Bellary Division - - - - - - 8.50 15.00
20 Bellary SF - - - - - - - -
21 Chitradurga - - - - - - - -
22 Davangere - - - - - - - -
23 Koppal - - - - - - - -
24 Koppal SF - - - - - - - -
Sub Total - - - - - - 8.50 15.00
IV Canara Circle
25 Haliyal - - - - - - - -
26 Honnavar - - - - - - - -
27 Karwar - - - - - - - -
28 Karwar SF - - - - - - - -
29 Sirsi - - - - - - - -
30 Yellapur - - - - - - - -
31 Dandeli WL - - - - - - - -
Sub Total - - - - - - - -
71
Karnataka
Road
MARKENDEY Calamity Relief
METRO Development
A YOJANE Fund (CRF)
SI Corporation
DIVISION Ltd., (KRDCL)
NO.
Extent Surv Exten Survi Extent Survival Exte Surviv
in Ha. ival t in val % in Ha. % nt in al %
% Ha. Ha.
1 2 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
I Bangalore Circle
3 Bangalore Urban - - - - 36.50 95.00 - -
8 Kolar - - - - - - - -
9 Kolar SF - - - - - - - -
10 Ramnagar - - - - - - - -
11 Ramnagar SF - - - - - - - -
Sub Total - - - - 36.50 95.00 - -
II Belgaum Circle
12 Bagalkot - - - - - - - -
13 Bagalkot SF - - - - - - - -
14 Belgaum 710.00 94.44 - - - - - -
15 Belgaum SF - - - - - - - -
16 Bijapur - - - - - - - -
17 Bijapur SF - - - - - - - -
18 Gokak - - - - - - - -
Sub Total 710.00 94.44 - - - - - -
III Bellary Circle
20 Bellary SF - - - - - - - -
21 Chitradurga - - - - - - - -
22 Davangere - - - - - - - -
23 Koppal - - - - - - - -
24 Koppal SF - - 37.00 29.50 - - - -
Sub Total - - 37.00 29.50 - - - -
IV Canara Circle
25 Haliyal - - - - - - - -
26 Honnavar - - - - - - - -
27 Karwar - - - - - - - -
28 Karwar SF - - - - - - - -
29 Sirsi - - - - - - - -
30 Yellapur - - - - - - - -
31 Dandeli WL - - - - - - - -
Sub Total - - - - - - - -
72
National Rural
Employment Rashtriya Sam National Food for Village
Generation Vikas Yojana Work Programme Panchayat Fund
SI Scheme (RSVY) (NFFWP-MLA) (VPF)
DIVISION (NREGS)
NO.
Exten Exten
Survi Extent Surviv Extent in Surviv Surviv
t in t in
val % in Ha. al % Ha. al % al %
Ha. Ha.
1 2 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58
I Bangalore Circle
SF
8 Kolar - - - - - - - -
9 Kolar SF - - - - - - - -
10 Ramnagar - - - - - - - -
11 Ramnagar SF - - - - - - - -
Sub Total - - - - - - - -
II Belgaum Circle
12 Bagalkot - - - - - - - -
13 Bagalkot SF - - - - - - - -
14 Belgaum - - - - - - - -
15 Belgaum SF - - - - - - - -
16 Bijapur - - - - - - - -
17 Bijapur SF - - - - - - - -
18 Gokak - - - - - - - -
Sub Total - - - - - - - -
III Bellary Circle
20 Bellary SF - - - - - - - -
21 Chitradurga - - - - - - - -
22 Davangere - - - - 85.00 62.94 - -
23 Koppal - - - - - - - -
24 Koppal SF - - - - - - - -
Sub Total - - - - 85.00 62.94 - -
IV Canara Circle
25 Haliyal - - - - - - - -
26 Honnavar - - - - - - - -
27 Karwar - - - - - - - -
28 Karwar SF - - - - - - - -
29 Sirsi - - - - - - - -
30 Yellapur - - - - - - - -
31 Dandeli WL - - - - - - - -
Sub Total - - - - - - - -
73
SI Hyderbad
NO. Gram
Deposit of Work Karnataka
Panchayat Total
Contribution Development
Nidhi (GPN)
DIVISION Board (HKADB)
Exte Survi Exten Surviv Extent Surviv Extent in Surviv
nt in val % t in al % in Ha. al % Ha. al %
Ha. Ha.
1 2 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66
I Bangalore Circle
1 Bangalore Rural - - - - - - 675.00 40.97

2 Bangalore Rural SF - - - - - - 38.00 65.93
3 Bangalore Urban - - - - - - 1,264.75 69.62
4 Bangalore Urban - - - - - - 99.15 70.03
SF
5 Bannerghatta NP - - - - - - 244.00 40.95
6 Chikballapur - - - - - - 1,462.50 64.53
7 Chikballapur SF - - - - - - 362.76 66.80
8 Kolar - - - - - - 1,077.00 83.39
9 Kolar SF - - - - - - 111.03 67.50
10 Ramnagar - - - - - - 1,289.50 73.07
11 Ramnagar SF - - - - - - 82.60 68.67
Sub Total - - - - - - 6,706.29 67.24
II Belgaum Circle
12 Bagalkot - - - - - - 1,631.84 50.37
13 Bagalkot SF - - - - - - 2,044.00 31.64
14 Belgaum - - - - - - 4,329.80 86.84
15 Belgaum SF - - - - - - 1,336.88 64.79
16 Bijapur - - - - - - 2,131.00 25.74
17 Bijapur SF - - - - - - 550.00 41.21
18 Gokak - - - - - - 1,097.50 67.77
Sub Total - - - - - - 13,121.02 58.03
III Bellary Circle
19 Bellary Division - - - - - - 1,943.16 70.71
20 Bellary SF - - - - - - 271.00 11.75
21 Chitradurga - - - - - - 1,547.00 78.89
22 Davangere - - - - - - 1,403.00 52.98
23 Koppal - - - - - - 473.20 62.08
24 Koppal SF - - - - 114.75 70.38 586.75 28.32
Sub Total - - - - 114.75 70.38 6,224.11 61.53
IV Canara Circle
25 Haliyal - - - - - - 7,226.63 48.92
26 Honnavar - - - - - - 5,686.10 81.90
27 Karwar - - - - - - 3,285.15 62.45
28 Karwar SF - - - - - - 138.96 19.72
29 Sirsi - - - - - - 4,097.51 79.00
30 Yellapur - - - - - - 6,159.58 68.57
31 Dandeli WL - - - - - - 1,047.00 52.45
Sub Total - - - - - - 27,640.93 66.13
74
Greening of
COMPENSATORY
FDA AFFORESTATION 12TH FINANCE Urban Area
SI (GUA)
DIVISION
NO. Exten Exten
Extent Surviv Surviv Extent Surviv Survi
t in t in
in Ha. al % al % in Ha. al % val %
Ha. Ha.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
V Chamarajnagar
Circle
1 Chamarajnagar SF - - - - - - - -
2 Chamarajnagar WL 3,260.00 65.43 - - 10.00 87.00 - -
3 Kollegal 1,000.00 56.98 5.00 81.25 110.00 73.50 - -
4 Cauvery WL 600.00 5.88 - - 5.00 59.00 - -
Sub Total 4,860.00 56.34 5.00 81.25 125.00 74.00 - -
VI Chikmagalur Circle
5 Chikmagalur 735.00 74.74 - - 40.00 93.36 24.00 40.00
6 Chikmagalur SF - - - - - - - -
7 Koppa 1045.00 60.88 54.00 58.00 356.00 90.80 - -
8 Bhadra WL 100.00 53.50 - - - - - -
Sub Total 1,880.00 65.91 54.00 58.00 396.00 91.06 24.00 40.00
VII Dharwad Circle
9 Dharwad 1,162.00 80.00 9.50 81.00 465.00 81.00 62.50 67.00
10 Dharwad SF - - - - - - - -
11 Gadag 1,650.00 75.00 50.00 62.00 - - 46.00 95.00
12 Gadag SF - - - - - - - -
13 Haveri 1,360.00 62.65 - - 80.00 93.85 12.00 95.00
14 Haveri SF - - - - - - - -
Sub Total 4,172.00 72.37 59.50 65.03 545.00 82.89 120.50 80.48
VIII Gulbarga Circle
15 Bidar 975.00 56.23 51.00 93.38 - - - -
16 Bidar SF - - - - - - - -
17 Gulbarga 1025.00 66.75 - - 85.00 77.99 52.00 98.00
18 Gulbarga SF - - - - - - - -
19 Raichur 1165.00 39.34 - - 15.00 57.00 24.00 44.75
20 Raichur SF - - - - - - - -
Sub Total 3,165.00 53.42 51.00 93.38 100.00 74.84 76.00 81.18
75
Development of
KFDF-Other CULTURAL
SGRY Degraded
Plantation OPERATION
SI Forests (DDF)
DIVISION
NO. Exten Surv
Extent Survival Surviv Extent Survival Extent
t in ival
in Ha. % al % in Ha. % in Ha.
Ha. %
1 2 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
V Chamarajnagar
Circle
2 Chamarajnagar WL - - - - - - - -
3 Kollegal 125.00 93.00 216.00 48.00 - - 2120.00 94.00
4 Cauvery WL - - - - - - - -
Sub Total 125.00 93.00 216.00 48.00 - - 2120.00 94.00
VI Chikmagalur
Circle
5 Chikmagalur - - - - - - 70.00 73.84
7 Koppa 125.00 72.00 - - - - 23.50 90.00
8 Bhadra WL - - - - - - - -
Sub Total 125.00 72.00 - - - - 93.50 77.91
VII Dharwad Circle
9 Dharwad 130.00 94.00 89.59 95.00 - - - -
10 Dharwad SF - - - - 627.00 51.00 - -
11 Gadag 50.00 88.40 - - - - 86.00 80.00
12 Gadag SF - - - - 319.50 35.00 - -
13 Haveri 90.00 75.00 135.00 78.35 - - - -
14 Haveri SF - - - - 165.50 47.00 - -
Sub Total 270.00 86.63 224.59 84.99 1107.00 45.80 86.00 80.00
15 Bidar 216.00 58.56 - - - - 70.00 56.44
16 Bidar SF - - - - 194.70 51.56 - -
17 Gulbarga 40.00 54.70 - - 109.25 67.29 53.00 69.74
18 Gulbarga SF - - - - 1933.78 61.54 - -
19 Raichur - - 14.50 64.45 - - - -
20 Raichur SF - - - - 240.50 24.53 - -
Sub Total 256.00 57.96 14.50 64.45 2478.23 57.42 123.00 62.17
76
National Oil &
Vegetable Oilseed Special
Minor Forest
KSFMBC / JBIC Development Component Plan
Produce (MFP)
SI Authority (SCP)
DIVISION (NOVODA)
NO.
Exten Exten
Extent Surviva Extent Surviv Surviv Surviv
t in t in
in Ha. l% in Ha. al % al % al %
Ha. Ha.
1 2 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
V Chamarajnagar
Circle
1 Chamarajnagar SF 38.50 55.21 - - - - - -
2 Chamarajnagar WL 430.00 70.00 - - - - - -
3 Kollegal 630.00 73.00 - - - - - -
4 Cauvery WL - - - - - - - -
Sub Total 1,098.50 71.20 - - - - - -
VI Chikmagalur
Circle
5 Chikmagalur 622.00 48.85 - - - - - -
7 Koppa 221.00 80.00 - - - - - -
8 Bhadra WL - - - - - - - -
Sub Total 843.00 57.02 - - - - - -
VII Dharwad Circle
9 Dharwad - - - - - - - -
10 Dharwad SF - - - - - - - -
11 Gadag - - - - - - - -
12 Gadag SF - - - - - - - -
13 Haveri - - - - - - - -
14 Haveri SF - - - - - - - -
Sub Total - - - - - - - -
15 Bidar 870.50 63.23 45.00 85.98 22.25 0 - -
16 Bidar SF 31.73 40.88 - - - - - -
17 Gulbarga 1249.00 38.33 - - - - - -
18 Gulbarga SF - - - - - - - -
19 Raichur 486.00 49.27 - - - - - -
20 Raichur SF 52.00 34.28 - - - - - -
Sub Total 2,689.23 48.32 45.00 85.98 22.25 - - -
77
Karnataka Uraban
Central Sponser Development &
NATURE Western Ghats
Scheme - Coastal
CONSERVATIO Development
DWS/CSS Environmental
SI N Projects
DIVISION (Central) Management Project
NO. (KUDCEMP)
Exten Exten
Extent Surviv Survival Extent in Surviv Surviv
t in t in
in Ha. al % % Ha. al % al %
Ha. Ha.
1 2 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34
V Chamarajnagar
Circle
34 Kollegal - - - - - - - -
35 Cauvery WL - - - - - - - -
Sub Total - - - - - - - -
36 Chikmagalur - - - - - - - -
37 Chikmagalur SF - - - - - - 10.00 98.00
38 Koppa - - - - - - - -
39 Bhadra WL - - - - - - - -
Sub Total - - - - - - 10.00 98.00
VII Dharwad Circle
40 Dharwad - - - - - - - -
41 Dharwad SF - - - - - - - -
42 Gadag - - - - - - - -
43 Gadag SF - - - - - - - -
44 Haveri - - - - - - - -
45 Haveri SF - - - - - - - -
Sub Total - - - - - - - -
46 Bidar - - - - - - - -
47 Bidar SF - - - - - - - -
48 Gulbarga - - - - - - - -
49 Gulbarga SF - - - - - - - -
50 Raichur - - - - - - - -
51 Raichur SF - - - - - - - -
Sub Total - - - - - - - -
78
Regularization of
Encrochment Karnataka State
Evicted Area /
Karnataka Highway Tribal Sub
Regularization of
Encrochment of Social Forestry Improvement Plan (State)
SI Project (KSHIP)
DIVISION Forest Land
NO.
(ROE / REFL)
Exten Exten Exten
Survival Surviv Extent Surviv Survi
t in t in t in
% al % in Ha. al % val %
Ha. Ha. Ha.
1 2 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42
V Chamarajnagar
Circle
34 Kollegal - - - - - - - -
35 Cauvery WL - - - - - - - -
Sub Total - - - - - - - -
36 Chikmagalur - - - - - - - -
37 Chikmagalur SF - - - - - - -
38 Koppa - - - - - - - -
39 Bhadra WL - - - - - - - -
Sub Total - - - - - - - -
VII Dharwad Circle
40 Dharwad - - - - - - - -
41 Dharwad SF - - - - - - - -
42 Gadag - - - - - - - -
43 Gadag SF - - - - - - - -
44 Haveri - - - - - - - -
45 Haveri SF - - - - - - - -
Sub Total - - - - - - - -
46 Bidar - - - - - - - -
47 Bidar SF - - - - - - - -
48 Gulbarga 10.00 0 - - 129.00 60.00 - -
49 Gulbarga SF - - - - - - - -
50 Raichur - - - - - - - -
51 Raichur SF - - - - - - - -
Sub Total 10.00 - - - 129.00 60.00 - -
79
Karnataka Road
MARKENDEYA Calamity Relief Development
METRO
YOJANE Fund (CRF) Corporation
SI Ltd., (KRDCL)
DIVISION
NO.
Exten Exten Exten Exten
Survival Survival Survival Surviv
t in t in t in t in
% % % al %
Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha.
1 2 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
V Chamarajnagar
Circle
34 Kollegal - - - - - - - -
35 Cauvery WL - - - - - - - -
Sub Total - - - - - - - -
36 Chikmagalur - - - - - - - -
37 Chikmagalur SF - - - - - - - -
38 Koppa - - - - - - - -
39 Bhadra WL - - - - - - - -
Sub Total - - - - - - - -
VII Dharwad Circle
40 Dharwad - - - - - - - -
41 Dharwad SF - - - - - - - -
42 Gadag - - - - - - - -
43 Gadag SF - - - - - - - -
44 Haveri - - - - - - - -
45 Haveri SF - - - - - - - -
Sub Total - - - - - - - -
VII Gulbarga Circle
I
46 Bidar - - - - - - - -
47 Bidar SF - - - - - - - -
48 Gulbarga - - - - - - 78.00 49.80
49 Gulbarga SF - - - - - - - -
50 Raichur - - - - - - - -
51 Raichur SF - - - - - - - -
Sub Total - - - - - - 78.00 49.80
80
National Rural
Rashtriya Sam National Food for Village
Employment
Vikas Yojana Work Programme Panchayat
Generation Scheme
SI (RSVY) (NFFWP-MLA) Fund (VPF)
DIVISION (NREGS)
NO.
Surv Exte Surv
Extent in Survival Extent Extent Survival
ival nt in ival
Ha. % in Ha. in Ha. %
% Ha. %
1 2 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58
V Chamarajnagar
Circle
34 Kollegal - - - - - - - -
35 Cauvery WL - - - - - - - -
Sub Total - - - - - - - -
36 Chikmagalur - - - - - - - -
37 Chikmagalur SF - - - - - - - -
38 Koppa - - - - - - - -
39 Bhadra WL - - - - - - - -
Sub Total - - - - - - - -
VII Dharwad Circle
40 Dharwad - - - - - - - -
41 Dharwad SF - - - - - - - -
42 Gadag - - - - - - - -
43 Gadag SF - - - - - - - -
44 Haveri - - - - - - - -
45 Haveri SF - - - - - - - -
Sub Total - - - - - - - -
VII Gulbarga Circle
I
46 Bidar - - - - - - - -
47 Bidar SF 58.50 39.88 360.14 50.65 97.65 48.33 - -
48 Gulbarga - - - - - - - -
49 Gulbarga SF 1222.11 61.89 - - - - - -
50 Raichur - - - - - - - -
51 Raichur SF 308.50 48.62 - - - - - -
Sub Total 1,589.11 58.50 360.14 50.65 97.65 48.33 - -
81
Hyderbad
Gram Panchayat Deposit of Work Karnataka
Total
Nidhi (GPN) Contribution Development
SI Board (HKADB)
DIVISION
NO.
Exten Exten Exten
Survival Survival Surviv Extent in Survival
t in t in t in
% % al % Ha. %
Ha. Ha. Ha.
1 2 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66
V Chamarajnagar
Circle
32 Chamarajnagar SF - - - - - - 38.50 55.21
33 Chamarajnagar WL - - - - - - 3,700.00 66.02
34 Kollegal - - - - - - 4,206.00 79.11
35 Cauvery WL - - - - - - 605.00 6.32
Sub Total - - - - - - 8,549.50 68.19
36 Chikmagalur - - - - - - 1,491.00 63.84
37 Chikmagalur SF - - - - - - 10.00 98.00
38 Koppa - - - - - - 1,824.50 70.09
39 Bhadra WL - - - - - - 100.00 53.50
Sub Total - - - - - - 3,425.50 66.96
VII Dharwad Circle
40 Dharwad - - - - - - 1,918.59 81.47
41 Dharwad SF - - - - - - 627.00 51.00
42 Gadag - - - - - - 1,882.00 75.73
43 Gadag SF - - - - - - 319.50 35.00
44 Haveri - - - - - - 1,677.00 66.30
45 Haveri SF - - - - - - 160.50 47.00
Sub Total - - - - - - 6,584.59 69.97
46 Bidar - - - - - - 2,249.75 60.05
47 Bidar SF - - - - - - 742.72 49.32
48 Gulbarga - - - - - - 2830.25 54.02
49 Gulbarga SF - - - - - - 3,155.89 61.68
50 Raichur - - - - - - 1,704.50 42.62
51 Raichur SF - - - - - - 601.00 37.74
Sub Total - - - - - - 11,284.11 54.46
82
Greening of
COMPENSATORY
FDA AFFORESTATION
12TH FINANCE Urban Area
SI (GUA)
DIVISION
NO.
Extent in Surviv Extent Survival Extent Survi Extent Survi
Ha. al % in Ha. % in Ha. val % in Ha. val %
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
IX Hassan Circle
52 Hassan 745.00 81.35 144.00 77.89 105.00 84.67 16.00 74.67
53 Hassan SF - - - - - - - -
54 Tumkur 1500.00 63.00 - - 335.00 78.85 57.00 77.92
Sub Total 2,245.00 69.09 144.00 77.89 440.00 80.24 73.00 77.21
X Kodagu Circle
55 Madikeri 982.50 66.03 - - 40.00 90.43 16.00 60.00
56 Madikeri SF - - - - - - - -
57 Virajpet 94.50 6.81 - - - - - -
58 Madikeri WL 70.00 76.07 - - - - - -
Sub Total 1,147.00 61.76 - - 40.00 90.43 16.00 60.00
XI Mangalore Circle
59 Kundapur 585.00 80.60 - - 500.00 93.86 - -
60 Kudremukh WL 1500.00 77.00 - - - - - -
61 Mangalore 600.00 76.74 12.50 80.00 231.00 82.78 38.00 72.00
62 Mangalore SF - - - - - - - -
63 Udupi SF - - - - - - - -
Sub Total 2,685.00 77.73 12.50 80.00 731.00 90.36 38.00 72.00
XII Mysore Circle
64 Hunsur 1,170.00 51.94 17.00 25.00 95.00 71.10 - -
65 Mandya 1,255.00 62.18 - - - - 101.00 84.27
66 Mandya SF - - - - - - - -
67 Mysore 1,250.00 71.88 - - - - 32.65 51.96
68 Mysore SF - - - - - - - -
Sub Total 3,675.00 62.22 17.00 25.00 95.00 71.10 133.65 76.38
XIII Shimoga Circle
69 Bhadravathi 1000.00 73.58 - - 95.00 84.90 - -
70 Sagar 1490.00 59.64 176.23 91.00 470.00 78.93 - -
71 Shimoga 1060.00 49.95 145.00 70.00 315.00 84.24 85.00 81.26
72 Shimoga SF - - - - - - - -
73 Shimoga WL 198.50 28.03 - - - - - -
Sub Total 3,748.50 58.94 321.23 81.52 880.00 81.48 85.00 81.26
Grand Total 39,643.45 62.10 2,073.82 75.21 5,943.43 79.62 1012.61 74.93
83
Development of
KFDF-Other CULTURAL
SGRY Degraded Forests
Plantation OPERATION
SI (DDF)
DIVISION
NO. Surv
Extent in Surviv Extent Extent in Survi Extent Survi
ival
Ha. al % in Ha. Ha. val % in Ha. val %
%
1 2 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
IX Hassan Circle
52 Hassan 178.00 95.00 - - - - 64.25 83.37
53 Hassan SF - - - - 111.74 70.33 - -
54 Tumkur 232.00 53.33 264.00 72.78 - - 68.00 55.39
Sub Total 410.00 71.42 264.00 72.78 111.74 70.33 132.25 68.98
X Kodagu Circle
55 Madikeri 87.27 83.88 - - - - 73.00 96.18
56 Madikeri SF - - - - 108.00 84.77 - -
57 Virajpet 125.00 95.63 - - - - - -
58 Madikeri WL - - - - - - - -
Sub Total 212.27 90.80 - - 108.00 84.77 73.00 96.18
XI Mangalore
Circle
59 Kundapur 13.21 46.00 2.42 80.00 - - - -
60 Kudremukh WL - - - - - - - -
61 Mangalore 290.15 78.54 57.00 77.00 - - - -
62 Mangalore SF - - - - 301.33 85.29 - -
63 Udupi SF - - - - 151.75 90.38 - -
Sub Total 303.36 77.12 59.42 77.12 453.08 86.99 - -
XII Mysore Circle
64 Hunsur 620.00 27.00 99.50 58.64 - - 68.00 68.78
65 Mandya 69.00 56.39 71.50 82.00 - - 60.00 70.00
66 Mandya SF - - - - 117.50 76.00 - -
67 Mysore - - 120.76 68.26 - - 39.00 90.00
68 Mysore SF - - - - 164.00 73.67 - -
Sub Total 689.00 29.94 291.76 68.35 281.50 74.64 167.00 74.17
XIII Shimoga Circle
69 Bhadravathi 263.17 79.00 - - - - - -
70 Sagar 307.00 88.00 521.00 79.36 - - 90.00 75.62
71 Shimoga 817.00 79.62 220.00 93.00 - - - -
72 Shimoga SF - - - - 653.50 79.55 - -
73 Shimoga WL - - - - - - - -
Sub Total 1,387.17 81.36 741.00 83.41 653.50 79.55 90.00 75.62
Grand Total 19,904.04 65.75 3,903.02 73.79 10,288.52 52.79 3,758.25 85.07
84
SI National Oil &
NO. Vegetable
Special
Oilseed Minor Forest
KSFMBC / JBIC Component Plan
Development Produce (MFP)
(SCP)
DIVISION Authority
(NOVODA)
Extent in Surviv Extent Survi Extent Survi Extent Survi
Ha. al % in Ha. val % in Ha. val % in Ha. val %
1 2 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
IX Hassan Circle
52 Hassan 822.00 69.11 50.00 95.00 42.00 60.00 - -
53 Hassan SF 72.00 82.79 - - - - - -
54 Tumkur - - - - - - - -
Sub Total 894.00 70.21 50.00 95.00 42.00 60.00 - -
X Kodagu Circle
55 Madikeri 622.00 95.10 - - - - - -
56 Madikeri SF 19.00 88.00 - - - - - -
57 Virajpet - - - - - - - -
58 Madikeri WL - - - - - - - -
Sub Total 641.00 94.89 - - - - - -
XI Mangalore Circle
59 Kundapur 874.00 58.90 - - 9.00 58.75 - -
60 Kudremukh WL - - - - - - - -
61 Mangalore 668.00 34.28 - - - - - -
62 Mangalore SF 195.79 15.45 - - - - - -
63 Udupi SF 59.75 81.67 - - - - - -
Sub Total 1,797.54 45.77 - - 9.00 58.75 - -
XII Mysore Circle
64 Hunsur 902.00 73.89 - - - - - -
65 Mandya 1,004.00 51.95 - - - - - -
66 Mandya SF 235.00 52.16 - - 106.00 69.33 30.00 76.00
67 Mysore 487.25 41.02 - - - - - -
68 Mysore SF 119.50 21.86 - - - - 10.00 70.40
Sub Total 2,747.75 55.92 - - 106.00 69.33 40.00 74.60
XIII Shimoga Circle
69 Bhadravathi 772.00 88.16 - - - - - -
70 Sagar 242.00 74.20 - - - - - -
71 Shimoga 677.00 84.24 - - - - - -
72 Shimoga SF 62.00 43.92 - - - - - -
73 Shimoga WL 24.00 57.22 - - - - - -
Sub Total 1,777.00 82.80 - - - - - -
Grand Total 22,739.43 64.42 330.00 87.95 249.05 43.12 60.00 68.07
85
SI Karnataka Uraban
NO. Development &
Central Sponser
NATURE Coastal Western Ghats
Scheme -
CONSERVATIO Environmental Development
DWS/CSS
DIVISION N Management Projects
(Central)
Project
(KUDCEMP)
Extent Survi Extent Surviv Extent Survival Extent Surviv
in Ha. val % in Ha. al % in Ha. % in Ha. al %
1 2 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34
IX Hassan Circle
52 Hassan - - - - - - - -
53 Hassan SF - - - - - - - -
54 Tumkur - - - - - - - -
Sub Total - - - - - - - -
X Kodagu Circle
55 Madikeri - - - - - - - -
56 Madikeri SF - - - - - - 36.00 10.00
57 Virajpet - - - - - - - -
58 Madikeri WL - - - - - - - -
Sub Total - - - - - - 36.00 10.00
XI Mangalore Circle
59 Kundapur - - - - 40.00 94.00 - -
60 Kudremukh WL - - - - - - - -
61 Mangalore - - - - 18.00 73.43 - -
62 Mangalore SF - - - - - - - -
63 Udupi SF - - - - - - 67.50 89.11
Sub Total - - - - 58.00 87.62 67.50 89.11
XII Mysore Circle
64 Hunsur - - - - - - - -
65 Mandya - - - - - - - -
66 Mandya SF - - - - - - - -
67 Mysore - - - - - - - -
68 Mysore SF - - - - - - - -
Sub Total - - - - - - - -
XIII Shimoga Circle
69 Bhadravathi - - - - - - - -
70 Sagar - - - - - - - -
71 Shimoga - - - - - - - -
72 Shimoga SF - - - - - - - -
73 Shimoga WL - - - - - - - -
Sub Total - - - - - - - -
Grand Total 812.00 54.92 25.00 74.40 83.00 90.26 113.50 64.80
86
SI DIVISION Regularization of Karnataka Karnataka State Tribal Sub Plan
NO. Encrochment Social Forestry Highway (State)
Evicted Area / Improvement
Regularization of
Project (KSHIP)
Encrochment of
Forest Land
(ROE / REFL)
Exten Survival Extent Survi Extent Surviv Extent Surv
t in % in Ha. val % in Ha. al % in Ha. ival
Ha. %
1 2 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42
IX Hassan Circle
52 Hassan - - - - - - - -
53 Hassan SF - - - - - - - -
54 Tumkur - - - - - - - -
Sub Total - - - - - - - -
X Kodagu Circle
55 Madikeri - - - - - - - -
56 Madikeri SF - - - - - - - -
57 Virajpet - - - - - - - -
58 Madikeri WL - - - - - - - -
Sub Total - - - - - - - -
XI Mangalore Circle
59 Kundapur - - - - - - 2.00 90.00
60 Kudremukh WL - - - - - - - -
61 Mangalore - - - - - - 7.00 81.50
62 Mangalore SF - - - - - - 21.25 48.19
63 Udupi SF - - - - - - 10.50 89.80
Sub Total - - - - - - 40.75 66.69
XII Mysore Circle
64 Hunsur - - - - - - - -
65 Mandya - - - - - - - -
66 Mandya SF - - - - - - - -
67 Mysore - - - - - - - -
68 Mysore SF - - - - - - - -
Sub Total - - - - - - - -
XIII Shimoga Circle
69 Bhadravathi 90.00 85.60 - - - - - -
70 Sagar - - - - - - - -
71 Shimoga - - - - - - - -
72 Shimoga SF - - 184.00 90.10 - - - -
73 Shimoga WL - - - - - - - -
Sub Total 90.00 85.60 184.00 90.10 - - - -
Grand Total 402.00 80.60 184.00 90.10 380.00 77.45 58.25 55.33
87
SI DIVISION MARKENDEY Calamity Relief METRO Karnataka
NO. A YOJANE Fund (CRF) Road
Development
Corporation
Ltd., (KRDCL)
Exten Surviv Extent Survi Extent Survival Extent Surv
t in al % in Ha. val % in Ha. % in Ha. ival
Ha. %
1 2 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
IX Hassan Circle
52 Hassan - - 70.00 89.00 - - - -
53 Hassan SF - - 62.20 89.50 - - - -
54 Tumkur - - - - - - - -
Sub Total - - 132.20 89.24 - - - -
X Kodagu Circle
55 Madikeri - - - - - - - -
56 Madikeri SF - - - - - - - -
57 Virajpet - - - - - - - -
58 Madikeri WL - - - - - - - -
Sub Total - - - - - - - -
XI Mangalore Circle
59 Kundapur - - - - - - - -
60 Kudremukh WL - - - - - - - -
61 Mangalore - - - - - - - -
62 Mangalore SF - - - - - - - -
63 Udupi SF - - - - - - - -
Sub Total - - - - - - - -
XII Mysore Circle
64 Hunsur - - - - - - - -
65 Mandya - - - - - - - -
66 Mandya SF - - - - - - - -
67 Mysore - - - - - - - -
68 Mysore SF - - - - - - - -
Sub Total - - - - - - - -
XIII Shimoga Circle
69 Bhadravathi - - - - - - - -
70 Sagar - - - - - - - -
71 Shimoga - - - - - - - -
72 Shimoga SF - - - - - - - -
73 Shimoga WL - - - - - - - -
Sub Total - - - - - - - -
Grand Total 710.00 94.44 169.20 76.17 36.50 95.00 78.00 49.80
88
SI National Rural National Food for
Rashtriya Sam Village
NO. Employment Work
Vikas Yojana Panchayat
Generation Programme
(RSVY) Fund (VPF)
DIVISION Scheme (NREGS) (NFFWP-MLA)
Extent in Survi Extent Surv Extent Surviv Exten Surv
Ha. val % in Ha. ival in Ha. al % t in ival
% Ha. %
1 2 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58
IX Hassan Circle
52 Hassan - - - - - - - -
53 Hassan SF - - - - - - - -
54 Tumkur - - - - - - - -
Sub Total - - - - - - - -
X Kodagu Circle
55 Madikeri - - - - - - - -
56 Madikeri SF - - - - - - - -
57 Virajpet - - - - - - - -
58 Madikeri WL - - - - - - - -
Sub Total - - - - - - - -
XI Mangalore Circle
59 Kundapur - - - - - - - -
60 Kudremukh WL - - - - - - - -
61 Mangalore - - - - - - - -
62 Mangalore SF - - - - - - 5.00 80.00
63 Udupi SF - - - - - - - -
Sub Total - - - - - - 5.00 80.00
XII Mysore Circle
64 Hunsur - - - - - - - -
65 Mandya - - - - - - - -
66 Mandya SF - - - - - - - -
67 Mysore - - - - - - - -
68 Mysore SF - - - - - - - -
Sub Total - - - - - - - -
XIII Shimoga Circle
69 Bhadravathi - - - - - - - -
70 Sagar - - - - - - - -
71 Shimoga - - - - - - - -
72 Shimoga SF - - - - - - - -
73 Shimoga WL - - - - - - - -
Sub Total - - - - - - - -
Grand Total 1,589.11 58.50 360.14 50.65 182.65 55.13 5.00 80.00
89
Hyderbad
Gram Deposit of
Karnataka
Panchayat Work Total
Development
SI Nidhi (GPN) Contribution
DIVISION Board (HKADB)
NO.
Exten Exten
Survi Survi Extent Survi Extent in Survi
t in t in
val % val % in Ha. val % Ha. val %
Ha. Ha.
1 2 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66
IX Hassan Circle
52 Hassan - - - - - - 2,236.25 78.02
53 Hassan SF - - - - - - 245.94 78.83
54 Tumkur - - - - - - 2,456.00 65.44
Sub Total - - - - - - 4,938.19 71.80
X Kodagu Circle
55 Madikeri - - - - - - 1,820.77 78.51
56 Madikeri SF - - - - - - 163.00 68.63
57 Virajpet - - - - - - 219.50 57.39
58 Madikeri WL - - - - - - 70.00 76.07
Sub Total - - - - - - 2,273.27 75.69
XI Mangalore Circle
59 Kundapur - - - - - - 2,025.63 74.46
60 Kudremukh WL - - - - - - 1,500.00 77.00
61 Mangalore - - - - - - 1,921.65 62.90
62 Mangalore SF 67.59 66.86 - - - - 590.96 58.66
63 Udupi SF - - 5.25 85.00 - - 294.75 88.21
Sub Total 67.59 66.86 5.25 85.00 - - 6,332.99 70.72
XII Mysore Circle
64 Hunsur - - - - - - 2,971.50 54.47
65 Mandya - - - - - - 2,560.50 59.62
66 Mandya SF - - - - - - 488.50 63.08
67 Mysore - - - - - - 1,929.66 63.89
68 Mysore SF - - - - - - 293.50 52.46
Sub Total - - - - - - 8,243.66 58.71
XIII Shimoga Circle
69 Bhadravathi - - - - - - 2,220.17 80.26
70 Sagar - - - - - - 3,296.23 71.33
71 Shimoga - - - - - - 3,319.00 72.03
72 Shimoga SF - - - - - - 899.50 79.25
73 Shimoga WL - - - - - - 222.50 31.18
Sub Total - - - - - - 9,957.40 73.38
Grand Total 67.59 66.86 5.25 85.00 114.75 70.38 115,281.56 65.06
90
Annexure-I-Detailed Cirlce Reports
8.1 BANGALORE CIRCLE
Bangalore Urban Division:
Bangalore Urban district is bounded on all sides by Bangalore Rural Forest Division
in the south by Banneraghatta National Park in south-east, where it touches the district
boundary of Dharmapuri in Tamil nadu state.
The district is situated between latitude 12°14' and 13°30' north and between
longitude 77°3' and 77°59' east. The urban district comprise of 4 administrative taluks i.e.,
Bangalore North, Bangalore South, Bangalore East and Anekal covering 17 hoblies with 682
inhabitant villages. The district consists of 115 Grama Panchayaths and 10 Municipalities.
The district lies on Deccan plateau which is mostly flat with moderate slope. The
southern portion of district is gently undulating and hilly; the elevation of the district varies
from 835 meters to 953 meters above MSL. There are pockets of agriculture lands in the rural
and semi-urban area of the district surrounding Bangalore city.
April is usually the hottest month with mean daily maximum temperature at 33° c and
means daily minimum 21° c in the hot season, the temperature is above 36° c. The mean
annual rainfall is about 875mm spread over 50 days in a year.
Bangalore Rural Division:
The limits of Bangalore Rural district both Territorial and Social Forestry are
practically the same as those of Bangalore Rural Revenue District. The district is bound by
North-East by Kolar District and the South-West by Ramanagara District, Doddaballapura,
Devenahally, Hosakote and Nelamangala.
Earlier Bangalore Rural district comprised eight taluks, 35 hoblies, 1707 inhabited
villages, 9 towns and 102 Mandal Panchayaths, now the Rural district has been divided into
Ramanagara district and Bangalore Rural district. The Bangalore Rural district comprises
Doddaballapura, Devenahallly, Hosakote and Nelamangala taluks.
April is usually the hottest month with mean daily maximum temperature at 33°c and
means daily minimum 21°c. In the hot season, the temperature is above 36°c. The mean
annual rainfall is about 875mm spread over 50 days in a year.
Ramanagara Division:
Ramangara District was formed out of the earlier Bangalore Rural District comprising
Ramanagara, Channapatna, Kanakapura, Magadi and Sathnoor taluks.
The District is bounded on the North by Bangalore Rural District and South-West by
Mandya District on South by Chamarajanagara District.
The rainfall in the district varies from 725mm to 845mm; relative humidity is high
during June-December.
April is usually the hottest month with mean daily maximum temperature at 33°c and
means daily minimum 21°c in the hot season, the temperature is above 36°c. The mean
annual rainfall is about 875mm spread over 50 days in a year
The Forest administration:
Bangalore circle comprises of following functional wings of the department spread
over 5 districts Viz. Bangalore Urban, Bangalore Rural, Ramanagara, Kolar and
Chikkaballapura.
¾ Bangalore Urban Territorial and Social Forestry divisions with head quarters
at Bangalore.
91
¾ Bangalore Rural Territorial and Social Forestry divisions with head quarters at
Bangalore
¾ Ramanagara Territorial and Social Forestry divisions with head quarters at
Ramanagara
¾ Kolar Territorial and Social Forestry divisions with head quarters at Kolar
¾ Chikkaballapura Territorial and Social Forestry divisions with head quarters at
Chikkaballapura
¾ Banneraghatta Wild Life Division with head quarters at Banneraghatta
Each division is headed by a Deputy Conservator of Forests under the administrative
control of Conservator of Forests, Bangalore circle, Bangalore.
The Social forestry divisions function in the respective districts headed by the Deputy
Conservator of Forests under the administrative control of the Zilla panchayat of the
concerned districts. His jurisdiction is outside the reserve forest areas of the districts.
The Additional principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Evaluation Working plan,
Research and Training, Bangalore under his letter No.APCCF (EWPRT)/I-32/Eval./ 07-08
dated:12.10.2007 has constituted evaluation teams and issued guidelines for evaluation.
The evaluation team for Bangalore circle is
1. Chief Conservator of Forests (Evaluation) Bangalore : Team leader
2. Conservator of Forests (Survey &Working Plan), Bellary : Member
3. Conservator of Forests, Mysore Circle, Mysore : Member
4. Deputy Conservator of Forests (ZP) Hassan : Member
5. Deputy Conservator of Forests (ZP) Chamarajanagar : Member
Method of selection of plantation and other works for evaluation:
To begin with, list of all works carried out during 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07 in plan,
Non-plan, KSFMBC and FDA_NAP schemes including plantations, other works and list of
seedling distributed were obtained in the Formats A,D and G from the concerned Deputy
Conservator of Forests from all the divisions of the circle and work spots were selected
randomly. The method followed for selection of spots is,
The selection of works for evaluation is based on number of spots
A minimum of 10% of the works in each scheme and in each model implemented in
the division selected by random sampling for evaluation.
In each plantation spot, 2% of the plantation area was selected for sampling intensity
and for every 5ha of plantation area one sample plot of 2% area (1000sq.mts) was
selected for evaluation.
After selection of spots randomly, the details in the formats C, E, F, H and I were
collected from the division office records.
The evaluation team before starting the field work had a meeting with Conservator of
Forest, Deputy Conservator Forests and other staff and finalized the methodology and
route map.
BANGALORE URBAN TERRITORIAL DIVISION
PLANTATIONS:
Total number of plantations raised in the division during the period under
Evaluation including seed sowing in all schemes (excluding FDA) : 122
(771.90 Ha)
Total Number of the plantations (including seed sowing areas) visited by the
Team : 15 (91.8 Ha)
92
Details of afforestation works including seed sowing selected randomly for evaluation in
all schemes except FDA_NAP
Planting:
Extent (in
S.No Year Scheme Range Hobli Village Sy.No
Ha/ km)
2004-
1 GUA Yelahanka Yelahanka ISRO-Layout-Nagenahalli 8.00
05
2004-
2 SCP Anekal Kasaba Bestamanahalli 87 0.50
05
2004-
3 SCP Anekal Kasaba Menasignahalli 56 0.50
05
2004-
4 COP Kagalipura Kengeri Turahalli MF- Kengeri Road side 6.00
05
2004-
5 COP Ulsoor Dasanapura NH 4 cross to Ravuthanahalli Roadside 5.50
05
2004-
6 FDF Kagalipura Kengeri Turahalli MF 42 10.00
05
2005- Vyalikaval Housing Society, Road
7 GUA Ulsoor - 5.00
06 Nagavara Side
2006- Telecom Housing Society-
8 GUA Ulsoor - Road side 5.50
07 Sriramanagar
2006- Banashankeri 6th Phase, Block-
9 GUA Kagalipura Kengeri Road side 5.00
07 II
2006- KSFMBC
10 Kagalipura Kengeri Turahalli SF (Mylasandara) 22 8.30
07 M-4
2006- Rajajinagar IB Officers Colony Co-op
11 METRO Kengeri - 2.50
07 Unit society, Valgerahalli
2006- Banashankeri 6th Phase, Block-
12 METRO Kagalipura Kengeri - 5.00
07 V, METRO
Summary of Evaluation of Individual plantations:

Extent
Status
(in Pit/ Spp. Mainte- Micro Plnt
S.No Year Village Model Spacing of
Ha/ Trench planted nance plan Journal
VFC
km)
2004- ISRO-Layout- Up to
1 8.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes -- --
05 Nagenahalli date
2004- Not
2 Bestamanahalli 0.50 Yes Yes Yes Yes -- -- --
05 written
2004- Not
3 Menasignahalli 0.50 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
05 written
2004- Turahalli MF-
4 6.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes --
05 Kengeri
2004- NH 4 cross to Partially
05 Ravuthanahalli written
2004-
6 Turahalli MF 10.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes -- -- -
05
Vyalikaval
2005- Housing Partially
7 5.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
06 Society, written
Nagavara
2006- Telecom Not
07 Housing written
93
Society-
Sriramanagar
Banashankeri
2006- Up to
9 6th Phase, 5.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes -- --
07 date
Block-II
2006- Turahalli SF Partially
10 8.30 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
07 (Mylasandara) written
IB Officers
2006- Colony Co-op
11 2.50 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes -- -- --
07 society,
Valgerahalli
Banashankeri
2006- 6th Phase,
12 5.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes -- -- --
07 Block-V,
METRO
Summary of Evaluation of Qualitative aspects of Individual plantations:

Extent Se;ection
Choice
(in Selection of Protection Survival General
S.No Year Village of
Ha/ of site Plantation aspects percentatge condition
Species
km) model
2004- ISRO-Layout-
1 8.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 84.00 Good
05 Nagenahalli
2004- 100%
2 Bestamanahalli 0.50 Proper Proper Proper improper 0.00
05 failure
2004- 100%
3 Menasignahalli 0.50 Proper Proper Proper Proper 0.00
05 failure
2004- Turahalli MF-
05 Kengeri
2004- NH 4 cross to
5 5.50 Proper Proper Proper Proper 55.00 Fair
05 Ravuthanahalli
2004-
6 Turahalli MF 10.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 72.00 Good
05
Vyalikaval
2005- Housing
06 Society,
Nagavara
Telecom
2006- Housing
07 Society-
Sriramanagar
Banashankeri
2006-
9 6th Phase, 5.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 95.00 Good
07
Block-II
Requires
2006- Turahalli SF
10 8.30 Proper Proper Proper improper 70.00 immediate
07 (Mylasandara)
protection
IB Officers
2006- Colony Co-op
07 society,
Valgerahalli
Banashankeri
2006- 6th Phase,
07 Block-V,
METRO
94
OTHER WORKS:
Details of other works selected randomly for evaluation:
S.No Year Scheme Range Hobli Village Location Name of the Work
147-Land & Sankey Forest Guest Repairs & Painting

1 2005-06 Estate -- Bangalore
Buildings House (Interior & Exterior)
147-Land & Repairs & Painting
2 2006-07 Estate -- Bangalore Sankey Qtrs S4
Buildings (Interior & Exterior)
147-Land & Repairs & Painting
3 2006-07 Estate -- Bangalore Sankey Qtrs S5
Buildings (Interior & Exterior)
Road Bridges &
Working Plan office Corrugated Roofing
4 2006-07 Building 139 Estate -- Bangalore
at Aranya Bhavan works
MW
2406-01-001-2-
Sankey information Corrugated Roofing
5 2006-07 01-gen.est 200 Estate -- Bangalore
centre works
(maint)
2406-01-001-2-
Sankey information Corrugated Roofing
6 2006-07 01-gen.est 200 Estate -- Bangalore
centre works
(maint)
DISTRIBUTION OF SEEDLINGS
S.
Taluk/ Name of the Species Survival
N Hobli Village Number Remarks
Range Farmer received %
o.
Bangalroe Sri. Muni
1 Yelahanka Nagenahalli Eucalyptus 7200 90 Good
North Taluk Ramanna
Bangalroe Sri. Narayana

2 Yelahanka Nagenahalli Eucalyptus 2700 85 Good
North Taluk Swamy
Bangalroe
3 Yelahanka Nagenahalli Sri. Bhoopal Eucalyptus 1700 90 Good
North Taluk
The boundaries of the forest are demarcated either by C.P.T/ by Barbed Wire
Fencing/ Chain Link Mesh/ Vegetative Fencing which are in-adequate, keeping in view of the
astronomical value of land in around Bangalore, lack of maintenance of boudaries has already
resulted in encroachments, hence there is an urgent need for boundary consolidation of the
existing forest land, even erection of protection walls all around the forest area should be
considered.
The division has raised 771.90 Ha plantations in various schemes during the period of
3 years under evaluation, out of this 71.8 Ha was selected for evaluation which works
out to be 11.91% of the area. In addition to afforestation works the division has
carried out seed sowing/ dibbling in trenches, pits and bushes in an extent of 20.00
Ha, out of which 20 Ha has been evaluated covering 100% area.
The plantations were raised in Reserve forest areas and on roadside in town.
The survival percentage varies from 0 to 97%.
The plantations raised under GUA, COP, METRO and KSFMBC schemes are planted
with species like Mahogony, Silver oak, Neem, Sampige, Pongemia(Honge) ,
Hoovarasi, Nerale etc., which have the potential to grow into trees. The forest areas
are highly susceptible for encroachment since the pressure on land is very high and is
priced exhorbitantly. Hence, the need for protecting the land by resorting to
permanent structures is of primary importance.
The roadside plantations are promising and are in good condition.
Seed sowing has not been successful.
95
BANGALORE URBAN SOCIAL FORESTRY DIVISION
PLANTATIONS:
Evaluation including seed sowing in all schemes: 73 ( 625.778 Ha)
Total Number of the plantation visited by the Team: 9 (73.57 Ha.)
Planting:
Extent (in
Ha/ km)
1 2004-05 SGRY (ZP) Anekal Sarjapura Parappana Agrahara 10.00
BTL Engineering College,

4 2004-05 SGRY (ZP) Anekal Atthibele 4.40
Bommasandra
Jarakabonde Plantation - Road
5 2004-05 SGRY (TP) Yelanka SF Hessakata 3.00
Mylapanahalli Side
6 2004-05 SGRY (ZP) Kagali pura Uttarahalli Mukkadlu 71 10.00
KSFMBC 186/2,
7 2005-06 Anekal Kasaba Karpur 2.11
M-8A 190/1
Vegetable & Fruit
8 2006-07 SF Anekal Sarjapura Road side 2.50
Market- Huskur
9 2005-06 SGRY (ZP) Kagalipura Tavarekere Chandrappa Circle 5.20
10 2005-06 SGRY (ZP) Kagalipura Tavarekere Chandrappa Circle 2.60
KSFMBC
11 2006-07 Anekal Kasaba Singhsandra 29 C 1.30
M-8A
Lagumenahalli Amani
12 2006-07 SGRY (TP) Kagalipura Bidirahalli TFS 3.29
TFS

Extent
Status
S. (in Pit/ Spp. Mainte- Micro Plnt
Year Village Model Spacing of
No Ha/ Trench planted nance plan Journal
VFC
km)
2004- Parappana Partially
1 10.00 No Yes Yes Yes Yes -- --
05 Agrahara written
2 10.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes - -
05 Agrahara written
05 Agrahara written
BTL
2004- Engineering Partially
05 College, written
Bommasandra
Jarakabonde
2004- Partially
5 Plantation - 3.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes -- -- --
05 written
Mylapanahalli
96
2004- Partially
6 Mukkadlu 10.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes -- --
05 written
2005- Up to
7 Karpur 2.11 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes -- --
06 date
Vegetable &
2006- Partially
8 Fruit Market- 2.50 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes -- --
07 written
Huskur
2005- Chandrappa Not
06 Circle written
2005- Chandrappa Not
06 Circle written
2006-
11 Singhsandra 1.30 Yes Yes Yes Yes -- -- --
07
2006- Lagumenahalli Partially
07 Amani TFS written
Se;ection
Extent Choice
Selection of Protection Survival General
S.No Year Village (in Ha/ of
of site Plantation aspects percentatge condition
km) Species
model
2004- Parappana
05 Agrahara
2004- Parappana
05 Agrahara
2004- Parappana
05 Agrahara
BTL
2004- Engineering
05 College,
Bommasandra
Jarakabonde
2004-
5 Plantation - 3.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 72.00 Good
05
Mylapanahalli
2004-
6 Mukkadlu 10.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 56.30 Fair
05
2005-
7 Karpur 2.11 Proper Proper Proper Proper 90.00 Good
06
Vegetable &
2006-
8 Fruit Market- 2.50 Proper Proper Proper Proper 83.00 Good
07
Huskur
2005- Chandrappa
06 Circle
2005- Chandrappa
06 Circle
2006-
11 Singhsandra 1.30 Proper Proper Proper Proper 100.00 Good
07
2006- Lagumenahalli
07 Amani TFS
OTHER WORKS:
Kaduagrahara to Gundur
1 2007-08 SGRY Kaggallipura -- Kaduagrahara Tree Patta 600
Road Side Plnt
97
Ramohalli to Tavrekere
2 2007-08 SGRY Kaggallipura -- Ramohalli Tree Patta 600
Road Side Plnt
Tree
3 2006-07 Anekal -- Jigani Tree Patta 60
Patta
S. Taluk/ Name of the Species Survival

Hobli Village Number Remarks
No Range Farmer received %
Bangalore Eucalyptus
1 Bidirahalli Gundur Muniraj G.A 1333 98 Good
East Taluk Clones
Bangalore Silver Oak 250

2 Tavrekere Puradapalya Krishnappa 60 Fair
South & Teak 250
Bangalore Eucalyptus
3 Heserghatta Chokkanahalli Shivanna 2000 98 Good
North (AFD-10)
4 Anekal Jigani Bangipura Venkataswamy Teak 500 100 Good
The division has raised 625.778 Ha plantation in various schemes during the period of
3 years under evaluation, out of this 73.57 Ha. was selected for evaluation which
works out to be 11.75% of the area. In addition to afforestation works the division has
distributed seedlings to farmers and private entrprenures where the success rate is
good. Tree Patta Scheme is implemented in this division.
The plantations were raised in the premises of colleges and other public places.
The plantations raised under SGRY, SF, and KSFMBC schemes are planted with
species like Mahogony, Silver oak, Neem, Sampige, Pongemia(Honge) , Hoovarasi,
Nerale, Hippe etc., which have the potential to grow into trees.
The roadside plantations are promising and are in good condition.
BANGALORE RURAL TERRITORIAL DIVISION
PLANTATIONS:
Evaluation including seed sowing in all schemes: 41 (1331.50 Ha)
Total Number of the plantation visited by the Team : 11 (231.0 Ha)
Planting:
Extent
S.No Year Scheme Range Hobli Village Sy.No (in Ha/
km)
2004- T Begur-
1 COP Nelamangala Kasaba Road Side 9.00
05 Tyamagondhu
2004-
2 COP Doddaballapura Sasalu Sasalu-Arudi Road Side 3.00
05
2005-
3 DDF Doddaballapura Vijayapura Mandebele SF 3 15.00
06
2004-
4 KFDF Hosakote Sulibele Gullahally SF 1 27.00
05
98
2005-
5 DDF Nelamangala Sampura Sripathihalli SF 72 13.00
06
2005- KSFMBC
6 Doddaballapura Kasaba Dibbagiri Beta SF 199 96.00
06 M-1
2006- Rayan Singh Extension
7 GUA Hosakote Kasaba Road Side 4.00
07 Hoskote Town
2006-
8 TFC Nelamangala Kasaba Soladevanahalli SF 63,64,65,(part) 20.00
07
2006-
9 GUA Doddaballpura Kasaba DB Pura Town 4.00
07
SEED SOWING
2006- KSFMBC
1 Doddaballpura Devanahalli Gulynandagunda 25 40.00
07 M-1

Extent Status
S. Pit/ Spac Spp. Mainte- Micro Plnt
Year Village (in Ha/ Model of
No Trench ing planted nance plan Journal
km) VFC
T Begur-
2004- Partially
1 Tyamago 9.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes -- --
05 written
ndhu
2004- Sasalu- Partially
05 Arudi written
2005- Mandebe Partially
3 15.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes -- Yes
06 le SF written
2004- Gullahall Partially
05 y SF written
2005- Sripathih Partially
06 alli SF written
Rayan
Singh
2006- Extensio Partially
07 n written
Hoskote
Town
Soladeva
2006- Partially
7 nahalli 20.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes -- Yes
07 written
SF
2006- DB Pura Partially
07 Town written
SEED SOWING (Bangalore Rural Territorial Division)
2006- Gulynan Partially

1 40.00 Yes Yes Yes -- Yes Yes Yes
07 dagunda written
2005- Dibbagir Partially
2 96.00 No -- -- Yes No Yes Yes
06 i Beta SF written

Extent Selection
Choice
Ha/ of site Plantation aspects percentage condition
Species
km) model
Mortality
2004- T Begur-
1 9.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 25.00 is due to
05 Tyamagondhu
road
99
widening
Mortality
2004- is due to
2 Sasalu-Arudi 3.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 13.00
05 road
widening
2005-
3 Mandebele SF 15.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 81.25 Good
06
2004-
4 Gullahally SF 27.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 79.00 Good
05
2005-
5 Sripathihalli SF 13.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 76.19 Good
06
2005- Dibbagiri Beta Partially
6 96.00 Proper Improper Proper 20.00 Not good
06 SF Proper
Rayan Singh
2006-
7 Extension 4.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 55.00 Good
07
Hoskote Town
2006- Soladevanahalli
07 SF
2006-
9 DB Pura Town 4.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 74.00 good
07
SEED SOWING (Bangalore Rural Territorial Division)
2006-
1 Gulynandagunda 40.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 20.00 Failure
07
OTHER WORKS:
Mandhibele Soil conservation work

1 2005-06 DDF Devanahalli Vijayapura Mandibele
Forest Block (NALABUND)
Near TB
Repair to RFO Office
2 2006-07 Buildings Doddaballapura -- -- circle, DB
Toilet
pura
Special repair to ACF
3 2006-07 -- Doddaballapura -- -- Near D Cross
Quarters
Special repair to ACF
4 2006-07 -- Doddaballapura -- -- Near D Cross
Quarters
Thinning/Cutting Acacia
5 2007-08 -- Hosakote Sulibele Gullahally Gullahally
Plantation
Gullahally
6 2007-08 COP Hosakote Nandagudi Gullahally Fireline works
Plantation
S. Taluk/ Name of the Species Num Survi

Hobli Village Remarks
No Range Farmer received ber val %
Kodimanchan
1 Devanahalli Kasaba Mallesh Eucalyptus 4500 80 Good
ahalli
Not Good. Due
Doddaballa
2 Kasaba Hasanaghatta Krishnappa Eucalyptus 6000 33 to Gull
pura
formation.
100
Doddaballa
3 Kasaba Mallathahalli Shivakumar Eucalyptus 2000 -- Failed
pura
Teak,
Doddaballa
4 Kasaba Hasanaghatta Appanna Silver & 20 100 Good
pura
Neem
Eucalyptus is
Eucalyptus,
failure whereas
Doddaballa Teak,
5 Kasaba Mallathahalli Rangappa 2085 20 Jac, Silver Oak
pura Silver &
& Teak are
Jack
coming up well.
The boundaries of the forest are demarcated either by C.P.T/ by Barbed Wire
Fencing/ Chain Link Mesh/ Vegetative Fencing which are in-adequate, keeping in view of the
astronomical value of land in around Bangalore, lack of maintenance of boudaries has already
resulted in encroachments, hence there is an urgent need for boundary consolidation of the
existing forest land, even erection of protection walls all around the forest area should be
considered.
The division has raised 1331.50 Ha plantations in various schemes during the period
of 3 years under evaluation, out of this 231 Ha. was selected for evaluation which
works out to be 17.34% of the area (as shown in the tables above).
The plantations were raised in Reserve forest areas and on roadside in town.
The plantations raised under Forest Protection, Cultural Operation, DDF, KFDF
GUA, 12th Finance and JBIC schemes are planted with species like Silver oak, Nerale,
Ficus, Shivane, Cashew, Acacia, Eucalyptus, Teak , Nelli etc., which have the
potential to grow into trees. The forest areas are highly susceptible for encroachment
since the pressure on land is very high and is priced exhorbitantly. Hence, the need for
protecting the land by resorting to permanent structures is of primary importance.
The roadside plantations are promising but mortality has resulted due to road
widening work.
Seed sowing has not been successful.
BANGLORE RURAL SOCIAL FORESTRY DIVISION.
PLANTATIONS:
Total Number of the plantation visited by the Team: 4 (8.0 Ha.)
Planting:
Extent (in
Ha/ km)
1 2006-07 KSFMBC Hoskote SF Nandagudi Dalasagere 24, 24/1 1.00
2 2005-06 SGRY (TP) D.B. Pura Kasaba Byadarahalli 600 Pits 3.00
3 2005-06 SGRY (TP) Hoskote Jodiganahalli Mogabele TFS 120 1.00
4 2006-07 KSFMBC Kasaba D.B.Pura Ragunatapura Road side 3.00
101
Extent
Status
VFC
km)
2006- Partially
1 Dalasagere 1.00 Yes -- Yes Yes -- Yes Yes
07 written
2005- Partially
2 Byadarahalli 3.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes -- -- Yes
06 written
2005- Partially
3 Mugabala 1.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes -- -- --
06 written
2006- Partially
4 Ragunatapura 3.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes -- -- --
07 written

Extent Se;ection
Choice
S. (in Selection of Protection Survival General
Year Village of
No Ha/ of site Plantation aspects percentatge condition
Species
km) model
2006-
1 Dalasagere 1.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 70.00 Good
07
2005-
2 Byadarahalli 3.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 63.00 Good
06
2005- Mugabala
06 TFS
2006-
4 Ragunatapura 3.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 20.00 Fair
07
Name of Survi
S. Taluk/ Species Num
Hobli Village the val Remarks
No Range received ber
Farmer %
General condition of
the plantation is fair.
1 Hoskote Sulibele Gullahally Gowramma Nilgiri 2000 80
Partially affected by
Gall disease.
The division has raised 8.00 Ha plantations in various schemes during the period of 3
years under evaluation, out of this 8.0 Ha. was selected for evaluation which works
out to be 100% of the area. In addition to afforestation works the division has
distributed seedlings to farmers and private entrepreneurs where the success rate is
good.
The plantations were raised in farmer’s field and roadside.
The plantations raised under SGRY and KSFMBC schemes are planted with species
like Mahogony, Silver oak, Neem, Sampige, Eucalyptus, Pongemia(Honge) , Ficus
etc., which have the potential to grow into trees.
widening work.
Gall formation has been observed in case of eucalyptus seedlings distributed to
famers.
102
BANNERGHATTA NATIONAL PARK
The Executive Summary: -
Bannerghatta National Park was conceived during 1971 by the government of
Karnataka devoted to conservation of wildlife and promotion of wildlife tourism with special
intention to create re-creational facilities to the urban population of the fast growing
Bangalore City. The objective was to conserve wildlife and create facilities to the nature
lovers to visit the park and study the botanical and zoological components of the nature in the
park to promote better scientific knowledge on the wildlife in the minds of younger
generation. Late Sri Y.M.L.Sharma, the then Chief Conservator of Forests and head of the
Karnataka Forest Department, conceived the idea to form this National Park with
encouragement from Sri. Dharmaveera. His Excellency the Governor of Karnataka. As a
result, the Bannerghatta National Park was started in the year 1971 over an area of 104.27
Sq.Km. but the actual area is 109.41 Sq. Kms. The park is named after the village
Bannerghatta, a very important pilgrimage centre encircled by picturesque hills of several old
temples and deciduous forests. The same has been declared as National Park in 1974 under
Sec. 35(1) of Wild Life Protection Act, 1972. Subsequently, the final noification had been
issued in respect of Bannerghata National Park by the Government of Karnataka, in exercise
of the powers conferred by Sub-section (4) 35 of Wile Life (Protection) Act, 1972 on 5th
March 2004 vide Notification No.FEE 19 FWL 98, Bangalore
Bannerghatta National Park was declared as a National Park in the year 1974 vide
Preliminary Notification No. “AFD 61, FWL 74 Dated: 25.09.1974” for having an extent of
104.27 Sq. Km. Later in the year 2004 the Government of India issued the Final Notification
vide No. “FEE 19 FWL 98 Dated: 05.03.2004” for having an extent of 102.74 Sq. Km and it
comprises of 12 Reserve Forests (RF) as follows
Sl. Extent
Name of the Reserve Forest
No. (in Ha)
1. Kalkere RF - 432.000
2. Bannerghatta RF - 0.090
3. Ragihalli RF - 2853.310
4. Ragihalli Extension Block South RF - 256.090
5. Ragihalli North Extension Block RF - 500.410
6. Gullahatti RF - 1501.380
7. Kardikal RF - 784.830
8. Bantnal RF - 945.070
9. Bantnal Extension RF - 453.260
10. Mahadeshwara RF - 2384.600
11. Bannerghatta Lac - 17.380
12. Suddahalla Lac - 145.590
Total 10274.010
Ground Facts
1. Location : The Bannerghatta National Park is situated at a
distance of 20 Km. South of Bangalore city in the
districts of Bangalore Urban and Ramanagaram of the
Karnataka State.
2. Area : Extent : 102.74 Sq. km
3. Climate : Summer:-From mid of February to end of May. Mean
maximum temperature is 270 C and the Maximum
temperature goes upto 350C
Monsoon: - The annual mansoon rainfall variers from
625mm to 750mm from June to Mid of November
103
from South West and North-East-monsoons.
Winter: - From November to Mid of February. Mean
Minimum temperature is 22oC and it goes down to
12oC and even to 10oC in extreme cases.
4. Terrain : Undulating with broken chains of bolder strewn hills
of rocky outcrop and watercourses. The highest peak
is Doddaragihalli Betta at an altitude of 1035 in above
sea level. The lowest ground is the Rayatmalhole at
700m above sea level. Granite sheet rocks
characterize the higher hills. Asian Elephant (Elephas
maximus), Leopard (Panthera pardus), Indian Bison
(Bos gaurus), Chital (Axis axis), Sambar (Cervus
unicolour), Sloth Bear (Melsursus ursinus), Wild
Boar (Sus scrofa), Asiatic Wild Dog (Cuon alpinus),
Jackal (Canis aureus), Bonnet Macaque (Macaca
radiata) and Slender Loris (Loris lydehkerianus).
Hyena, Porcupine etc.,
5. Forest Types : Mostly deciduous type of forests viz.They include
species of Barbets, Woodpeckers, Storks, Flower
peckers, Thrushes, Babblers, Paradise Flycatcher,
Cormorants, White Ibis, Grey Heron, Tickell's
Flycatcher, Yellow Throated Bulbul, Common Grey
Hornbill, Vulture, White-bellied Drongo, Spotted
Owlet, Collared Scop's Owl, Mottled Wood Owl,
Eurasian Eagle Owl, Brown Fish Owl etc., to name a
few.
i) Southern Tropical Moist Mixed Deciduous
Forests in valleys.
ii) Southern Tropical Dry Deciduous Forests.
iii) The Scrub type (Dry Deciduous Scrub
Forests)
6. Mammals : Elephant, Panther, Bison, Chital, Sambar, Sloth Bear,
rking Deer, Wild Boar, Wild Dog, Jackal, Mouse
Deer,Bannet Macaque, Striped Hyena, Porcupine,
etc.,
The Park is also home to several species of reptiles
such as the Monitor Lizards(Varanus bengalensis),
Marsh Crocodiles (Crocodylus palustris), Star
Tortoises (Geochelone elegans), Common Cobra
(Naja naja), Python (Python molurus), Krait
(Bungarus fasciatus)
and Viper (Trimeresurus gramineus).
7. Birds : Peafowl, Grey Jungle Fowl, Partridges, Quails,
Flycatchers, WoodPeckers, Ibis, Storks, Sunbirds,
Flowerpeckers, Thrushes, Eagles, Cuckoos, Orioles,
Minivets, Wagtails, Drongos, Parakeets etc.,
8. Reptiles : Land monitor Lizard, Crocodile, Tortoise, Phython,
Rat Snake, Cobra, Krait, Viper etc.,
104
9. Amphibians : Frogs, Toads, Samander etc.,
10. Fishes : Varieties of fishes.
11. Insects : Varieties of Butterflies, Bees, Ants, etc.,
Details of afforestation works selected randomly for evaluation under the scheme
FDA_NAP
Evaluation including seed sowing in all schemes excluding FDA: 240 HA
Total number of the plantation varied by the team: 100 Ha (41.66%)
Planting
Extent (in
Ha/ km)
2006- FDA- Harohalli Bheemasandra
1 Maralavadi 12 20.00
07 NAP Wildlife doddi
54/5,155,96,58,96,
35,58,24,54/2,96,
2006- FDA- Anekal Kasaba, Thattekere, 20.00
2 96,62,158,113,48,53,
07 NAP Wildlife Maralavadi Indlavadi
71/3,58/3,112,58/2,&
Forest S.No: 80,91
CSS
2006- Anekal Chikkcahosa T.N. Halli
3 NAP 80,96 & 93 20.00
07 Wildlife halli Indlavadi pura
FDA
CSS Bannerghatta
2006-
4 NAP Wildlife Jigani Mantapa 171 & 156 40.00
07
FDA Range
Extent
Status
VFC
km)
Written
2006- Bheemasandra
1 20.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes up to
07 doddi
date
2006- Thattekere, 20.00 Partially
2 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
07 Indlavadi Written
Not
2006- T.N. Halli written
3 20.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No
07 Indlavadi pura up to
date
Not
2006- written
4 Mantapa 40.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No
07 up to
date
Selection
Extent Choice
Selection of Protection Survival General
of site Plantation aspects percentage condition
km) Species
model
2006- Bheemasandra Failure.
1 20.00 Proper Proper Proper Improper 14.44
07 doddi
2006- Thattekere, 20.00
2 Proper Proper Proper Proper 60.3 Poor.
07 Indlavadi
2006- T.N. Halli
3 20.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 46 Satisfactory
07 Indlavadi pura
2006-
4 Mantapa 40.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 42 Satisfactory
07
105
1. Regarding the Bheemasandra doddi plantation (Lingapura EDC) failure on the part of
the staff , since they are not taken up protection measures, Soil conservation measures
and EDC members have not taken adequate measures to protect. No elephant damage
seen, but appears poor seedlings are planted. Of late pre planted- as per report of
DCF.
2. The plantation have been raised on the farmer’s land (13 Ha) and Reserve Forest
Area(7 Ha). The Eucalyptus is performing very well. The VFC activities are not
fully implemented, No entry point activities ta ken up. The plantation to the extent of
13 Ha raised on the farmer’s lands is highly objectionable and this may create legal
complications in future.
In an important Protected Area like this, priority should have been given to protection of
the precious wild life existing there, but these two plantations raised by planting of non-
browsable species like Eucalyptus and Pongemia(Honge) doesn’t help the Wildlife. It
appears that these plantations are raised without any proper planning and the expenditure
incurred is in fructuous.
OTHER WORKS:
S. Name of the
Year Scheme Range Hobli Village Location
No Work
Creation of
Project
1 2006-07 Anekal Jigani T.N Halli Arali Marda Selu Large sixe
Elephant
Pond.
Desilting of
2 2005-06 CSS Central Anekal Jigani Ragihalli Tabbekatte halla
Tank
Desilting of
Project
3 2006-07 Horahalli Maralavadi Thattekere Yerekunte Yerekunte
Elephant
Tank
Protected
area Camp site
4 2005-06 Anekal Jigani Mantapa Kaleswari gate
development tower
Fund
Construction
Project of Anti
5 2006-07 Harohalli Harohalli Gullatti Gullatti
Elephant Poaching
Camp Shed
Maintenance
6 2006-07 CSS State Harohalli Harohalli Gullatti Kebee to Sasibyle
of Road
7 2005-06 CCS Central Anekal Kasaba Ragihalli Ragihalli Fire Lines
Kanive on the
Formation of
8 2004-05 CSS Central Anekal Maralavadi Thattekere yekinahalli to
New road(
Dodda hirangutte
T. halli to Maintenance
9 2006-07 CSS Central Anekal Kasaba Thammanayakanahalli
Bachayanakunti of Road
T. halli to Maintenance
10 2006-07 CSS Central Anekal Kasaba Thammanayakanahalli
Bachayanakunti of Road
Maintenance
11 2005-06 CSS State Harohalli Harohalli Harohalli Harohalli of RFO’s
quarters
Construction
BNP Mathimaradha
12 2005-06 CSS Central Jigani Ragihalli of Gully
Range halla
checks
Construction
13 2004-05 CSS Central Harohalli Harohalli Gullatti Karalahalla of Gully
checks
106
Construction
Aneri Bande
14 2005-06 CSS Central Anekal Jigani Ragihalli of Gully
Halla
checks
Construction
BNP
15 2006-07 CSS Central Jigani Bhutanahalli Bhutanahalli of Gully
Range
checks
Construction
Doddayana gutte
16 2005-06 CSS Central Anekal Maralavadi Tattekere of Gully
selu
checks
Construction
BNP
17 2006-07 CSS State Jigani Ragihalli Adragani of
Range
NALABUND
Construction
18 2006-07 CSS State Harohalli -- -- Thremaradahalla of
NALABUND
Construction
19 2005-06 CSS Central Anekal Kasaba T.N Halli Donne Bunduselu of
NALABUND
Construction
BNP Narasimappana
20 2005-06 CSS Central Jigani Matapa of
Range halla
NALABUND
Generally “other works” carried out as above are satisfactory. Since they aid in Soil &
Water conservation enhancing the water availability to Wild life.
In Sl.No.6 no drainage work is taken up, hence the maintenance of the road is good
condition during the rainy season is not possible.
In Sl. No: 8 the work is not as per the estimate and no drainage is made.
In Sl. No 9& 10 the work is not as per the estimate.
In Sl. No 17 though the quality of work is good but planning is bad and not
satisfactory, and due to flooding the NALABUND is damaged.
CHICKKABALLAPUR TERRITORIAL DIVISION
Chickkaballapur Forest Division has been recently created division. The following
ranges they are Chickaballpur, Chintamani, Siddalghatta, Gudibanda. Bagepalli and
Gauribidanur.
This division carved out of Kolar division, and most of the works are carried by the
Kolar territorial division.
In all 2417 ha. have been planted under various schemes from year 2004 to 2006 .
and we have selected for evaluation 629 ha. under all scheme including the FDA- NAP
scheme totally 27 plantation were selected across the division.
Planting:
Extent
(in
Ha/
km)
2004-
1 KFDF Bagepalli Pathapalya Thungata dinne 92 26
05
2005- KSFMBC-M- Gujjepalli IDB (IIIrd
2 Bagepalli 43
06 01 Block)
2006-
3 DDF Gudibande Kasaba Chedumanahalli 43 10
07
2005- 10
4 GUA Chintamani Kasaba Chintamani -
06 kms
107
2005- KSFMBC M-
5 Sidlghatta Sodali Attagolahalli - 30
06 04
2005-
6 ROE Bageballi Chickballapura Pesalaparthi 76 15
06
2006-
7 GUA - Kasaba Gowribindanur town - 2
07
2006- KSFMBC-M-
8 Gudibande Mandical Udagirinallappanahalli 37,38 50
07 04
2006- KSFMBC-M-
9 Chickaballapura Nandi Gowchenahalli 37 15
07 04
2004-
10 DDF Chintamani Kasaba Hadegere 136 13.5
05
2006-
11 ROE Gauribidanur Manchenhalli Bisalahalli 20
07
2006- Attagolahalli VFC, TK 77,58-
12 KSFMBC Sidlaghata Sadali 30
07 beta SF Block I 60,61,62
2005-
13 COP Gauribindanur Hosur Somashettihalli 41,42,43 20
06
Extent Status Micr
S. Pit/ Spac Spp. Mainte Plnt
Year Village (in Ha/ Model of o
No Trench ing planted -nance Journal
km) VFC plan
2004 Thungata Written
1 26 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
-05 dinne up to date
Gujjepalli
2005 Partially
2 IDB (IIIrd 43 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
-06 written
Block)
2006 Chedumana Written
3 10 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
-07 halli up to date
2005 Partially
4 Chintamani 10 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
-06 written
2005 Attagolahall Written
-06 i up to date
2005 Written
6 Pesalaparthi 15 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
-06 up to date
2006 Gowribinda Not
7 2 Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No
-07 nur town written
2006 Udagirinalla Written
-07 ppanahalli up to date
2006 Gowchenah Written
-07 alli up to date
2004 Written
10 Hadegere 13.5 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
-05 up to date
2006 Partially
11 Bisalahalli 20 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
-07 written
Attagolahall
2006 i VFC, TK Partially
12 30 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
-07 beta SF written
Block I
2005 Somashettih
13 20 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No written
-06 alli
108
Extent Selection
Choice
Ha/ of site Plantation aspects % condition
Species
km) model
2004- Very
1 Thungata dinne 26 Proper Proper Proper Proper 78
05 good
2005- Gujjepalli IDB (IIIrd
2 43 Proper Proper Proper Proper 5 poor
06 Block)
2006-
3 Chedumanahalli 10 Proper Proper Proper Proper 90 Good
07
2005-
4 Chintamani 10 Proper Proper Proper Proper 81.65 Good
06
2005-
5 Attagolahalli 30 Proper Proper Proper Proper 100 Good
06
2005-
6 Pesalaparthi 15 Proper Proper Proper Proper 93 Good
06
2006-
7 Gowribindanur town 2 Proper Proper Proper Proper 95 Good
07
2006- Very
8 Udagirinallappanahalli 50 Proper Proper Proper Proper 81
07 good
2006-
9 Gowchenahalli 15 Proper Proper Proper Proper 85 Good
07
2004-
10 Hadegere 13.5 Proper Proper Proper Proper 30 Poor
05
2006-
11 Bisalahalli 20 Proper Proper Proper Proper 65 Good
07
2006- Attagolahalli VFC,
12 30 Proper Proper Proper Proper 66 Good
07 TK beta SF Block I
2005-
13 Somashettihalli 20 Proper Proper Proper Proper 75 Good
06
OTHER WORKS:
Details of other works selected randomly for evaluation
Name of the
S.No Year Scheme Range Hobli Village Location
Work
2004- Yemmegudda
1 COP Gauribidanur Hosur Somashettihalli NALABUND
05 state forest
2004-
2 KFDF Chickaballapura Mandical Anemodagu Anemadagu Gully check
05
2006- Siddalaghatta Water tank in
3 RSPD Siddalaghatta Siddalaghatta Siddalaghatta
07 nursery nursery

Eucalyptus
1 Chintamani Kaiwara Kariwara Chadapasha 7000 60 Good
Hybrid
2 Chintamani Kaiwara Kariwara Jay rama Hunase 25 75 Good
109
Muruga Nara Venkaronap
3 Chintamani Hunase 40 80 Good
malla makalapalli pa
Chilkan Eucalyptus
4 Chintamani Kenchapally R. Byanna 4500 70 Good
erggu Hybrid
Eucalyptus
5 Chintamani Kasaba Kurubur Muniyappa 200 90 Good
Hybrid
Narasimhare
6 Chintamani Kasaba Chickpur Eucalyptus 4500 70 Good
ddy
Gauribidan Chickakuragou
7 Kasaba Sowbagya Not planted
ur nda
Halasu 50
Gouribidan Malliah s/o Hunase 50
8 Hosur Drohakurte 80 Good
ur lingaiah Silveroak 100
Teak 200
Mitama Karaganakalap Eucalyptus
9 Bagepalli Narasimiah 3500 60 Good
ri alli Hybrid
Siddlaghatt Eucalyptus
10 Kasaba Mallenahalli Muniswamy 533 85 Good
a Hybrid
Siddalaghat Akkalu Eucalyptus
11 Kasaba Tharasahalli 6500 80 Good
ta reddy Hybrid
Siddalaghat Naradopenaya Satyanaraya Eucalyptus
12 j. kote 6800 80 Good
ta kanahalli na Hybrid
Details of afforestation works selected randomly for evaluation in FDA_NAP scheme.

Extent
S.
Year Range Hobli Village Sy.No (in Ha/ Model
No
km)
FDA
1 2003-04 Sidlaghatta Basetihalli Ajjakadirenahalli 34,35,36,37 25 Silive
pasture
2 2005-06 Bagepalli Pattepalya Madakaveripally - 20 ANR
3 2004-05 Sidlughatta - E. Thiommasandra - 25 Bamboo
4 2005-06 Chickaballapura Kasaba Avalahalli 60 to 65 25 ANR
Mixed
5 2003-04 Gudibande Kasaba Somalapur 147 25
plantations
Mixed
6 2006-07 Chickaballapura Chilkaranahalli Motenakondapally 25
plantations
7 2003-04 Chickaballapura Nandi Sriramapura 12 25 ANR
8 2002-03 Chintamani Munganahalli Hanumaiahgarahalli 25 NA-MP
Hoskote, Bamboo
9 2004-05 Gauribidanur Hosur 25
Yemmegudda SF plantation
10 2004-05 Gauribidanur Hosur Kurudi 25 AR
Silvi
11 2002-03 Gauribidanur Hosur Kurudi 25
pasture
110
Mixed
12 2005-06 Gauribidanur Hosur Kurudi 25
plantation
13 2006-07 Gauribidanur Thondebavi Kambalahalli 25 AR
14 2002-03 Gauribidanur Thondehavi Kambalahalli 25 AR
Summary of Evaluation of Individual plantations

Extent
Status
VFC
km)
2003- Partially
1 Ajjakadirenahalli 25 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
04 written
2005- Partially
2 Madakaveripally 20 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
06 written
2004- Not
3 E. Thiommasandra 25 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
05 written
Written
2005-
4 Avalahalli 25 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes up to
06
date
2003- Partially
5 Somalapur 25 Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No
04 written
2006- Partially
6 Motenakondapally 25 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No
07 written
Written
2003-
7 Sriramapura 25 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes up to
04
date
2002- Partially
8 Hanumaiahgarahalli 25 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
03 written
2004- Hoskote, Partially
9 25 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No
05 Yemmegudda SF written
2004- Partially
10 Kurudi 25 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No
05 written
2002- Partially
03 written
2005- Partially
06 written
2006- Partially
13 Kambalahalli 25 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No
07 written
2002- Partially
14 Kambalahalli 25 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
03 written
Summary of Evaluation of Qualitative aspects of Individual plantations

Extent Selection
Choice
Year Village of
No Ha/ of site Plantation aspects percentage condition
Species
km) model
2003-
1 Ajjakadirenahalli 25 Proper Proper Proper Proper 78 good
04
2005-
2 Madakaveripalic 20 Proper Proper Proper Proper 42.2 Satisfactory
06
2004-
3 E.Thiommanasandra 25 Improper Proper Proper Improper 75 good
05
111
2005-
4 Avalahalli 25 Proper Proper Proper Proper 87 good
06
2003-
5 Somalapur 25 Proper Proper Proper Proper 60 good
04
2006-
6 Motenakondapally 25 Proper Proper Proper Proper 86.3 Good
07
2003-
7 Sriramapura 25 Proper Proper Proper Proper 75 Good
04
2002- performing
8 Hanumaiahgarahalli 25 Proper Proper Proper Proper 68.46
03 well
2004- Hoskote,
9 25 Proper Improper Proper Proper 30 Poor
05 Yemmegudda SF
2004-
10 Kurudi 25 Proper Improper Proper Proper 80 Good
05
2002-
11 Kurudi 25 Proper proper Proper Proper 30 Poor
03
2005-
12 Kurudi 25 Proper Proper Proper Proper 78 Good
06
2006-
13 Kambalahalli 25 Proper Proper Proper Proper 66.93 Satisfactory
07
2002-
14 Kambalahalli 25 Proper Proper Proper Proper 47 Satisfactory
03
Evaluation
1. Indivdual plantations,: about 13 plantations were selected and evaluated and found
that all selected plantations are performing well, and in good condition, except
Gujjipalii plantation of Gudibanda range. Under in the KSFMBC scheme ,under
model 01. Here the seeds were dibbled, as per the schemes norms but germination
percentage is low. Rest of the plantations the JFPM activities are neglected, in most
cases the microplans are not written as per norms.
2. In case of other works; it has been observed the quality of work is satisfactory.
3. Seedling distribution: 12 beneficiaries has been selected and evaluated and found that,
all plantations are performing well, and in good conditions, but eucalyptus hybrid has
been attacked by the gall diseases.
4. Evaluation of NAP-FDA scheme works; 14 plantations were selected and evaluated
and found that overall all performance is good and in a good condition, but
Eucalyptus hybrid has been effected by gall diseases.
4. A) most of the plantations, the formation of VFC is not satisfactory, and
microplans are not written properly, and most cases the microplans were shown
to the evaluating team, Lot of emphasis seem to have laid on the planting
activity than JFPM process..
B) NAP – FDA programme is being implemented by the neighboring Kolar
Division and not the existing Territorial Division. Which seem to be irregular
and unethical?
5. Most of the cases the plantation journals are not complete.
6. In the plantations mostly the Eucalyptus spp. Pongemia(Honge) ,Ficus spp. and
Acacia auriculiformis are used
Most of the plantations in Kolar and Chickkaballapur divisions the plantations are
raised in the older plantations without seeking the permission of the concerned authorities.
112
CHICKKABALLAPUR SOCIAL FOREST DIVISION
Chickkaballapur Social Forestry Division is carved out of the Kolar Social Forest
Division and it is newly created district. The following taluks, Chickkaballapura,
Gauribidanur, Siddalghatta, Chintamani, Gudibanda and Bagepalli come under the divisions
jurisdiction.
Over all 333 ha of plantations have been taken up for the 2004 to2006, and we have
taken for evaluation 68.5 ha., in all 8 plantations were selected for evaluation.
Planting:
Extent
S.
Year Scheme Range Hobli Village Sy.No (in Ha/
No
km)
1 2005-06 SGRY (TP) Gudibanda Somanahalli Voralakonda 168 21.50
2 2005-06 SGRY (TP) Bagepalli SF Golur Devanahally - 10.00

Sadenahalli &
3 2005-06 SGRY (ZP) Gauribidanur SF Manchenahalli Shampura to DB - 6kms
Pura Road side
4 2006-07 SGRY (ZP) Sidlagatta SF Kasaba Siddapura 1 10.00
5 2005-06 SGRY (TP) Sidlagatta Bashettihalli GLPS, Sadahalli - 1.50
Chikballapura GHS,
6 2006-07 SGRY (TP) - - 1
SF Reddigollarahalli
7 2006-07 SGRY (TP) Gauribidanur Thondebhavi Doddamallekere 104 12.5
Kenkere-
8 2006-07 SGRY (TP) Gauribidanur SF Hossur - 6 kms
Machenahalli
Summary of Evaluation of Individual plantations
Extent
Status
VFC
km)
2005- Partially
1 Voralakonda 21.50 Yes Yes Scattered Yes Yes No No
06 written
2005- Partially
2 Devanahally 10.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
06 written
Sadenahalli &
2005- Partially
3 Shampura to DB 6 kms Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
06 written
Pura Road side
2006- Partially
4 Siddapura 10.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
07 written
2005- Not
5 GLPS, Sadahalli 1.50 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
06 written
2006- GHS, Not
6 1.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No
07 Reddigollarahalli written
2006- Not
7 Doddamallekere 12.5 yes yes yes yes yes no no
07 written
2006- Kenkere- Partially
8 6 kms Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
07 Machenahalli written
113
Selection
Extent Choice
S. Selection of Protection Survi General
Year Village (in Ha/ of
No of site Plantation aspects val % condition
km) Species
model
2005-
1 Voralakonda 21.50 Proper Proper Proper Proper 87 Good
06
2005-
2 Devanahally 10.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 64.6 Good
06
Sadenahalli &
2005- Shampura to
3 6 kms Proper Proper Proper Proper 72 Good
06 DB Pura
Road side
2006-
4 Siddapura 10.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 26 Poor
07
2005- GLPS,
5 1.50 Proper Proper Proper Proper 65 Poor
06 Sadahalli
GHS,
2006- Improp
6 Reddigillarah 1.00 Proper Proper Improper 28 Poor
07 er
alli
2006- Doddamallek
7 12.5 proper proper proper proper 60 good
07 ere
2006- Kenkere-
8 6 kms Proper Proper Proper Proper 82 Good
07 Machenahalli

Chickball Venkatanarasamma
1 Mandical Gundlamandical Eucalyptus 3000 90 Good
apura W/o Avalappa
Chickball Muniyappa S/o

2 Mandical Gundlamandical Eucalyptus 3000 88 Good
apura Chickgurappa
1. under plantations category; 8 plantation were selected and evaluated, and found that
selected plantation are performing well in a good condition, but JFPM activities has
been neglected and most case microplans are not written., Eucalyptus spp. has been
affected by the gall diseases.
2. In the plantations mostly the Eucalyptus spp. honge , Ficus spp.and Acacia
auriculiformis, are used.
3. Seedling distribution; all the plantations raised by the beneficiary are performing well.
KOLAR TERRITORIAL DIVISION
Kolar division has been bifurcated recently as Kolar Territorial and Chikballapur
Territorial Divisions
Kolar Forest Divisions has following ranges they are Kolar, Malur Bangarpet and
Srivaspur Ranges
For evaluation as pernorms the plantation and seedlings distribution and other works
were selected as per the norms.
In the division totally 968 ha, has been planted and we have selected for evaluation
262 ha. All schemes, Including FDA-NAP scheme. In all 10 plantations were selected for
evaluation.
114
Planting:
Extent (in Ha/
km)
1 2005-06 KSFMBC Mulbagal - Vemmasandra - 35
Compensatory
2 2005-06 Mulbagal Yeldur Kannampalli 51 13
Afforestation
3 2004-05 DDF Kolar - Thondala - 12
Kotapally
4 2005-06 NOVOD Srinivaspur - - 25
(Karanja)

Extent
Status
VFC
km)
Written
2005-
1 Vemmasandra 35 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No up to
06
date
Written
2005-
2 Kannampalli 13 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes up to
06
date
Written
2004-
3 Thondala 12 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No up to
05
date
Written
2005- Kotapally
4 25 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No up to
06 (Karanja)
date
Extent Selection
Choice
Year Village of
Species
km) model
2005-
1 Vemmasandra 35 Proper Proper Proper Proper 82 Good
06
Plantation
2005- is
2 Kannampalli 13 Proper Proper Proper Proper 83
06 performing
well
2004-
3 Thondala 12 Proper Proper Proper Proper 95 Very good
05
2005- Kotapally
06 (Karanja)
OTHER WORKS:
Name of the
Work
1 2004-05 DDF Kolar - Thondala Thondala Gully Checks
115
S. Taluk/ Name of the Species Num Survival

No Range Farmer received ber %
Srinivas Venkategowda
1 Muduwadi Muduwadi Eucalyptus 8000 92 Good
pur S/o Ramappa
Narayanappa
Bangar
2 Kamasamudra Chamanahally S/o Eucalyptus 8000 85 Good
pet
Muniswamy
Sri Ram Reddy
Bangar S/o
3 Kysamballi B.K.Pura Eucalyptus 6000 86 Good
pet Muniswamy
Reddy
Bangar Armugam S/o
4 Robertranjal Pochepally Eucalyptus 1110 89 Good
pet Muniswamy
Bangar Kamasumudr Babu S/o

5 Makarahally Eucalyptus 1225 90 Good
pet a Mahboob sab
Bangar Baba john S/o

6 Kasaba K.G. Kote Eucalyptus 300 90 Good
pet Raheem sub
Bangar Dodda Natraj S/o

7 Kasaba Eucalyptus 500 85 Good
pet Ankondahally Venkatappa
Bangar Kamandahall Ramappa S/o

8 Kasaba Eucalyptus 150 95 Good
pet y Munisiddappa
Bangar
9 Kasaba Hoskote Govindappa Eucalyptus 2200 92 Good
pet
Bangar
10 Robertr Doddur Ramappa Silver Oak 20 95 Good
pet
Rasheed Khan
Bangar Kshetranahall
11 Kasaba S/o Madar Eucalyptus 2500 95 Good
pet y
Khan
Bangar
12 Robert KGF Rasheed Khan Eucalyptus 111 98 Good
pet
Bangar Ramanayakan Munivenkatapp

13 Kamasamudra Eucalyptus 1000 96 Good
pet ahally a
Anand S/o
14 Malur Kasaba Doddakadatur Eucalyptus 666 95 Good
Natraj
Effected by
Thirumalahatt Sonnappa S/o
15 Malur Masti Eucalyptus 3000 85 Gall
i Ramappa
infection
Mulbag Thimmaravatt T.R. 1225
16 Taylur Eucalyptus 87 Good
al ahally Shankarappa 0
K.
Mulbag Ramachandrap 1467
17 Byrkur Kadenahally Eucalyptus 90 Good
al pa S/o 0
Krishnappa
1000
18 Kolar Holur Aleri Muniswamy Eucalyptus 89 Good
0
Munegowda
S/o
19 Kolar Holur Muduwadi Eucalyptus 4000 90 Good
Venkalishgowd
a
116
Extent (in
S.No Year Range Hobli Village Sy.No Model
Ha/ km)
1 2004-05 Mulbagal - Nachapalli - 20 AR
2 2006-07 Bangarpet Kamasamudra Kolamur - 25 Bamboo
3 2006-07 Bangarpet Kamasamudra Kolamur 30,31 25 AR
Pemmashetti
4 2004-05 Kolar Narasapura - 25 AR
halli
5 2005-06 Srinivaspur Rayalpod Gollapally 82,84 25 AR
6 2004-05 Malur Boodikate Pathramgola 31,32 20 ANR

Extent
Status
VFC
km)
2004- Partially
1 Nachapalli 25 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
05 written
2006- Partially
2 Kolamur 25 Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No
07 written
Written
2006-
3 Kolamur 25 Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No up to
07
date
Written
2004- Pemmashetti
4 25 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes up to
05 halli
date
Written
2005-
5 Gollapally 25 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes up to
06
date
Written
2004-
6 Pathramgola 20 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No up to
05
date
Extent Selection
Choice
Ha/ of site Plantation aspects percentage condition
Species
km) model
2004-
1 Nachapalli 25 Proper Proper Proper Proper 69 Good
05
2006-
2 Kocamur 25 Proper Proper Proper Proper 98 Good
07
Moderate
2006- (due to fact
3 Kolamur 25 Proper Proper Proper Proper 82
07 recently
planted)
2004- Pemmashetti
05 halli
2005-
5 Gollapally 25 Proper Proper Proper Proper 91 Very good
06
2004-
6 Pathramgola 20 Proper Proper Proper Proper 71 Good
05
117
Evaluation ;
1. In planting activities 4 plantations were selected and evaluated and found that all
plantations are performing well and good condition. . Recently the eucalyptus hybrid
has been attacked by the gall diseases to the leaves.
2. JFPM, activities has been failure in the divisions most of the plantations the VFC is
formed but microplans are not written, if it is written not complete, the process of
JFPM has to be strengthened in the divison.
3. In case of other works, the quality of works is good.
4. In the plantations mostly the Eucalyptus spp. honge ,Ficus spp.and Acacia
auriculiformis, are used.
5. seedling distributions; 19 beneficiary were selected for evaluation , and found all
performing well, but the eucalyptus spp. plants has been affected by the gall diseases.
6. under FDA-NAP scheme 6 plantations, were selected and observed that all the
plantation are performing well, but neglected the JFPM activities, and VFC has been
formed but the microplans are not being carried out ,and in most places it is not
written and not shown to the evaluating team.
KOLAR SOCIAL FOREST DIVISION
Kolar social forestry division has been bifurcated as a Kolar social forestry division
and Chickaballpur social forestry division,
Kolar social forestry has jurisdiction of the Kolar, Malur, Mulbagal Bangarpet, Srinivaspur
Taluks,
Following plantations were evaluated, selection process was as per norms, and as per
the records submitted to the evaluation team
Total areas planted in the division for the year 2004 to 2006 is 138.61 ha. They have taken up
the Afforestation works, like the tank fore shore areas planting and road side planting, we
have evaluated 5 plantations and the total extent is 37 hectors.
all schemes
Planting:
Extent
S. (in
Year Scheme Range Hobli Village Sy.No
No Ha/
km)
SGRY
1 2006-07 Srinivaspur Dalasanur Gandlahalli 49 10.00
(TP)
63/P.30, 288,
2 2005-06 KSFMBC Mulbagal Duddasamdra Kunibanda 2.50
63,33/P.2,63/P.30
SGRY Bangarpet Kamasamudra to
3 2005-06 - - 3 km
(ZP) SF KGF Roade side
KSFMBC Bangarpet
4 2005-06 - Muduganahalli 58 1.5
M-8A SF
SGRY
5 2006-07 Malur SF Kasaba Shivarapatna TFS 1 20
(ZP)
118
Extent
Status
VFC
km)
2006- Partially
1 Gandlahalli 10.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
07 written
2005- Not
2 Kumibanda 2.50 Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No
06 written
Kamasamudra
2005- Partially
3 to KGF Road 3 km Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
06 written
side
2005- Not
4 Muduganahalli 1.5 Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No
06 written
Written
2006- Shivarapatna
5 20.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No up to
07 TFS
date
Extent Selection
Choice
Year Village of
Species
km) model
2006-
1 Goudhahalli 10.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 93 Good
07
Not
2005-
2 Kunibanda 2.50 Proper Proper Proper Improper 13 performing
06
well
Kamasamudra
2005- Performing
3 to KGF Road 3 km Proper Proper Proper Proper 54.60
06 well
side
2005-
4 Muduganahalli 1.5 Proper Proper Proper Improper 5 Poor
06
2006- Shivarapatna
5 20.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 88 Good
07 TFS
S. Taluk/ Species Num Survi

Hobli Village Name of the Farmer Remarks
No Range received ber val %
Subbaiah
1 Bangarpet S.G.Kote Eucalyptus 2600 86.24 Good
S/o Muniswamy
Dasarahosa H.M. Ramaiah S/o Eucalyptus

2 Bangarpet - 2490 28.01 Good
halli Narayanappa Hybrid
1.Srinivas Naik S/o
Channa Naik
3 Bangarpet Hunkunda Hunkunda Eucalyptus 4800 24 Poor
2.Channama W/o
Venkatshappa
Evaluation report:
1. While evaluating, it has been observed that 60 % of the plantations, performance is
good and 40 % is poor.
2. The failed plantation, is located at Mulbagal Social Forestry Range , Kunibanda
areas, and another one is located at Bangarpet Social Forestry Range, Mudgenahalli
areas, under SGRY scheme, the reasons for the failure could be untimely release of
funds and in adequate protection.
119
3. In the plantations mostly the Eucalyptus hybrid, Hhonge , Ficus spp.and
Acacia auriculiformis, are used.
4. All most all the plantation journals are incomplete.
5. JFPM activities are not taken up, none of the above plantation the VFC has been
formed, the public interaction is poor.
6. Seedlings distribution, the Eucalyptus spp., has been distributed, to the beneficiary,
and the performance is satisfactory
RAMANAGARA TERRITORAIL DIVISION
PLANTATIONS:
Evaluation including seed sowing in all schemes excluding FDA : 42
(1020.50 Ha)
Total Number of the plantation visited by the Team : 16 (375.0 Ha)
Planting:
Extent
S.No Year Scheme Range Hobli Village Sy.No (in Ha/
km)
Chamenalli to
1 2004-05 COP Ramanagara Kootagal Road side 9.00
Vaddaradoddi
2 2004-05 COP Chennapatna Vip-pura Kodampalli-Singarajapura Road side 3.00
3 2004-05 COP Sathanur Uyyambally Chilandavadi 1 10.00
4 2005-06 DDF Santanur Uyyaballi Makkalanda 1 12.00
KSFMBC
5 2005-06 Magadi Madabal Gattipura Block-I 50 40.00
M-4
KSFMBC
6 2006-07 Chennapatna Vpura Gallaradoddi 1 25.00
M-2
KSFMBC Pichanakere (Handigundi
7 2006-07 Ramanagara Kailanaka 1 26.00
M-4 SF)
Pillagowdanadoddi
KSFMBC
8 2006-07 Sathanur Uyyamballi (Encroachment evicted 89 27.00
M-4
area)
Gollarahatti
KSFMBC
9 2006-07 Magadi Kasaba (Encroachment evicted 114-117 50.00
M-2
area)

Extent
Status
VFC
km)
2004- Chamenalli to Partially
1 9.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes No -- --
05 Vaddaradoddi written
2004- Kodamballi- Partially
05 Singarajapura written
2004- Partially
3 Chilandavadi 10.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No --
05 written
120
2005- Partially
4 Makkalanda 12.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
06 written
2005- Partially
5 Gattipura Block-I 40.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes -- --
06 written
2006- Partially
6 Gollaradoddi 25.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes -- --
07 written
2006- Pichanakere Partially
07 (Handigundi SF) written
Pillagowdanadoddi
2006-
8 (Encroachment 27.00
07
evicted area)
Gollarahatti
2006- Partially
9 (Encroachment 50.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes -- -- Yes
07 written
evicted area)

Extent Se;ection
Choice
Year Village of
No Ha/ of site Plantation aspects % condition
Species
km) model
Mortality
2004- Chamenalli to is due to
1 9.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 24.00
05 Vaddaradoddi road
widening
Mortality
2004- Kodamballi- is due to
05 Singarajapura road
widening
Elephant
2004- Partially Partially
3 Chilandavadi 10.00 Proper Proper 72.00 infested
05 improper improper
area.
Elephant
2005-
4 Makkalanda 12.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 82.00 damage
06
Noticed.
2005-
5 Gattipura Block-I 40.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 90.00 Fair
06
2006-
6 Gollaradoddi 25.00 Proper Proper Proper Im proper 100.00 Good
07
2006- Pichanakere
07 (Handigundi SF)
Pillagowdanadoddi
2006-
8 (Encroachment 27.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 70.00 Good
07
evicted area)
Gollarahatti
2006-
07
evicted area)
OTHER WORKS:
S.
Year Scheme Range Hobli Village Location Name of the Work
No
Renovation of
Eco- Sangam Guest
1 2006-07 Kanakapura Kodihalli Kodihalli Sangam Guest
Tourism House
House
Construction of
2 2004-05 FDA Magadi -- Nayakanapalya Nayakanapalya
Community hall
NAP- Basaveshware Construction of
3 2005-06 Ramanagara Bidadi Kethohalli
FDA Temple Kethohalli Ashwathakatte
121

Chikkamudude Teak,
1 Kanakapura Sathanur Chikkaswamy 600 80 Good
(chikkahalahalli) Turukebevu
Teak,
2 Kanakapura Sathanur Sorekaidoddi Kempegowda 600 80 Good
Turukebevu
Nilgiri,Teak,
Silver Oak,
3 Channapatna VPura Honganur Srinivas 780 76.92 Good
Turukebevu
& Misc
Nilgiri,Teak,
Silver Oak,
4 Channapatna VPura Honganur Venkatesh 570 78.94 Good
Turukebevu
& Misc
5 Channapatna VPura B.V. Halli Boregowada Teak& Misc 30 66.66 Good
6 Ramanagar Kialancha Kadanakuppe Siddappaji Turukebevu 200 70 Good
7 Channapatna Kasaba Bramanipura Sathish Silver Oak 2 - Good

Planting:
Extent (in
Ha/ km)
1 2004-05 Sathanur Sathanur Hebbanga (Gandhigrama) 310 25.00 SP
2 2004-05 Kanakapura Kodihallil Kolagandanahalli 75 25.00 AR
3 2005-06 Sathanur Sathanur Dyavappanakatte (Nehrudoddi) 310 25.00 SP
4 2005-06 Magadi Maddabal Nayakanapalya 1 25.00 MP
Halya-Hosadoddi
5 2006-07 Sathanur Uyyamballi 1 25.00 NAP
(Encroachment evicted area)
6 2006-07 Kanakapura Maralavadi Kadushivanahalli 1 25.00 MP
7 2005-06 Ramanagara Kasaba Kethohalli (Handigundi) 1 25.00 NAP

Extent
Status
VFC
km)
2004- Hebbanga Partially
1 25.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes -- -- --
05 (Gandhigrama) written
2004- Partially
2 Kolagandanahalli 25.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes --
05 written
2005- Dyavappanakatte Not
06 (Nehrudoddi) written
122
2005-
4 Nayakanapalya 25.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes --
06
Halya-Hosadoddi
2006- Partially
5 (Encroachment 25.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No
07 written
evicted area)
2006- Partially
6 Kadushivanahalli 25.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No
07 written
2005- Kethohalli Partially
7 25.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes No -- Yes
06 (Handigundi) written

Extent Selection Survival General
Choice
(in Selection of Protection percentage condition
Ha/ of site Plantation aspects
Species
km) model
2004- Hebbanga
1 25.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 16.00 poor
05 (Gandhigrama)
2004-
2 Kolagandanahalli 25.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 70.00 Fair
05
2005- Dyavappanakatte
06 (Nehrudoddi)
2005-
4 Nayakanapalya 25.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 70.17 Good
06
Halya-Hosadoddi
2006-
07
evicted area)
2006-
6 Kadushivanahalli 25.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 90.00 Good
07
2005- Kethohalli
06 (Handigundi)
The division has raised 1020.50 Ha plantations in various schemes during the period
of 3 years under evaluation, out of this 375.0 Ha. was selected for evaluation which
carried out FDA works in an extent of 375 Ha, out of which 100 ha. has been
evaluated covering 26.66 area.
The plantations were raised in Reserve forest areas and on roadside in town
The plantations raised under COP, NAP, DDF, KSFMBC and FDA schemes are
planted with species like Ficus, Neem, Pongemia(Honge) , Hoovarasi, Nerale, Acacia,
Hippe, Hunse, Nelli, Eucalyptus, Teak, Melia dubea etc., which have the potential to
grow into trees. The forest areas are highly susceptible for encroachment since the
pressure on land is very high and is priced exhorbitantly. Hence, the need for
protecting the land by resorting to permanent structures is of primary importance.
widening work.
Gall formation has been observed in case of eucalyptus seedlings distributed to famers
and also in plantations raised by the department.
The seedlingis distributed to farmers are mainly Teak, Silver oak and Melia dubea
where in the survival percentage is good.
123
RAMANAGARA SOCIAL FORESTRY DIVISION
PLANTATIONS:
Total Number of the plantation visited by the Team : 7 (24.88 Ha. )
Planting:
Extent
S. (in
No Ha/
km)
Ramanagara
1 2004-05 SGRY Kootagal Kengal doddi to Vijayapura Road Side 3.00
SF
SGRY Jamalsobarapalya to
2 2006-07 Magadi SF Kasaba Road Side 3.00
(ZP) Agalakote Gate
SGRY
3 2006-07 Kanagepura Sathanur Kabbalu to Sathanur Road Side 3.00
(ZP)
SGRY Channapatna
4 2004-05 Vpura Y.T. Halli to Nidagodu Road Side 3.00
(ZP) SF
Iggalur to
SGRY Channapatna
5 2004-05 Vpura Chikkabommanahalli Road Side 6.00
(ZP) SF
Garakalli
SGRY Channapatna Kallapura Gate – Bhuvapura
6 2006-07 Vpura Road Side 6.00
(TP) SF – Nelamakanahalli
KSFMBC Channapatna
7 2006-07 Kasaba Honiganahalli (BM Road) 120,139,140 1.00
M-8A SF

Extent
Status
S. (in Pit/ Spp. Mainte Micro Plnt
VFC
km)
2004- Kengal doddi to Partially
1 3.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes --
05 Vijayapura written
2006- Jamalsobarapalya to Partially
07 Agalakote Gate written
2006- Partially
3 Kabbalu to Sathanur 3.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes - --
07 written
2004- Y.T. Halli to Partially
4 3.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
05 Nidagodu written
Iggalur to
2004- Partially
5 Chikkabommanahalli 6.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes --
05 written
Garakalli
Kallapura Gate –
2006- Partially
6 Bhuvapura – 6.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
07 written
Nelamakanahalli
2006- Honiganahalli (BM Partially
07 Road) written
124
Extent Selection
Choice
Year Village of
No Ha/ of site Plantation aspects % condition
Species
km) model
2004- Kengal doddi to
05 Vijayapura
2006- Jamalsobarapalya to
07 Agalakote Gate
2006-
3 Kabbalu to Sathanur 3.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 33.00 Fail
07
2004- Y.T. Halli to
05 Nidagodu
Iggalur to
2004-
5 Chikkabommanahalli 6.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 58 Good
05
Garakalli
Kallapura Gate –
2006-
6 Bhuvapura – 6.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 62.00 Good
07
Nelamakanahalli
2006- Honiganahalli (BM
07 Road)

Hucchahanuma
1 Magadi Kasaba Karalamangala Nilgiri 1300 90 Good
iah
Ventaramanas
2 Kanakapura Kasaba Malagalu Eucalyptus 4000 90 Good
wamy
3 Channapatna VPura Menasignahalli Naggegowda Teak 1000 65 Good
Honge,
Qubar-Ul-Stan- Teak,
Syed Ziaulla,
4 Ramanagara Kasaba Burrial Ground, Silver Oak, 1500 90 Good
President
Ramanagara Hebbevu,
Bevu
Honge,
Qubar-Ul-Stan- Teak,
Syed Ziaulla,
5 Ramanagara Kasaba Burrial Ground, Silver Oak, 1000 85 Good
President
Ramanagara Hebbevu,
Bevu
The division has raised 74.60 Ha. Road side plantation in various schemes during the
period of 3 years under evaluation, out of this 24.88 Ha. was selected for evaluation
which works out to be 33.35% of the area. The division has distributed seedlings to
farmers and private entrepreneurs where the success rate is good.
The plantations were raised in farmer’s field and roadside.
The plantations raised under SGRY and KSFMBC schemes are planted with species
like Mahogony, Hoovarsi, Neem, Eucalyptus, Bauhunia, Pelto forum, Thorematthi,
Pongemia(Honge) and Ficus etc., which have the potential to grow into trees.
widening work.
125
General Observation:
In several plantations of Kolar & Chickballapur Territorial Divisions illicit felling is
observed. This is an alarming situation which necessitates taking urgent steps to protect the
existing plantation stock.

Evaluation
& Team Leader.
126
Annexure-II- Detailed Circle Reports
8.2 BELGAUM CIRCLE

ABSTRACT :
Evaluation of afforestation works and concerned SMC works and also other works
executed in division were carried out by adopting the procedure prescribed. Division officials
laid out the sample plots and provided the relevant records and documents. Local officials
accompanied the Evaluation Team.
In Belgaum Division, totally 77 plantations covering 1458.30 Ha. were evaluated.
APO, Estimates plantations Journals and FNBs were scrutinized and copies obtained.
Plantations have been raised by utilizing the seedlings grown in the departmental
nurseries.
Acacia and Eucalyptus are the predominant species for raising plantations. In few
case miscellaneous seedlings are planted. Method of planting is mostly pit or Trench
planting. Survival percentage is satisfactory. Eucalyptus is affected by Gall disease.
Protection methods are barbed wire fencing, CPT, brushwood either stand alone or in
combination. Protection aspects need special attention. Wherever barbed wire fencing is
undertaken the four stand fencing adopted is to be re-examined, which also expensive, only
three stands would suffice. In few cases the CPT and barbed wire fencing is carried out just
to satisfy estimate requirement, though in field it was not required to the extent carried out.
Plantation supervision by monitoring and controlling officer of Division and Circle
has been inadequate as seen from plantation records. Maintenance works are carried out
during in-appropriate period. Check measurement aspect needs improvement. In some cases
the accounts have been admitted without check measurement.
SMC works carried out although are useful need to be site specific. In few cases
SMC works are carried out in totally different locations just to meet the estimate requirement.
The programme of Distribution of seedlings needs to be streamlined to meet the objective of
the programme. Many a times the seedlings are utilized for departmentally plantations and
also the distribution is not carried out at appropriate season.
Entry Point Activities carried out many a times are not meeting the purpose as CPT,
trench etc are also carried out as EPA.
BAGALKOT TERRITORIAL DIVISION,
RANGE WISE EVALUATION REPORT
Location and Climate of Bagalkot Division
The tract covered under this Working Plan lies between latitudes 150 50’ and 160 45’
north and between longitudes 750 and 76 0 20’ east.
Most of the northern boundaries of the division are limited by the course of the
Krishna river and half of the southern boundary is limited by the Malaprabha river.
Generally very dry climate prevails aver the entire tract. The days are hot and nights
are reasonably cold. The temperature varies from a minimum of 180 C in December- January
to a maximum of 400 C in May. Most of the rainfall is received during Southwest monsoon.
The rain fall is irregular and erratic.
Bagalkot forest division is divided into two sub-divisions, namely Bagalkot and
Jamkhandi. The total area of reserved forests in the division is 79066.40 hectares. This
represents 12.25 % of the total geographical area of the division.
The ranges are as follows:
1) Bagalkot
127
2) Badami
3) Hungund
4) Jamkhandi
5) Mudhol
6) Bilagi
List of Plantations evaluated in Bilagi Range
Area
Sl Sche Survey % of Latitude
Year Range Village in Remarks
No. me No. Survival Longitude
(ha)
1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11
Kandagal
Block-I
N-160 19’ 24.8”

64.16% Good
2004- FDF Fsy.No. - 750 45’ 08.6”
1 Bilagi 80.00
05 (OP) 18-A
Kandagal
Block-II
N-160 19’ 26.9”
69.16% Good
E- 750 45’ 06.0”
CSS- Bilagi Yalligutti N-160 14’ 50.6”
2007- FS
2 NAP (Yallgutti 80 75.45% E- 750 39’ 55.1” V. Good
08 No.118
(AR) VFC )
Summary of Works evaluated in Bilagi (T) Range: Bilagi (T) Range the team visited &
evaluated 2 plantations one in Kandagal under FDF (OP) & another is Yalligutti under CSS-
NAP, FDA.
1) In 2004 Rains Kandagal plantation raised under FDF (OP), Tapsi is coming well. The
selected area is a beautiful picnic spot with the joining place of two rivers Krishna & Ghata
prabha. The area is full of boulders, with better mode of protection & proper care and by
protecting good scrub jungle around Kanakeshwari Temple. Other species planted,
Pongemia(Honge) , Neem, Anjan are coming up moderately. Fruit yielding tree plants, like
ziziphus , Seeh hunse could have been planted, to attract birds as it is already rich in
avifauna.
2) In 2007 Yalligutti -80 Ha plantation raised under CSS NAP –AR model plantation.
Anjan has come excellently & has put up good growth. Survival percentage is also good in
Anjan plot.
In this plantation pure patch each of Anjan, Eucalyptus & mixed plot of Pongemia(Honge) &
Tapsi has been done. Apart from these plants pure patch of Neem could also have been done.
In pure patch of Eucalyptus two varieties of Eucalyptus i.e. Eucalyptus hybrid and
Eucalyptus citradora has been mixed. Both the varieties of eucalyptus are not healthy at
present and growth is also poor. Survival percentage is also less when compared to Anjan. In
mixed patch of Pongemia(Honge) and Tapsi both plants are coming up moderately. In this
plantation mound sowing could have been done. Under SMC work a very big nala bund has
been constructed.
List of Plantations evaluated in Badami Range
Sl Year Scheme Range Village Surve Are % of Survival Latitude Remarks
No. y No. a in Longitude
(ha)
1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11
1 2004- CSS.NAP Badami Ugal Fsy.N 20.0 46.42% N-150 34’ 36.8” Not
05 (AR) wat o.182 0 E- 740 51’ 42.8” promising
plantation
2 2006- KSFMBC Badami Keroor Fsy.N 45.0 53% trench-53.15% N-150 34’ 36.8” Average
128
07 Model-4 o.321 0 pits-60.39% E- 740 51’ 42.8” Plantation
Other Works
Sl. Year Scheme Hobli/Taluk Work Sanctioned Remarks
No. cost
2005- KSFMBC
3 Badami (Karur) Nalaband 150000 Good
06 Model-04
CPT in Measured Top width
2005- KSFMBC Badami (Kallapur)
4 Nalaband 75000 1.70m Bottom width 1.10m
06 Model-01 (Kirsur & Mallapur)
Depth width 85cm
Summary of Works evaluated in Badami(T) Range:

In Badami (T) Range the team evaluated two Plantations, one under CSS NAP- FDA in
Ugalwat seedlings are planted in pits Viz. Anjan, coming up and other species like
Pongemia(Honge) , Bage, Tapasi are struggling to survive & is not a promising plantation
because protection measures has not been given.
Since there is good scrub jungle selection of site and also selection of plantation model is
wrong. In this, Trench Model would have been better choice.
Another plantation raised in Keroor under KSFMBC- Model-4 is Average. This is a
ripped plantation with pits done in between. Anjan in trenches & Tapasi & Neem in pits are
coming up well. Eucalyptus planted in trenches is not growing properly done to the formation
of knots.
Though the plantation is protected by all-round CPT, the plantation is moderate since the area
is full of boulder and the soil is not fertile. Anjan planted in pits are good because seedlings
are raised in 8”x12” polythene bags.
List of Plantations evaluated in Mudhol Range
Sl. Area in % of Latitude

Year Scheme Range Location Remarks
No Ha. Survival Longitude
2004 CSS.NAP Chichkandi N-160 14’ 34.4”

1 Mudhol 20 89% Good
-05 (AR) F.Sy.No. 113 E- 750 17’ 37.2”
2006 KSFMBC Petalur N-160 13’ 53.1”

2 Mudhol 40 84.72% Good
-07 model 4 F.Sy. No 99 E- 750 17’ 49.4”
Not
0 promising,seedli
2004 CSS-NAP N-16 20’ 46.4”
3 Mudhol Halagali 20 93% ngs are
-05 (AR) E- 750 28’ 43.8”
struggling to
survive
Mudhol
Chichakandi
2006 CSS-NAP (Chichak N-160 14’ 34.7”
4 F. Sy. No 20 63.66% Moderate
-07 (AR) andi E- 750 17’ 31.5”
113
VFC)
CSS- N-160 10’
2007 Laxanatti
5 NAP(AN Mudhol 20 91% 01.2” E- 750 V.Good
-08 F.Sy .No.34
R) 20’ 58.0”
2007 CSS-NAP Chichakandi N-160 15’ 7.9”
6 -do- 20 95% V.Good
-08 (AR) FS No.113 E- 750 21’.8”
Summary of Works evaluated in Mudhol(T) Range:

In Mudhol (T) Range the team evaluated 5 Plantations out of which 4 under CSS (NAP) FDA
Scheme & one under KSFMBC Project. In all the FDA plantations it is observed that Anjan
is coming up very well, Pongemia(Honge) & Tapsi are coming moderately. Neem could
have been tried in these areas. Protection measures have not been given properly any where
129
under FDA scheme. Even where CPT is excavated it is not done all around the plantation
hence it is not effective.
1) In 2004 Rains Chichakandi 20 Ha plantation only Anjan & Pongemia(Honge) has been
planted Anjan is coming up well. Pongemia(Honge) is struggling to survive & not a right
choice. CPT done partially this is not effective.
2) IN 2005 Rains Petlur 40 Ha plantation plants have been planted both in trenches & in pits
Anjan, Tapasi, Acacia, Eucalyptus has been planted is trenches
Tapsi,Arali,Bevu,Pongemia(Honge) has been planted in pits. Anjan & Tapasi are coming up
very well; Ala in pits is coming up well, however sissoo is not good. In general trench plants
are faring better than pits.
Since good protection measures by doing CPT all-round with Agave suckers planted on
mound & also for moisture conservation very big nala bund & series of earthen bunds has
been constructed the plantation has come up very well. During this season fire protection
measures have to be done very carefully, since there is every possibility of fire damage
because of heavy grass and weed growth.
3) In 2004 rains Halagalli 20 Ha plantation Anjan Tapasi, neem, Pongemia(Honge) plants
have been planted. Though the survival percentage is good only Anjan and Tapsi are coming
up but there is no satisfactory growth .Plants are struggling to survive. In this location there is
good scrub Jungle. Pit model is not suitable for this area Trench model would have been
better. Proper protection measures have not been given. The condition of the plantation is
very bad & not a promising plantation.
Under entry point activities kitchen utensils worth of Rs.35000/- has been purchased
during 2007-08 by VFC, but it is yet to be utilized.
4) In 2006 rains Chichakandi-20 Ha plantation, Anjan,Accacia,Pongemia(Honge) , etc has
been planted. All plants are surviving but growth is not encouraging. Though this is a ripped
plantation the plantation is not promising.
5) In 2007 Rains Laxanati 20 Ha plantation Pongemia(Honge) ,Tapsi,Neem, Hunse,Nelli
plants has been planted. Pongemia(Honge) & Tapsi coming up well and the plants are
healthy; Nelli is struggling to come up. Though the plantation in good proper protection has
not been given, only a portion of CPT is done & rest is with thorn fencing which does not
serve the purpose and not effective.
6) IN 2007 Rains Chichakandi 20 Ha plantation among the species planted only Anjan is
coming up well. Pongemia(Honge) & Tapsi are coming up moderately. In this plantation
Anjan should have been planted in more number. Proper protection measures have not been
given, only a portion of boundary is covered with CPT which is in - effective. Under SMC
work percolation pond has been constructed but water has not been collected.
List of Plantations evaluated in Jamakhandi Range
Area % of
Sl Survey Latitude
Year Scheme Range Village in Survi Remarks
No. No. Longitude
(ha) val
1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11
N-160 42’
2003- CSS.NAP Fsy.No. 35.46
1 Jamkhandi Kajibilgi 20 34.6”E- 750 Poor
04 (AR) 140 %
22’ 51.8”
N-160 42’
2004- CSS.NAP 42.95
2 Jamkhandi Tungal Fsy.No.39 20 29.8”E- 750 Average
05 (AR) %
17’ 48.9”
Does not
N-160 29’ serve
2004- Comp- Fsy.No.
3 Jamkhandi Hangandi 1.39 25% 49.9” E- 750 purpose
05 Plant 13
04’ 10.6” of the
scheme
130
N-160
2005- CSS NAP F Sy No. 52.40
4 Jamkhandi Jakanur 20.00 31’12.6” E- Good
06 (Silvi) 34/1 %
750 23’ 40.3”
N-160 29’
2007- CSS NAP FS No.
5 Jamkhandi Siddapur 40.00 77.67 17.4” E- 750 Good
08 FDA 73/1
16’ 10.5”
Chikkalgi N-160 36’
2007-
6 KSHIP Jamkhandi to Shirol -- 29.8 98% 40.9” E- 750 Good
08
Road Side 28’ 28.6”
Jhamakhandi Other Works
Sl. Sanctioned
Year Scheme Hobli/ Taluk Work Remarks
No. cost
Jamkhandi (Khaji
1 2004-05 CSS -NAP Gully checks 30000 Good
Bilgi)
2 2005-06 CSS -NAP Jamkhandi (Jakanur) Gully checks 60000 Good
Summary of Works evaluated in Jamkhandi (T) Range:

In Jamakhandi (T) Range the team has visited 6 Plantations out of which 4 are NAP
plantations. Two Plantations i.e., Kajibiligi & Tungal are not good plantations due to wrong
selection of species.
1) IN 2004 Rains Kajibiligi 20 Ha plantation,sissoo,Pongemia(Honge) ,Bare,Eucalyptus
citriodora has been planted. All plants are struggling to survive & the survival percentage is
also very poor & not a promising plantation. This is due to wrong choice of species; Anjan &
Neem should have been planted. No protection measures have been taken.
Under EPA good work has been done by constructing drinking water tank of capacity 10,000
liters is front of Kashilingeshwara Temple which in being fruitfully utilized by pilgrims.
2) In 2004 Rains Tungal 20 Ha plantation Hunse,sissoo,Bage,Pongemia(Honge) & seeh
Hunse has been planted out of which only Pongemia(Honge) & sissoo,is surviving & other
plants are struggling. The plantation is not good & not a promising plantation & this is again
due to wrong choice of species. Anjan should have been planted & no protection measure in
being given.
3) In 2004 Rains Hanagandi 1.39 Ha plantation, out of 200 plants planted only 50 plants are
surviving with poor 25% survival & only Ala & Arali are coming up & this is due to wrong
selection of site & wrong selection of model & this plantation does not serve any purpose of
Compensatory Afforestation scheme.
4) In 2005 Rains Jakkanur-20 Ha plantation Neem,Pongemia(Honge) ,Anjan,Bage,
Ala,Tapsi has been planted. Neem & Pongemia(Honge) has come up very well. Though the
survival percentage in only 52% however the surviving plants have come up well. This
location has got a very good scrub jungle & this is being protected since plantation work has
been taken up. Regarding protection measures though CPT is done all-round, the depth
which in only 60 cms.is in - sufficient & it is ineffective to protect both plantation & good
scrub jungle.
Under SMC works six gully checks has been constructed & along with this shoulder trenches
could have been done for water conservation which would have helped the plants for better
growth.
Under Entry point Activites, one samudaya bhavan has been constructed during 2004-05 at a
cost of Rs.80,000/- & mike set & 60no of plastic chairs has been purchased at a cost of
Rs.40,000/- & by renting this Revenue of a amount of Rs.3364/- has been realized to VFC &
over all performance this VFC is good.
5) In 2007 Rains Siddapur - 40 Ha plantation Anjan Eucalyptus citriodora & Tapsi, has been
planted all plants are coming up well. Anjan is faring better than Eucalyptus &Tapsi due care
131
has to be taken regarding fire damage since lot of grass has grown. CPT should have been
done all-round the periphery for effective protection.
6) In 2007 Rains Chikkalgi to Shirol road side plantation
Ala,Arali,Neem,Gulmohar,Pongemia(Honge) ,Basavan pada,Tapsi,Peltoforum has been
planted. Neem is coming up excellently other species are also coming up well. Bauhinia &
sissoo is not right choice. MFP yielding species like, Hunse, Jamun, Nelli,Mango etc should
have been planted so that tree patta could have been given to the adjacent farmer.
List of Plantations evaluated in Hunagund Range
Area
Sl Survey % of Latitude
Year Scheme Range Village in Remarks
No. No. Survival Longitude
(ha)
1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11
1 2005- KSHIP Hunagund Hunagund -- 20.00 89% N-160 03’ 24.8” Good
06 Kamatgi E- 750 59’ 55.0”
road
2 2005- CSS. Hunagund Kelur Fsy.No 20.00 90% N-150 58’ 19.6” Choice of
06 NAP . 261 E- 750 55’ 50.1” species
(AR) and site is
not proper
poor
protection,
plantation
is
struggling
3 2007- CSS- Hungund Dammur FS N-150 54’ 27.3”
08 NAP (Dammur No.1 60.00 100% E- 750 57’ 16.4” Moderate
(AR) VFC)
Summary of Works evaluated in Hunagund (T) Range: In Hunagund (T) Range the
team evaluated 3 plantations 2 done under CSS NAP (AR) –FDA & one Road Side
Plantation under KSHIP.
1)20 Km Road Side Plantation on Hungund- Kamatgi Cross has been raised during
2006 Rains under KSHIP Budget Head. Arali, Bevu, RainTree, Pongemia(Honge) , Basavan
pada are coming up well. Since the plants are mostly planted in the farmers land or beside the
land usufructs tree species such as Tamarind, Nelli, Jamun, Bela, Mango etc. could have been
planted & Tree Patta could have been given to the adjoining farmer. Planting of Sisso should
have been avoided.
2) The Plantation raised in Kelur under FDA is not promising & the plants of Anjan
are totally browsed, Tapasi & sisso are struggling to survive & totally no protection is given.
The plantation is in encroachment prone areas.
3) In 2007 Rains Dammur FDA – 60 Ha plantation Pongemia(Honge)
,Neem,Tapsi,Tamarind,sissoo, Anjan & Cashew has been planted. Cashew is coming up well
in sandy soil; other species are coming up slowly. Casualty replacement has been done
during this rainy season last week only & hence there is 100% survival. If further rains do
not come & if watering is not done there will be again casualty. One of the best scrub
jungles is there in this location with species like Anogeissius latifolia, Chloroxylon
sweitenia, Wrightia tinctoria etc.
Choice of species is wrong & also choice of model. Protection model should have been
done here. No protection is given to this plantation. Heavy growth of grass & care has to be
taken to protect from fire damage. Very big Nala bund has been constructed in this area and
water was standing.
132
List of Plantations evaluated in Bagalkot Range
Area
Sl % of Latitude
Year Scheme Range Location in Remarks
No. Survival Longitude
(ha)
1 2 3 4 6 8 9 10 11
1 2005-06 KSFM Bagalkot Govind- 50.00 -- N-160 10’
BC koppa 51.4” E- 750 3600 RMtr CPT
Model 32’ 22.3” Gully checks G.C.S-
–(1) length –5.9M
B.length-3M Height-
45M
2 2005-06 KSFM Bagalkot Kirsur & 50.00 -- N-160 12’ 3600 Rmtr CPT has
BC Mallapur 16.4” E- 0750 been done wherever
Model 43’47.6” biotic interference is
–(1) there planting of
Agave Sucker &
P.J.,Siamea has not
been successful
3 2006-07 KSFM Bagalkot Kirsur 20.00 -- N-160 12’ 1440 Rmtr CPT has
BC 00.9” E- 0750 been done & 28 No.
Model 44’40” Gully Checks has
–(1) been done planted
Agave P.J.Sowing,
C. Siamea Jatropa
has come up well
4 2007-08 CSS- Bagalkot Nilanagar
NAP(A FS No.
NR) 88/A N-160 05’
(Nilanagar 20 95% 37.6” E- 750 Excellent Plantation
VFC ) 44’ 23.7”
5 2007-08 CSS- -do- Alur FS N-160 19’

NAP No. 52P 01.3” E- 750
(ANR) (Alur 51’ .55.4”
VFC) 40 96% Good
6 2007-08 CSS- Bagalkot Hiregulab

NAP al FS
No.47P N-160 17’
(Hiregula 50 89% 56.8” E- 750 Average
bal VFC) 50’ 49.3”
Other Works
Sl. Sanctioned
Year Scheme Hobli/Taluk Work Remarks
No. cost
4 2006- KSFMBC Bagalkot Trench 26900 Earthen bunds across Gully has been
07 Model-01 (Kirsur) done by digging trench of size
Length -9.30m width – 1.2m depth –
75cm.
2006- KSFMBC Bagalkot
5 Trench 79300 Good
07 Model-05 (Devanal)
133
Forester & Range Clerk, Twin Quarters
Building
2006- Land & Bagalkot has been Constructed Apparently good
6 Maintenance 400000
07 Building (Bagalkot) Construction N-160 10’56.2” E-
work
0750 45’36.1”
Summary of Works evaluated in Bagalkot (T) Range:
The Team has seen totally 6 plantations in Bagalkot (T) Range, out of which 3 works under
KSFMBC-Model-1 & 3 works done under CSS (NAP) FDA. Major work is Protection of
existing growth from biotic interference by doing CPT in KSFMBC.
The details of each plantation in as below:
1) In 2005 Rains Govindakoppa 50 Ha plantation under KSFMBC Model-1 only 3600 Rmtr
CPT has been done covering area of 50 Ha which has got good scrub Jungle and under SMC
work 8 gully checks has been done.
CPT has to be maintained properly so that the work will be fruitful in protecting the
existing growth from biotic interference.
2) In 2005 Rains Kirsur and Mallapur 50 Ha under KSFMBC Model-1 3600 rmtr CPT has
been done wherever there is biotic interference and it has not encircled the area. On top of
the mound Agave suckers planted and PJ seeds sown are not successful. The area has got
good scrub Jungle.
3) In 2006 Rains Kirsur 20 Ha plantation under KSF MBC Model-1 only 1440 rmtr CPT has
been done wherever there is biotic interferance and it has not encircled area. On top of the
mound Agave, Jatropha planted and PJ and Cassia siamea seeds sown have come up well.
Earthen bunds across gully have been done by digging trench, silt has deposited, and good
vegetation has come up and served the purpose.
4) In 2007 Rains Nilanagar 20 Ha plantation Neem,Pongemia(Honge) ,Arali,Basari have
been planted and have come extremely well. Growth is very good. A very big tank has been
constructed under scarcity relief work and this attracts Birds during Rainy season and hence
fruit yielding species like zizi phus, Seeh hunse ,Nelli, Jamun etc and also flowering species
could have been planted. As the location is very near to the highway and also to Bagalkot it
can attract tourist during rainy season.
5) In 2007 Rains Alur -40 Ha plantation Pongemia(Honge) ,Neem,Ala and Arali, Basari, and
Tapsi has been planted. Plants have come up well. The plantation is good & protected by all-
round CPT with sowing of glyricidia on mounds SMC works has not been done and the same
amount has been utilized for completing CPT around.
6) In 2007 Rains Hiregulbal 50 Ha plantation is a Ripped plantation & only Eucalyptus has
been planted which is coming up normally. Anjan & Neem would have been better choice for
plantation with sowing on mounds. Though the survival percentage is good the growth of the
plants looks normal. For protection all round CPT has been done. Under SMC works a very
big nala bund has been constructed with stone pitching. But till now no water has been stored.
BAGALKOT SOCIAL FORESTRY DIVISION, RANGE WISE EVALUATION
Badami Range (SF)
Area
Sl. % of Latitude
No Survival Longitude
(ha)
Badami ²æÃ.¥ÁAqÀ¥Àà ¤Ã¯ÁgÀ
1 2004-05 KSFMBC ¸Á: AiÀÄArUÉÃj 1.00 -- -- --
(SF)
Badami ¨sÀAqÁj PÁ¯ÉÃeï,
2 2004-05 SGRY (ZP) UÀÄ¼ÉÃzÀUÀÄqÀØ -350 mÉæÃdj 356 35% Not available Poor
(SF)
§¸ÀªÉÃ±ÀégÀ «zÁå ¸ÀAWÀ N-160 00’
Badami
3 2004-05 SGRY (TP) PÉgÀÆgÀ 700 0% 32.1” E-750 Failed
(SF)
33’ 02.9”
Badami ºÉÃªÀÄ ªÉÃªÀÄ ºÉÊ¸ÀÆÌ¯ï N-150 34’
4 2004-05 SGRY (TP) GUÀ®ªÁn 320 46% Good
(SF) 36.8” E-740
134
51’ 42.8”
AiÀÄªÀÄ£À¥Àà UÁå£À¥Àà N-160 04’
Badami
5 2004-05 SGRY (TP) vÀ¼ÀªÁgÀ ¸Á- dA§®¢¤ß 1364 21% 48.4” E-750 V.Bad
(SF)
55’ 05.5”
Bilagi Range (SF)

Area
Sl. % of Latitude
(ha)
Bilagi ºÉgÀPÀ¯ï gÀ¸ÉÛ §¢ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ N-160 16’ 01.0”
1 2004-05 SGRY (ZP) 1000 36% Good
(SF) UÁæªÀÄ E-750 41’ 35.5”
Bilagi gÉÆÃ½î J¸ï.¹/J¸ï.n. N-150 06’ 41.4”
2 2004-05 SGRY (TP) 500 50% Moderate
(SF) ¨sÀÆ«Ä E-750 50’ 06.1”
Vj¸ÁUÀgÀ ¸Àä±Á£À-224,
Bilagi ªÀÄvÀÄÛ UÁæªÀÄzÀ gÀ¸ÉÛ N-160 21’ 08.9”
3 2004-05 SGRY (TP) 600 28% Poor
(SF) §¢-376. E-750 41’ 57.2”
Mudhol Range (SF)

Area
Sl. % of Latitude
(ha)
2004- Mudhol ªÀiÁZÀPÀ£ÀÆßgÀ UÁæªÀÄ N-160 14’ 17.8”
3 SGRY (ZP) 166 81% Good
05 (SF) ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ±Á¯É. E-750 23’ 47.1”
2004- Mudhol d£ÀÆßgÀ UÁæªÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
4 SGRY (ZP) ±Á¯É. 178 -- -- --
05 (SF)
2004- Mudhol ªÀdæªÄÀ nÖ ±Á¯É ªÀÄvÀÄÛ N-160 17’ 41.7”
11 SGRY (TP) UÁæªÀÄ 227 30% Good
05 (SF) E-750 22’ 39.6”
Bagalkot Range (SF)

Sl. Year Scheme Range Village Area in % of Latitude Remarks
No (ha) Survival Longitude
ªÀÄÄgÁgÀf zÉÃ¸Á¬Ä N-160 05’
2004- SGRY Bagaklot
1 ªÀ¸Àw ±Á¯É ²gÀÆgÀ-500 500 70% 49.4” E-750 V. Good
05 (ZP) (SF)
46’ 10.5”
Hunagund Range (SF)

Sl. Year Scheme Range Village Area in % of Latitude Remarks
ºÀÄ£ÀUÀÄAzÀ ¥ÉÆÃ°¸ï N-160 03’
2004 SGRY Hungund ªÀ¸Àw UÀÈºÀ-200.
1 513 9.7% 06.2” E-760 Good
-05 (ZP) (SF)
ºÀÄ£ÀUÀÄAzÀ PÉÃAzÀæ. 03’ 44.1”
2004 SGRY Hungund 1)¸ÀAUÀ¥Àà ¨Á. vÀ¼ÀªÁgÀ
2 1364 -- -- --
-05 (ZP) (SF) 2)®PÀëöäªÀé ¸ÀAUÀ¥Àà vÀ¼ÀªÁgÀ
Jamakhandi Range (SF)

Sl. Year Scheme Range Village Area % of Latitude Remarks
No in Survival Longitude
(ha)
Pits-36%
2004 SGRY Jamkhan dªÀÄRAr-a£ÀUÀÄAr N-160 30’ 25.9”
3 16100 Trench Not Good
-05 (TP) di (SF) gÀ¸ÉÛ £ÉqÀÄvÉÆÃ¥ÀÄ. E-750 18’ 34.46”
10%
Summary of Works evaluated in Bagalkot Social Forestry Division: The team inspected
& evaluated 11 works in Social Forestry Division Bagalkot covering all the talukas of the
District. The team mainly visited Farm Forestry, School Forestry & some of the Road Side
Plantations.
135
School Forestry Division has raised during 2004 raise in Murarji Residential School
of Bagalkot Social Forestry Range. Out of 500 Plants planted 350 plants have come up
excellently with good growth, neem, badam & peltoform have come up well & this in
because of full protection & good care given by school authorities. In some of the School
Forestry Plantations where no protection & no proper care is taken, plants have failed totally.
Regarding Farm Forestry also where the farmers have taken care to protect the plant
& nourished properly the plants have come up well for example in the Farm land of Shri.
K.B. Akki in Gorbal near Ilakal out of 71000 plants distributed (during 2004) 750 teak plant
have come up very well & grown up to pole size & even lemon plants have come up well but
in Farm Forestry done in tamers land of Shri. Yamanappa Gyanappa Talwar of Hunagund
out of 1364 plants planted during 2004-05 only 280 plants are struggling to survive since the
farmer has not taken any care of after planting & now he has even left the place as told by our
staff.
In case of road Side plantations only non browsable species like Pongemia(Honge) ,
have come up well & since there is no proper protection measures, survival percentage is
poor. The details of the above three models are in the enclosed list.
Abstract Particulars of Evaluation - Belgaum Division
2004-05 to 2006-07 (FDA 2007-08)
Sl Range No of Extent Has Survival Species
No Plantations Per Cent
1 Londa 11 156.95 96.68 Mostly Acacia
2 Nagargali 13 287.50 85.39 Acacia, Bamboo & Miscellaneous
3 Golihalli 7 140.00 90.39 Acacia, Nerala, Hulgul &
Miscellaneous
4 Khanpur 7 209.00 71.29 Acacia, Bamboo, Mixed
Plantation & Miscellaneous
5 Kanakambi 5 109.55 74.99 Acacia
6 Belgaum 10 177.80 76.66 Mostly Acacia mixed with
Bamboo, Cashew, Nelli etc.
7 Gujanal 7 103.50 70.53 Acacia Eucalyptus mixed with
Honge, Bevu etc.
8 Nesargi 9 143.00 71.26 Acacia Eucalyptus mixed with
Bamboo, Honge, Bevu etc.
9 Kakthi 8 131.00 90.71 Acacia Eucalyptus mixed with
Honge, Cashew etc.
TOTAL 77 1458.30
The Range wise reports are in the following pages.
Evaluation of works carried out in Plan, Non-Plan and NAP-FDA Schemes for the
works carried out from 2004-05 to 2006-07 and incase of NAP-FDA the works carried out till
2007-08 were evaluated, in all the 9 Range of Belgaum Division as below.
1. Londa Range
2. Nagargali Range
3. Golihalli Range
4. Khanapur Range
5. Kanakumbi Range
6. Belgaum Range
7. Gujnal Range
8. Nesargi Range and
9. Kakthi Range
The list of works identified for evaluation in each of the Ranges is furnished under
each Range discussion.
136
The findings of the evaluation and the observations are furnished Range wise briefly
under following headings.
• Performance of Plantations
• Performance of Species
• Protection Aspects
• Other works
• SMC Works
• Distribution of Seedlings
• Effectiveness of VFCs
• Maintenance of Records
• Supervision
• General Observations.
I. LONDA RANGE
1. Performance of Plantations
Totally 11 plantations were identified for the evaluation in Belgaum Range with
156.95 ha. The survival percentage in the sample plots ranges from 93 to 100%. However,
the weighted survival percentage across the plantations was 96.68.
Of the 11 plantations only one plantation is having miscellaneous species, 3
plantations were with Bamboo & Acacia, and 7 plantations with Acacia.
The performance of Acacia in almost all the areas is satisfactory except in areas where
the canopy was not open like Diggegali Sy No 49/A. In some areas the Acacia is planted in
encroachment evicted areas and is performing quite well like Hemmadga Sy No 69.
In FDA plantations the maintenance works were not carried out due to non-release of
funds. This has hampered the growth of the plants.
Sl. Survival
Area
No. Year Scheme Location/Sy. No. Species Survival %
Ha.
X Ha.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 2004-05 KFDF (OP) Mundawad Acacia 15.60 100.00 1560.00
FSY. No. 45, 84,
78, 73, 21, 23
2 2004-05 KFDF (OP) Hemmadaga Acacia 8.00 90.68 725.44
FSY. No. 69
3 2004-05 KFDF (OP) Mohishet Acacia 4.35 100.00 435.00
FSY.No. 10, 47
4 2005-06 02-Cultural Shiroli Acacia 5.00 90.00 450.00
Operation FSY. No. 10, 47
5 2006-07 FDA Diggegali Acacia 20.00 95.50 1910.00
FSY. No. 49/A
6 2006-07 FDA Diggegali Acacia, Bamboo 20.00 95.00 1900.00
FSY. No. 49/A
7 2006-07 REFL Mundwad Acacia 10.00 100.00 1000.00
FSY. No. 105
8 2006-07 KSFMBC Hemmadaga Matti, Nandi, Sissam, 14.00 93.80 1313.20
FSY. No. 53, 100, Bamboo, Neral, Honne
140 etc.
9 2006-07 FDA Mohishet Acacia, Bamboo 20.00 99.50 1990.00
FSY. No. 10,47
10 2007-08 FDA Kapoli Acacia 20.00 97.75 1955.00
FSY.No. 93
137
11 2007-08 FDA Bhalka Halasu, Sissum, 20.00 96.75 1935.00
FSY. No. 29 Bamboo, Shivane
Total: 156.95 1058.98 15173.64
Total survival percentage = 15173.64 = 96.68%
156.95
2. Performance of Species
Performance of Marihal Bamboo has been quite good with an average height of about
2 mts in Mohishet Sy no 10, 47.
Most of the plantations are with Acacia auriculiformis and Acaica is performing quite
well especially in areas where the plantation has been raised after eviction of the
encroachment.
3. Protection Aspects
The protection and soil working has certainly enhanced the growth of the natural
species.
In most of the plantations, the protection has been with barbed wire fencing and also
with CPT occasionally brushwood and combinations.
4. SMC Works
The SMC works included percolation tanks. These tanks are certainly serving the
purpose of improving the subsoil moisture. In one of the plantations, the vegetation on the
lower side looked much more greener and dense than the upper side (Mohishet 47/10).
Sl. Sanc- Remarks
Year of Survey
No. Taluk Hobli Village Scheme Work tioned (Name of
Sanction Nos.
Cost (Rs.) the VFCs)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 2005-06 Khanapur Gunji Mohishet 10, 47 S & MC Excavation of 20500.00 Mohishet
Percolation
tank
2 2005-06 Khanapur Gunji Diggegali 49A/6 Excavation of 22400.00 Diggegali
Percolation
tank
3 2006-07 Khanapur Gunji Diggegali 49A/6 S & MC Excavation of 23400.00 Diggegali
Percolation
tank
4 2006-07 Khanapur Gunji Mohishet 10,47 NAP- Excavation of 52300.00 Mohishet
Watra FDA Percolation
71 tank
Distribution of Seedlings
Eucalyptus seedlings were distributed to the farmers. The survival is 50 per cent and
the maintenance is also not satisfactory. Farmers opined that the Eucalyptus is chosen as it
gives them small timber in a reasonable time.
Sl.
Year Hobli Village Number of seedlings
No.
1 2006-07 Gunji Jamangao 2500 (5"x8")
6. Maintenance of Records
Almost all the plantation journals have been updated. It has been suggested to include
location maps and polygon maps on topo sheets.
138
7. Supervision
The DCFs and even ACFs remarks were significantly absent in most of the journals.
8. General Observations
Though the species Acacia auriculiformis has been doing quite well in these areas, the
extent and choice of site must be examined so that Acacia is not planted at the cost of the
native vegetation.
Marihal Bamboo is doing quite well and can be judiciously exploited keeping the
demand of the society in mind.
II. NAGARGALI RANGE
The number of plantations selected for the evaluation in this Range were 13 with
287.50 ha. The survival percentage in the sample plots ranges from 79 to 100. The average
percentage across all the plantations was 85.39.
Of the 13 plantations only 6 plantations were having miscellaneous species, 2
plantations were with Bamboo & Acacia, one was with Acacia & teak and 4 plantations were
with Acacia alone.
The performance of Acacia in almost all the areas is satisfactory quite well except in
areas where the canopy was not open. In some areas the Acacia is planted in encroachment
evicted areas and is doing quite well.
In FDA plantations the maintenance work was not done due to non-release of funds.
This has hampered the growth of the plants.
Sl. Survival
Location/Sy. Area Survi
No. Year Scheme Species %
No. Ha. val
X Ha.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 2004- KFDF- Suvatwadi Acacia 2.50 86.00 215.00
05 03-OP FSY. No. 18,
46, 61
2 2004- NAP- Balgund Lagerstroemia lanceolate, Terminalia 15.00 77.33 1159.95
05 FDA FSY. No. 10 paniculata, Anacardiumoccidentale,
Pongamia pinnata,
Mitragyanaparviflora,Tectona
grandis, Phyllanthus emblica,
Pterocarpus marsupium, Terminalia
tomentosa, Bamboo
3 2004- NAP- Bamankoppa Mitragyna parviflora, Bamboo, 10.00 84.00 840.00
05 FDA FSY. No. 32 Dalbergia latifolia, Lagerstroemia
lanceolata, Pterocarpus marsupium,
Terminalia tomentosa, Terminalia
billirica, Syzygium cumini, Pongamia
pinnata
4 2004- NAP- Balgund Acacia 15.00 93.33 1399.95
05 FDA FSY. No. 10
5 2005- NAP- Kodagai Terminalia tomentosa, Terminalia 10.00 85.00 850.00
06 FDA FSY.No. bellerica, Terminalia paniculata,
39,12,11 Phyllanthus emblica, Terminalia
chebula, Mitragyna parviflora,
Dalbergia latifolia, Pongamia
pinnata, Syzygium cumini
Grewiateliaefolia
6 2005- NAP Bustawada Acacia, Bamboo 35.00 87.11 3048.85
06 FDA FSY. No. 62
7 2005- KSFM Tarwad Terminalia tomentosa,Terminalia 50.00 - -
06 BC FSY. No. 73 paniculata, Xylia xylocarpa,
(Model Pongamia pinnata, Terminalia
139
1) bellerica, Emblica officinalis
Lagerstroemia lanceolata, Machilus
macranta, Emblica officinalis
8 2005- NAP- Avaratbail Acacia, Tectona grandis 20.00 79.00 1850.00
06 FDA FSY. No. 32
9 2005- NAP- Avaratbail Acacia, Bamboo 30.00 79.80 2394.00
06 FDA FSY. No. 32
10 2006- REFL Suvatwadi Acacia 10.00 95.00 950.00
07 FSY. No. 48,
46, 61, 57
11 2006- KSFM Jambegali Terminalia tomentosa, Teminalia 50.00 - -
07 BC FSY. No. 41 paniculata, Xylia xylocarpa,
(Model Terminalia bellerica, Lagerstronemia
1) lanceolata, Syzygium cumini Emblica
officinalis.
12 2007- NAP- Kirahalashi Syzygium cumini, Teminalia 20.00 89.69 1793.80
08 FDA FSY. No. 64 paniculata, Machilus macranta,
Terminalia tomentosa, Phyllanthus
emblica
13 2007- NAP- Sullegali Acacia 20.00 89.00 1780.00
08 FDA FSY.No. 23
Total: 287.50 945.26 16011.55
Total area = 287.50 – 100 (of KSFMBC Model-1 50+50) = 187.50 Ha.
187.50
Except Acacia auriculiformis all other species including Bamboo are struggling. In
Model I areas where seed sowing has been done, Honge (Pongamia pinnata) is doing well.
species like Matti, Jamba, Kindal, etc. In most of the plantations, the protection has been with
CPT / barbed wire and occasionally brushwood.
4. SMC Works
The SMC works included staggered contour trenches. These trenches were well laid
along the contours and were serving the purpose of conservation of moisture. In Bastwad, a
tank was constructed as an EPA (entry point activity) and is doing well. It is helping the
farmers down below and the forests above.
Sanc- Remarks
Sl. Year of Surve
tioned (Name of
No. Sanc- Taluk Hobli Village y Scheme Work
Cost the
tion Nos.
(Rs.) VFCs)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 2003- Khanapur Bidi Balgund S& Deeping of tank of 5322.00 Balgund
04 MC Balgund kere
2 2003- Khanapur Bidi Bastwad EPA Construction of 50000.00 Bastwad
04 Bastwad kere
3 2004- Khanapur Bidi Bastwad 55 NAP- Excavation of 59600.00 Bastwad
05 FDA staggered contour
trenches
4 2005- Khanapur Bidi Kalkoppa 11, 12 NAP- Excavation of 22300.00 Kodagai
06 FDA contour trenches
5 2005- Khanapur Bidi Kodagai NAP- Connection for 78000.00 Kodagai
06 FDA water supply &
GLSR tank
6 2005- Khanapur Gunji Bastwad NAP- Formation of 120000.0 Bastwad
06 FDA approach road to 0
Bastwad
7 2005- Khanapur Bidi Ghotali 2, 3, 4 01- Extraction of older 101500.0
140
06 1995 rains Timber Acacia plantation 0
10 Ha.
8 2005- Khanapur Bidi Karajagi 18–22, 01- Extraction of older 202600.0
06 XVII-1995 62, 63, Timber Acacia plantation 0
Rains Pltn. 66
15 Ha.
9 2006- Khanapur Gunji Balgund EPA Construction of 77000.00 Balgund
07 sinking open well
5. Distribution of Seedlings
Teak seedlings distributed were planted by the farmer. However, due to very poor
maintenance, the survival is 75 per cent.
Sl. No. Year Hobli Village Number of seedlings
1 2007-08 Bidi Balgund 2000 (6"x9")
6. Other works
Included extraction of Acacia, formation of road, deepening of tanks and water tanks.
Most of the works are good and serving the purpose.
The extraction of Acacia has been done as per the program. There is not much
difference between estimated quantity and the quantity extracted except change in the pole
class.
8. Supervision
The DCFs and even ACFs remarks were significantly absent in most of the journals.
Though the planting of Acacia auriculiformis has been doing quite well in these areas,
the extent and choice of site must be examined so that it is not planted at the cost of the native
vegetation.
III. GOLIHALLI RANGE
The number of plantations selected for the evaluation in this Range were 7 with 140
ha. The survival percentage in the sample plots ranges from 52 to 100. The over all survival
percentage across the Range was 90.39.
The performance of Acacia in almost all the areas was doing quite well except in
areas where the canopy was not open like Sagare.
Sl.
Area Survival
No. Year Scheme Location/Sy. No. Species Survival
Ha. % X Ha.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 2005-06 DDF Jangamanatti Bamboo 15.00 100 1500.00
FSY. No. 16, Gundolli
FSY. No. 60
2 2006-07 REFL Sagare FSY. No. 66 Acacia 20.00 76.00 1520.00
Golihalli FSY No. 283
3 2006-07 TFC Degaon Nelli, Hulgul 20.00 100.00 2000.00
FSY. No. 268
4 2006-07 KSFMBC Chicknandihalli Acacia,Hulgul, 15.00 91.00 1365.00
(Model-IV) FSY. No. 109 Anjan, eelgeri
5 2006-07 NAP-FDA Kerawad Hulgul, Nerale, 20.00 79.75 1595.00
141
FSY. No. 324 Sirsal, Misc.
6 2006-07 NAP-FDA Degaon Neelgeri 20.00 84.75 1695.00
FSY. No. 163
7 2006-07 NAP-FDA Degaon Nerala, Hulgul, 20.00 99.00 1980.00
(ANR) FSY. No. 279 Sirsal, Misc.
Total: 140.00 730.50 12655.00
Total survival percentage = 12655.00 = 90.39 %
140.00
Bamboo planted in an estate model at Jangamanatti is doing very well with almost
100 per cent survival and 3 mts average height.
Eucalyptus has suffered from gall disease in Degaon FS No 163.
species like Matti, Jamba, Kindal, etc.
In most of the plantations, the protection has been with barbed wire.
4. SMC Works
The SMC works included desilting of water tank at Dumgatti. Water was found even
in the month of May and people were using the tank. In one plantation staggered trenches
have been dug up and is serving the purpose of moisture conservation. This has been helping
the natural root stock to some up well.
Sur Remarks
Sl. Year of Sanc-
vey (Name of
No. Sanctio Taluk Hobli Village Scheme Work tioned
Nos the
n Cost (Rs.)
. VFCs)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 2004- Bailhongal Kittur Honnapur -- S& Desilting of 44700.00 Honnapur
05 MC Dumgatti water
tank
2 2004- Bailhongal Kittur Honnapur -- S& Desilting of 20500.00 Honnapur
05 MC Dumgatti water
tank
3 2005- Khanapur Khanapur Mudu- 62 TFC Anti-poaching 37500.00 --
06 ganoor and anti-
smuggling
camp
4 2005- Bailhongal Ambada- Kerowad 306, NAP- SMC work, 23400.00 Kerowad
06 gatti 307, FDA Staggered
309, trenches
311
5 2006- Bailhongal Kittur Degaon -- NAP- Purchase of 80000.00 Degaon

07 FDA tractor trailer
with water tank
5. Other works
Included purchase of tractor trailer as an EPA. It was in good condition and VFC is
renting it out to the people. An Anti-poaching camp was established, but it has not been put
to use now.
7. Supervision
142
One of the plantation journals had the inspection of CCF (Western Ghats). However,
the DCFs and even ACFs remarks were significantly absent in most of the journals.
IV KHANAPUR RANGE
1. Performance of plantations
In all,7 plantations were selected for the evaluation in Khanapur Range having 209
Ha .the survival percentage of the plantations was ranging from 32% to 97 % .with an
average total survival percentage of 71.29 % by area weightage. One plantation was model
1which covered an area of 100 Ha. The seeds sown in the thalis have germinated well, with
an average height of 25 cms .after the area closure Dalbergia latifolia regeneration was found
to be profuse. Besides the moderate performance of Harda, Jgalganti, Kumkum, etc., this
kind of area closure seems to be yielding better results than artificial planting with high
density.
Out of 7 plantations 3 plantations were Acacia model 2 were bamboo model
plantations and 1 was miscellaneous plantation, and one was area closure of model 1 of
KSFMBCP.
Average ht. of the planted seedlings was varying from 0.3 mt in miscellaneous model
and up to 4 mt in Acacia plantations. The average girth was about 10 to 15 cms in
miscellaneous and 20-30cms in Acacia model.
In miscellaneous species Pongamia pinnata occupied major portion of the seedlings
planted.
In fencing it was found that the plantation being covered , both by barbed wire
fencing, CPT, and brush wood fencing as the area tackled was quite large , and was
intermixed with the thickly wooded areas . Hence there was no effective protection to
miscellaneous species, in one of the plantation only part of the plantation was fenced as the
cost norms have not permitted the full fencing in NAP scheme.
In one plantation of Manthurgwada village of Khanapur Range there was intermixing
of Acacia and Bamboo , where as the model was bamboo model of the NAP , here the
performance of the both the species was moderate. In Betageri Model IV plantation of the
KSFMBCP plantation , which was the older Acacia harvested plantation, the miscellaneous
growth of Terminalias, Kaval, Sissum, Honne, Jagalganti, etc., has come up very well from
the root stock or due to the seed dispersal. This needs to be nurtured over the planted Acacia
seedlings.
No.of No.of
Survival
No.of seedlings Seedlings
Sl. Year of Survival percenta
Scheme Extent & Model sample planted survival in
No Planting percentage ge X
Plots in sample the sample
aera
plot plot
1 2004-05 NAP- 25 ha. Bamboo Model 5 373 122 32% 800
FDA ,manturgawada
2. 2004-05 NAP- 9 ha. A.R Model,Zad 2 558 531 95% 855
FDA navga
3 2004-05 KFDF OP 20 Ha Acacia and 4 70 50 70% 1400
bamboo and mixed
plantation ,kalmani
4 2005-06 NAP- 10 ha A.R.Model Zad 2 284 263 92.6% 926
FDA navga sy no 106,91
5 2005-06 KSFMBC 100 Ha model 1, Model 1 plantation
Kapoli
6 2006-07 NAP- 25 Ha. ANR Model, 5 253 187 74% 1850
FDA Zad navaga sy no
17,18,23,24,106
7 2006-07 KSFMBC 20 Ha Model IV 4 160 156 97% 1940
Betageri
143
209 Ha. 7771
Total survival percentage = 7771/109 = 71.29%
2. Performance of the species

All three Acacia plantations evaluated had the good survival percentage , with an
average height of 2.5 m height, the selection of species for miscellaneous plantation was not
proper in some areas as few species like Honge were raised in larger quantity, as compared to
Acacia the mixed plantations were putting up average performance as the soil of theses areas
is highly refractory , planting of Acacia in open grassy patches and laterite canker formations
was not proper as these areas are supporting endemic flora and are result of climatic
succession , these could be avoided in many of the Acacia plantations closed spacing was
found, for example in Navaga Fs no 106 ,91 though the seedling has to be planted @1100
seedling per ha actually 2800 seedling per ha was noticed / planted . This could be avoided in
future.
3. Protection aspects
The plantations were fenced with barbed wire, CPT, and brush wood admixture and
in some plantations only partial fencing was taken up due to cost constraints or lack of proper
planning while making APO, this could be avoided in future to have uniform and effective
protection work, the bamboo model needs good quality fencing either in the form of chain
link or three stranded barbed wire fencing. In many of the miscellaneous plantation species
were browsed heavily due to in effective protection.
4. Soil and moisture conservation works
In Navaga FS No 106 and 91 the estimated structure as per the estimate is gully plug
but the structure found in the field was vented check dam, which is serving the cause and in
proper condition .
5. Other works
Other works included formation of road to Manturga village as an entry point activity
to VFC, Rs 50000 was spent to mettle this road, from Hemmadaga, Khanapur main road to
the Maturgawada covering 330 mt which was very essential work.
Jamboti VFC procured pendal set, public address system and chairs as the VFC entry
point activity and they are using this for regular renting out and collecting regular income.
6. Effectiveness of VFC
Though the VFC were formed and are very active as found in the field , there are gaps
in documentation and procedures followed , which needs strengthening for example in Zad
Navaga VFC of Khanapur Range though the micro-plan was written, MOU was not found in
the plan ,though the list of older plantation was annexed in the plan but the VFC area and
Access area was not mentioned in the plan list of executive body was not found in the plan ,
similarly the memberships and households to be included as per the government order were
not followed properly, theses needs fresh look and attended to by the higher officers .
7. Maintenance of records
Records maintained at Range level are plantations journal, field note book, sanctioned
estimates completion report, and cash accounts, APOs, etc. The records were up dated
properly.
8. Supervision of higher officers
144
This leaves much to be desired as there was no observations and inspection notes
from higher officers in any of the plantations journals observed.
V. KANAKUMBI RANGE
1. Performance of plantations
In all 5plantations were selected for the evaluation in Kanakumbi Range having
109.55 Ha .the survival percentage of the plantations was ranging from 36% to 85 %. with an
average total survival percentage of 74.99 % by area weightage. One plantation was model 1
which covered an area of 50 Ha. The seeds sown in the thalis have germinated well, with an
average height of 20-30 cms after the area closure the seedlings of different evergreen sps are
doing very well.
Out of 5 plantations 4 plantations were Acacia model, and one was area closure of
model 1 of KSFMBP.
Average height of the plants planted was about 4 mt in Acacia plantations. The average
girth was 20-30cms in Acacia model.
In fencing it was found that the plantation being covered , both barbed wire fencing,
CPT, and brush wood fencing as the area tackled was quite large , and was intermixed with
the thickly wooded areas . Hence there was no effective protection to miscellaneous sps in
one of the plantation only part of the plantation was fenced as the cost norms have not
permitted the full fencing in NAP scheme.
No.of No.of
Survi
No.of seedlings Seedlings Survi
Sl. Year of val
Scheme Extent & Model sample planted in survival in val
No Planting percentage
Plots sample the sample (%)
X area
plot plot
1 2004-05 K.F.D.F. 14.55 Ha. Acacia 3 110 84 76 1106
(O.P) Model parwad.sy no %
21,23,24,30,31,37,38
2. 2005-06 Compensa 5 Ha. Acacia Model 2 110 40 36 180

tory Sada sy no 42 %
Plantation
(REF)
3 2005-06 Gouse 20Ha gouse sy no 4 4 110 93 85 1700
NAP/FDA Acacia model %
4 2006-07 12th 20 Ha. Acacia Model 4 160 118 74 1480
Finance Parwad sy no 63 %
Commissi
on
5. 2006-07 K.S.F.M. 50 Ha. Model-1 8 - - -
B.C Sada sy no 45
TOTAL 109.55 4466
Total survival percentage = 4466/59.55 = 74.99%
2. Performance of the species

All three Acacia plantations evaluated had the good survival percentage , with an
average height of 2-5 m height , natural regeneration of Adachari, Kaval, Neral, Matti, Kindal
are seen in theses areas. Plantation sketch produced was vague and not to scale the Acacia
performance was good but the intermixed bamboo and miscellaneous growth was not
satisfactory.
145
But in one Acacia plantation at Sada which was raised in highly refractory soil was
below average but natural regeneration has taken over the planted seedlings there by
improving this otherwise encroachment evicted area.
3. Protection aspects
The plantations were fenced with barbed wire, CPT, and brush wood intermixing and
in some plantations only partial fencing was taken up due to cost constraints or lack of proper
planning while making APO, this could be avoided in future to have uniform and effective
protection.
4. Soil and moisture conservation works

One nala bund work at Gouse Sy No 4 was found be constructed in an area having
less storage space, shifting this construction down the catchments would have yielded better
results. In Gouse, the VFC procured Generator and plastic chairs as entry point activity
which was a good investment for the VFC.
Sur
Sl. Sanc- Remarks
Year of vey
No. Taluk Hobli Village Scheme Work tioned (Name of
Sanction Nos
.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 2003-04 Khanapur Jobati Gouse - S&MC Construction of 44800.00 Gouse
Nala bund
2 2005-06 Khanapur Jobati Gouse - NAP – Supply of 48500.00 Gouse
FDA Generator and
Plastic Chairs
5. Effectiveness of VFC
Though the VFC were formed and are very active as found in the field, there are gaps
in documentation and procedures followed, which needs strengthening, these needs fresh
look and attended to by the higher officers.
6. Maintenance of records
Records maintained at Range level are plantation journal, field note book, sanctioned
estimates completion report, and cash accounts, APOs, etc. The records were up dated
properly.
7. Supervision of higher Officers
There were no observation and inspection notes from higher officers in any of the
plantations journals observed.
VI. BELGAUM RANGE
177.80 ha. The survival percentage in the sample plots ranges from 55 to 96. However, the
weighted survival percentage across the plantations was 76.66.
Almost all the plantations selected for random evaluation consist of miscellaneous
species like Acacia, Hulgal, Tapsi, Casoda, Nerle, etc., however, the avenue planting is with
species like Peltoforum, Bauhinea, Gulmohar, Rain tree etc.,
The performance of Acacia in almost all the areas was doing well. In some of the
patches of Greening of urban area plantations, the plants have been damaged by Belgaum
development authorities due to road winding works. Similarly some of the seedlings have
146
been damaged by B.S.N.L. authorities, in KSHIP Plantation on Hungund – Belgaum State
Highway.
The maintenance of NAP - FDA plantations is very poor fencing, damaged in most of
the places. Overall the future of the plantation is very bleak.
Sl. Survival
Location/Sy. Area
No. Year Scheme Species Survival %
No. Ha.
X Ha.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 2004- KFDF – Dhama Village Acacia, Hulgal, Tapsi, 20.00 73.60 1472.00
05 OP Sy No.44
2 2005- REFL Muchandi Acacia, Nilgiri, Kasoda, 13.00 69.00 897.00
06 Sy No.192 Hulgal, Nerle,
3 2005- G.U.A. Auto Nagar, Peltophorum, Bauhinea, 4.80 55.00 264.00
06 Kanbargi, Gulmohar, Raintree, etc.,
Belgaum City
4 2006- KSFMB Dhanina Acacia, Nilgiri, Seege, 25.00 96.00 2400.00
07 (IV) Sy No.44 Bamboo, Casuarina, Kasoda,
5 2006- KSHIP Hungund – Peltophroum, nerle, Halsu, 5.00 91.00 455.00

07 Belgaum State Honne, etc.,
Highway
6 2006- NAP – Muchandi Cashew, Nerle, Hulgal, Tapsi, 20.00 70.00 1400.00
07 FDA Sy. No.192 Nelli,
7 2005- NAP – Kalkamba Cashew, Hulgal, Acacia, Nelli, 10.00 76.00 760.00
06 FDA Sy. No.207
8 2006- NAP – Kalkamba Cashew, Hulgal, Acacia, Nelli, 10.00 89.00 890.00
07 FDA Sy. No.207
9 2007- NAP- Asta Acacia, 50.00 77.00 3850.00
08 FDA Sy. No.117,118
10 2007- NAP- K.K.Koppa, Bamboo 20.00 71.00 1420.00
08 FDA Sy.No.132,137,
140,145 Total: 177.80 767.60 13808.00
177.80
With the exception of avenue species like Peltophorum, Raintree, Bauhinea, etc., only
Acacia auriculiformis is visible in most of the plantations.
Natural growth of Dindga, Hulgal, Neral, Neem, etc., is coming up very well, due to
the protection provided in Kalkamba Plantation of NAP – FDA. The Bamboo Planted in
FDA Plantation of K.K.Koppa, has very little future, as it is planted on a hill with little soil.
The protection aspect as such has been given the least priority as could be seen in
most of the plantations where, in many places fencing has been damaged, plants have been
broused.
4. SMC Works
The SMC and other various miscellaneous works have been carried out under NAP –
FDA, EPA, and 01-Timber Heads in various VFC’s and in Belgaum City. Under EPA
activities like supply of Utencils, Gymesium Articles, Barbed wire fencing, Construction of
Cultural Stage, etc., have been under taken. Under 01-Timber Extraction of Timber and
repair and maintenance of Conservator of Forests Office Compound. Raising compound wall
at forest campus have been under taken.
147
Sur
Sl. Sanc- Remarks
Year of Hobl vey
No. Taluk Village Scheme Work tioned (Name of
Sanction i Nos
.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 2003-04 Belgaum Kakti Kalkamba 207 NAP- SMC 27790.00 Kalkamba
FDA
2 2003-04 Belgaum Kakti Muchandi - EPA Utencils 49895.00 Muchandi
3 2003-04 Belgaum Kakti Kalkamba - EPA Gymesium 29650.00 Kalkamba
Articles
4 2004-05 Belgaum Kakti Muchandi - EPA B wire fencing 70000.00 Muchandi
for siddeshwara
temple &
flooring (spent –
61717)
5 2004-05 Belgaum Kakti Belgaum - 01 – Raising 42985.00 Belgaum
City Timber compound wall
forest campus
6 2005-06 Belgaum Kakti Kalkamba - NAP – Construction of 30880.00 Kalkambi
FDA Cultural Stage & 9120.00
Gate
7 2005-06 Belgaum Kakti Kanabargi 60 01 – Timber 22100.00 GTD
Timber extraction work Londa
8 2005-06 Belgaum Kakti Belgaum - 01 – Repair of 41100.00 City
City Timber maintenance of
CF Office
Eucalyptus and other varieties of seedlings were distributed to the farmers. The
survival is 50 per cent and the maintenance is also not satisfactory. Farmers are of the
opinion that the Eucalyptus can give them small timber in a reasonable time. Hence, it is
preferred most.
Sl.
Year Hobli Village Number of seedlings Survival
No.
1 2004-05 Belgaum Belgaum City 1050 (8"x12") 50%
2 2006-07 Belgaum Belgaum City 13686 (5”x8”) 50%
location maps and polygon maps on topo sheets. The remarks of officers visiting the
plantations are invariably missing in every plantation journal.
7. Supervision
As there are no entries of any observations made by the officers in the plantation
journal it is presumed that the supervision has not been given a priority by the supervising
and other officials.
Though the planting of Acacia auriculiformis and Eucalyptus seems to be good but
the future of other species looks to be very bleak, due to the fact of poor site selection, choice
of species, poor protection measures, lack of supervision etc.,
VII. GUJNAL RANGE
103.50 ha. The survival percentage in the sample plots ranges from 42 to 95.70. The average
percentage across all the plantations was 70.53
148
Of this 7 Plantations selected for evaluation Bamboo is planted only in M.Malapur
Planation of TSP (State). Eucalyptus and Acacia planted in trenches are faring well.
However, the miscellaneous species planted in pits are not doing well. The natural growth is
coming up well in patches due to protection measures.
Sl. Survival
Location/Sy. Area Surviv
No. Ha. al
X Ha.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 2004-05 KFDF-OP Basapur Acacia, Cagode, 13.50 63.50 857.50
Sy. No.113,111 Nilgiri,
2 2004-05 T.S.P (State) M.Mallapur Bamboo, Nilgiri, 9.00 42.00 378.00
Hunse
3 2004-05 NAP-FDA Malmuradi Nilgiri, Acacia, 21.00 72.40 1520.00
12, 13, 14, Cagoda, Honge,
4 2005-06 NAP-FDA Malmuradi Hulgal, Tapsi, 15.00 75.30 1130.00
31, 32 Jutropa
5 2006-07 MARKUND Bharmatti Acacia, Hulgal, 20.00 95.70 1914.00
AYA 26 P1 Nilgiri, Cagode,
YOJANE Anjan
6 2006-07 D.D.F. Mauanoor Nilgiri, Hulgal, 10.00 70.30 703.00
233 Acacia, Casoda,
7 2006-07 NAP-FDA Malmuradi Neerale, Khcir, 15.00 53.20 798.00
12, 13, 14, Neem, Sitatu, muru
Total: 103.50 472.40 7300.50
103.50
Eucalyptus is the common species which is found in almost all the 7 plantations,
Acacia, Casoda, Hulgal, Neral, and Tapsi, is also planted as miscellaneous species. Though
Bamboo is planted along with Nilgiri and Hunase in M.Malapur Plantation of TSP (State) the
future does not hold good due to very poor protection. Acacia and Nilgiri, as usual are doing
well in some of the plantations. In some of the patches natural growth is doing well.
The natural growth in KFDF Plantation of Basapur and Barmathi Plantation of
Markandaiah Scheme is coming up very well, due to the protection provided by the watchers.
Other planted species like Acacia, Nilgiri, and Hulgal, are also doing well in patches. As no
protection measures provided under NAP – FDA plantations the plantations are damaged.
4. SMC Works
The SMC works included staggered contour trenches. These trenches were well laid
along the contours and were serving the purpose of conservation of moisture.
Sl. Year of Sanc- Remarks
Survey
No. Sanctio Taluk Hobli Village Scheme Work tioned (Name of
Nos.
n Cost (Rs.) the VFCs)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 2003- Gokak Gokak Malmardi 93/3 NAP/ Repair to 48200.00 Malmardi
04 FDA EPA Lugelavva
Temple
2 2005- Belga Belga Barvatti 16,18, 26, Markande Constructio 273600.00 -
06 um um & 41 ya Project n of Forest
Boundries
Teak seedlings distributed were planted by the farmer. However, due to very poor
maintenance, the survival is 75 per cent.
149
1 2006-07 Hukkeri Hukkeri 5000
location maps and polygon maps on topo sheets. The remarks of officers visiting the
plantations are invariably missing in every plantation journal.
7. Supervision
journals it is presumed that the supervision has not been given a priority by the supervising
Though the planting of Acacia auriculiformis and Eucalyptus is generally doing well
in all the areas other species like Bamboo, Tapsi, Hulgal, is not very promising. However, in
some of the areas due to protection provided the natural regeneration is boosting up. The
plantings in trenches is good in comparison to pits.
VIII. NESARGI RANGE
ha. The survival percentage in the sample plots ranges from 47.5 to 84. The over all survival
Out of 9 Plantations selected for evaluation one is avenue plantation raised under
KSHIP Scheme from Bagewadi to Honnamatti Cross during 2005-06.
The performance of FDA Plantations is not really promising due to lack of protection
measures.
Sl. Surviv
Area
No. Year Scheme Location/Sy. No. Species Survival al %
Ha.
X Ha.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 2004- KFDF – OP Deshnur Acacia 10.00 83.00 830.00
05 Fsy No.177 P II
2 2004- KFDF – OP Panjantti Acacia, Casoda 10.00 50.00 500.00
05 Fsy No.36
3 2004- NAP-FDA Deshnur, Acacia, Nelli, Cashew, 15.00 73.33 1099.95
05 ANR Fsy No.117 Arali, Hulgal, Bevu,
Sirshal, Khair, Nerale
4 2004- NAP-FDA Mohare, Acacia, Cashoda, Acacia, 20.00 52.00 1040.00
05 AR Fsy. No.21,22,23, Nelli, Hulgal, Bevu
24
5 2005- KSHIP Bagewadi to Acacia, Bevu, Gulmohre, 15.00 84.00 1260.00
06 Honnamatti Cross Plantoform, Rain tree,
Ficus (Basari)
6 2005- NAP FDA Mohare, Fsy. Acacia, Hulugulu, Sitafal, 10.00 72.00 720.00
06 ANR No.21, 22,23, 24 Sirsal, Bevu, Casoda
7 2005- NAP FDA Mallapur Acacia, Hulugulu, Bevu 20.00 78.25 1565.00
06 Silvi-pasture Fsy No.88
8 2006- TFC Deshnur Acacia, Honne, Bamboo, 33.00 81.86 2701.05
07 Fsy No.177 Hulgal, Casoda,
Simarooba, Shivani,
150
Acacia, Ecyluprus
9 2006- Silvi-pasture Mallapur Acacia, Bamboo, Hulgal, 10.00 47.50 475.00

07 Fsy No.88 Hunase, Muttal, Nerale,
Bevu, Tapashi, Seetapahal
Total: 143.00 538.94 10191.0

0
143.00
The performance of Acacia, Casoda and Hulgal in almost all the areas is quite good.
Other miscellaneous species like Neli, Bevu, Hone, Bamboo, Tapsi, Shivani, etc., require
good soil working to help them to grow well.
The protection aspect as such has been given the least priority as could be seen in
most of the plantations where, in many places fencing has been damaged, plants have been
browsed, and overall quality of the works. However, in patches the natural regeneration of
miscellaneous species looks promising
4. SMC Works
The SMC works included desilting of water tank at Mohare Village, Construction of
public godown in Hogarthi and Soil Conservation works in Honarbarati villages. The SMC
work carried under 12th Finance commission during 2005-06 is out side plantation area. The
location is not suitable, the tank was already existing only repair work has been done. The
work has been recorded by the Range Forest Officer, for 8 works but checked by Assistant
Conservator of Forests for only 2 works. However, the volume is not commensurate. The
Godown Constructed Hogarthi Village has developed a huge crack in the middle which
requires to be repaired.
Sur Sanc- Remarks
Sl.
Year of vey tioned (Name of
No. Taluk Hobli Village Scheme Work
Sanction Nos Cost the
. (Rs.) VFCs)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 2003-04 Bailhongal Nesargi Mohare - S&MC Desilting of 44000.00 Mohare
existing
Tank
2 2003-04 Bailhongal Nesargi Mohare - EPA Constructio 50000.00 Hogarthi
n Of Public
Godown
3 2005-06 Bailhongal Nesargi Honabaratti Fsy 12th Finance Soil 47000.00 Honabarat
No. Commission conservatio ti
289 n
Except Nilgiri other miscellaneous species are not taken care by the farmers. The
Survival is less than 50%.
1 2005-06 Nesargi Hoskoty 800(5”x8”)

2 2006-07 Nesargi Bailhongal 2100 (5”x8”) 3900 (6”x9”)
151
Maintenance of recorded is very poor. The officers who have inspected the works
have not recorded their observation in the plantation journals.
7. Supervision
journals it is presumed that the supervision has not been given a priority by the supervising
Though the planting of Acacia Auriculiformis and Eucalyptus is generally doing well
in all the areas. The miscellaneous species like Bamboo, Tapsi, Hulgal, is not very
promising. However, in some of the areas due to protection provided the natural regeneration
is boosting up. The plantings in trenches is good in comparison to pits.
IX KAKTI RANGE
ha. The survival percentage in the sample plots ranges from 80 to 96. The overall survival
The performance of Acacia in almost all the areas is very good except in areas where
the canopy is very dense.
Sl. Survival
Area Survi
No. Year Scheme Location/Sy. No. Species %
Ha. val
X Ha.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 2004-05 KFDF – Yamanapur Acacia, Casia, 10.00 96.00 960.00
OP Fsy No.93 Eucalyptus
2 2004-05 KFDF – Kakati, Acacia, Casia, 10.00 95.00 950.00
OP Fsy No.176/P Eucalyptus
3 2004-05 NAP FDA Halbhavi, Cashew, Hulgal 15.00 81.00 1215.00
Fsy No.100,101,
102, 103,
4 2005-06 D.D.F Ramdurag, Acacia, Casoda, 11.00 94.00 1034.00
Fsy. No.12P, 13,14 Hulgal, Nilgiri
5 2005-06 NAP-FDA Halbhavi, Cashew, Hulgal 10.00 80.00 800.00
Fsy. No.92,93, 101
6 2006-07 Markandey Halbhavi & Bharamnatti Acacia, Eucalyptus, 20.00 95.00 1900.00
139 M.W Fsy No.70,74(H), 4(B) Casia, Hulgal,
7 2006-07 Markandey Godihal, Acacia, Eucalyptus, 25.00 93.00 2325.00
139 M.W Fsy No.25 Casia, Hulgal,
8 2007-08 NAP-FDA Biranoli, Acacia, Hulgal, 30.00 90.00 2700.00
A.R Model Fsy No.198 Eucalyptus
Total: 131.00 724.00 11884.00
131.00
Acacia and Eucalyptus are faring well. The Eucalyptus planted in concentrated
patches is inflicted with Gall disease. Cashew and Hulgal planted in deep soil seems to have
good future.
152
The protection has been of varying intensity in different plantations due to the type of
scheme and provisions available. For example the protection aspect in FDA plantations is
very poor due to lack of provision. However, it has been neglected in compensatory
plantations of Markandeya scheme. The cattle proof trench an barbed wire fencing is carried
out regardless or requirement just to meet the estimate quantity.
4. SMC Works
The SMC works included excavation of contour trenches and also excavation of cattle
proof trench for the FDA plantations of Kakati. The other EPA works included construction
of community hall at Sonnati and special repairs to Sri.Laxmi Temple at Halbhavi.
Remarks
Sl. Sanc-
Year of Survey (Name of
No. Taluk Hobli Village Scheme Work tioned
Sanction Nos. the
Cost (Rs.)
VFCs)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 2003-04 Belgaum Kakati Sonatti - NAP / Construction of 120000.00 Sonatti
FDA Community
(EPA) hall
2 2003-04 Belgaum Kakati Kattanbhavi Fsy NAP / Excavation of 12900.00 Kattanbha
No.26 FDA contour vi
(ANR) trenches
3 2004-05 Belgaum Kakati Kakati Fsy NAP / Excavation of 58500.00 Kakati
No.173, FDA Cattle Proof
174 trenches under
EPA
4 2004-05 Belgaum Kakati Halbhavi - NAP / Construction of 79849.00 Halbhavi
FDA Sri.Laxmi
(EPA) Temple
260 Setapala seedlings are distributed to a farmer by name Sri.M.D.Nhasipudi. The
results are not very encouraging due to lack of after care and protection.
1 2006-07 Kakati Kakati 260
Almost all the plantation journals have been maintained but not recorded by
inspecting officers. It has been suggested to include location maps and polygon maps on topo
sheets.
7. Supervision
The lack of supervision is very glaring due to the fact that none of the supervising and
inspecting officers have recorded their observations which is highly condemnable.
Though the planting of Acacia auriculiformis is found to be doing well in almost all
the areas. The planting of Eucalyptus in concentrated patches should have been avoided as it
is highly prone to epidemic like Gall disease. It is suggested that in future the proper species
mix should be adopted.
BIJAPUR TERRITORIAL DIVISION
RANGE WISE EVALUATION REPORT
Location and Climate of Bijapur Division
153
The geographical area of the division is 1054175.00 hectares. The total forest area of
the division is 1066.48 hectares comprising of only about 0.10% of the geographical area of
the district. It is bounded on the east by Gulbarga district, on the west by Belgaum district.
On the North by Sholapur district of Maharashtra State and on the south by Bagalkot district.
Most of the northern boundaries of the division are limited by the course of Bhima River
bordering Sholapur district. On the southern side, Krishna river forms the line of demarcation
with Bagalkot forest division.
Bijapur division lies between latitudes 170 28’ 38” and 160 8’ 44” north and between
longitudes 750 25’ 8” and 760 28’ 30” east. Bijapur forest division was formerly a part of
Bagalkot forest division and came into being with effect from 31-08-1998 after the creation
of the new Bijapur district in 1997.
Generally, very dry climate prevails over the entire tract. The days are hot and nights
are reasonably cold. The temperature varies from a minimum of 180 C in December to
January to a maximum of 420 C in May. Most of the rainfall is received from the Southwest
monsoon. The rainfall is irregular and erratic.
Bijapur forest division has one sub Division with Headquarters at Bijapur. There are
four territorial ranges, namely, Bijapur, Indi, Sindagi and Muddebihal. There is a special duty
range at Basavana Bagewadi.
Muddebihal Range
Area % of Latitude
No. Year Scheme Range Location Remarks.
(Ha) Survival Longitude
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
0
2004- Mural to 7.00 N-16 18’ 10.1”
1 FDF (OP) Muddebihal 14.28% Poor
05 Arasnal Road km E- 760 13’01.2”
2 2005- NAP FDA Muddebihal Keshapur 40 14.5 % N- 160 14’54.4 ” Poor
06 -AR E- 760 10’ 47.1”
3 2006- NAP FDA- Muddebihal Ukkali 20 19.2% N- 160 43’00.8 ” Poor
07 ANR E- 750 53’ 12.9”
4 2006- NAP FDA- Muddebihal Tallewad 30 23.08% N- 160 32’34.0 ” Poor
07 ANR E- 750 48’ 14.6”
5 2007- NAP FDA- Muddebihal Kalgurki 25 56.78% N- 160 33’58.3 ” Average
08 ANR E- 750 45’ 12.0”
Evaluation of Works in Muddebihal (T) Range:

The team has visited 5 plantations in Muddebihal Range, 4 of the 5 are NAP, FDA
plantations.
Kalgurki plantation (2007-08) is having 56.78 % survival and the species planted
are Eucalyptus and Cassia, not a proper choice. Site selected is an old failed plantation. The
date of approval of Micro-Plan is not provided.
Keshapur plantation, it is a 40 ha block done in 2005-06, trenches have been planted
with Cassia & Honge, this is a gomal land, and area has been repeatedly planted; no
protection measures have been taken. No entry point activities have carried out however soil
moisture conservation work of excavation of three farm ponds has been done.
Ukkali plantation is poor with only 19.2% Survival, Hulgal and Sisso have been
planted in trenches. The site selected is Gomal land and it is an earlier failed plantation. The
VFC is in initial stages whether VFC Micro plan is approved is not informed to the team.
Tallewad Plantation is also planted with Cassia, Eucalyptus and Bevu are not
performing well. Cassia is doing better comparatively .Site selection & species selection is
improper.
Arasnal to Mural road side plantation of 2004-05 has only Bevu surviving, protection
and maintenance is poor hence plantation is also poor.
154
Indi Range
Sl Area
Sche % of Latitude
N Year Range Village Location in Remarks
me Survival Longitude
o (ha)
1 2004- FDF Indi Indi Atharga 2.00 35% N-160 59’
05 (OP) Town 65.1” E- 750 Average
53’29”
2 2006- NAP Indi Babalad Babalad 20.00 51.57% N-170 08’
07 FDA - 38.3” E-750 Average
ANR 49’ 62.4”
Evaluation of Works in Indi (T) Range:

In Indi Range totally 2 plantations, one under FDF (OP) and under NAP FDA-ANR were
chosen for evaluation as indicated above.
In Indi Range FDF (OP) plantation selected is at Atharga which is town planting
(2Ha) taken up in 2004-05 totally 400 seeding were planted 142 are surviving the survival is
35% among surviving species Bevu is doing well. The overall condition of plantation is
average.
The other plantation selected for evaluation is under FDA-NAP at Babalad block
(C&D) 20 Ha 2006-07. In all 4020 polybag seedlings have been planted. The survival is
about 51% but condition of plantation is poor & not healthy there is no hope of survival of
existing species in near future.
Species planted are Eucalyptus, Sissoo, Zizyphus & Kaswad. The soil is highly
refractory (practically no soil) and technique adopted (trenching) and selection of species is
not correct. Pitting and planting with taller seeding is big containers like Ficus, Anjan &
Bevu could have shown good results. The protection provided is not effective and
involvement of VFC not seen, plantation journals are partially written.
Farm Forestry: Three spots under farm forestry were selected one in Indi Range Halgurki
2 Ha and Kotnal 1 in all spots Zizypus is planted under irrigated condition survival is
almost 100 % and good.
Bijapur Range
Sl Area in % of Latitude
Year Scheme Range Village Location Remarks
2005 N-160 48’ 37.0”

1 GUA Bijapur Bijapur Bijapur Town 12.00 90.22% Good
-06 E- 750 43’ 05.5”
Mamdapur-I N-160 33’ 15.5”

7.27% Poor
50 Ha E- 750 35’ 32.0”
2005 KSFM Mamdapur-II N-160 32’ 49.3”
2 Bijapur Mamdapur 200.00 14.3% V. Poor
-06 BC-01 50 Ha E- 750 36’ 7.1”
Mamdapur-III 25.5% N-160 33’ 13.2” Poor
100 Ha E- 750 36’ 24.8”
Kakhandki N-160 33’ 33.4”
7.01% Poor
35.00 Ha E- 750 37’ 3.2”
0
Madagunki N-16 32’ 56”
2005 KSFM 28.1% Poor
3 Bijapur Mamdapur 35.00 Ha 100.00 E- 750 35’ 12.6”
-06 BC-04
Failed
MRCP Block
-- -- (Submerge
30.00 Ha
d)
4 2006 NAP Bijapur Babanagar 50 7.50% N- 160 53’ 23.4”
-07 FDA - Babanagar E- 750 27’ 12.7” Poor
AR
2007 NAP Madbhavi-I N-160 51’ 13.7”
5 Bijapur Madbhavi 97 37.3% Poor
-08 FDA – 20.00 E-750 50’ 12.2 ”
155
AR N-160 51’ 14. 4”
Madbhavi-II
22.36% E - 750 50’ Poor
20.00
21.8”
Madbhavi-III N-160 50’ 42.6”
31.31% Poor
10.00 E-750 48’ 59.5”
Madbhavi IV N-160 51’ 10.3” Poor
26.35% E- 750 50’ 5.01”
10.00
Madbhavi-V N- 160 50’.45.1”
10.00
18.80% E-750 50’ 11.8” Poor
Madbhavi-VI N- 160 50’ 92” Average

67.13% E- 750 50’ 1.16”
17.00
Ittangihal –I N- 160 53’ 19.4” Average
20.00
28.75% E- 750 39’ 58.8”
NAP 50
2007 Ittangihal –II N- 160 53’ 21.2” Poor
6 FDA - Bijapur Ittangihal 16.97%
-08 20.00 E- 750 39’ 40.4”
AR
Ittangihal –III N- 160 53’ 29.5” Average
17.95%
10.00 E- 750 39’ 40.2”
Evaluation of Works in Bijapur (T) Range: In Bijapur Territorial Range the team
inspected and evaluated 6 Plantations, one under Urban Planting, 2 KSFMBC and 3 FDA
(NAP) Scheme.
The KSFMBC Plantation done in Model-1 at Mamdapur forest area (Madagunki
VFC) is totally 200 ha block. The block is further sub divided into 3 blocks of 50 Ha, 50 Ha,
and 100 Ha. The Model is for Ecological Restoration through Natural regeneration, the
interventions detailed in the estimate include CPT, seed dibbling in bushes & seed dibbling in
thalis.The protection measures are not effective. This Model is not suitable for the area. The
plantation is poor.
Similarly another plantation is KSFMBC, Model-4 i.e. fuel wood & small timber
production in Mamadapur forest area (Kakhandki VFC. The model has a mix of trenches to
be planted with 5*8 polybag seedlings and 60 cm3 pits @100/ha to be planted with 8*12
seedlings.The species planted are cassia,nilgiri ,bevu etc.The plantation is in a very poor
condition & one of the block (MRCP plot) has failed due to submergence as reported by
DCF.
In FDA, Babanagar plantation 50 ha is done by ripping & 5*8 seedlings of Nilgiri,
Cassia & Sissoo has been planted. It is reported that due to inadequate rains the survival is
less & plantation was not maintained. This plantation is very poor & existing seedlings are
just surviving.
Madhabhavi plantation which is totally 97 Ha is subdivided into VI Blocks. The soil
is highly refractory with practically no soil depth. The survival percentage about 32% the
general condition of plantation is very poor. The species planted are 5500 Nilgiri , Glyricidia
, Kassoda. The ripping in shallow & not served the purpose.The selection of species is also
not proper Anjan could have shown better results along with seedling in big contain like
Ficus & Bevoo in deep pits. The protection & involvement of VFCs is not satisfactory.
Ittangihal plantation of 2007-08 under FDA is totally 50 Ha, subdivided into 3
blocks. Ripping with 5*8 pbs seedlings planting of sisso, nilgiri, Cassia, Glyrcidia etc, the
seedlings are poor & it is only survival of existing seedlings. As in evident the site selection
& species of selection is not proper. Anjan would be more suitable for this agro climatic
zone.
Basavana Bagewadi Range
Area % of
Sl Latitude
Year Scheme Range Village Location in Survi Remarks
No Longitude
(ha) val
156
N-160 34’
90 % 40.6” E - 750
APMC 57’ 54.6”
Yard,
KSRTC,
2006- Basavana Basavana
1 GUA BCM 5.00 Good
07 Bagewadi Bagewadi
Hostel, N-160 34’ 21.
Vivekanand 40 % 6” E - 750
school 59’ 30.1”
Evaluation of Works in Basavana Bagewadi (T) Range : The team visited three locations
of the Greening of Urban area scheme plantation .Seedlings planted are tall and healthy. The
protection is by the boundary walls in the APMC yard and KSRTC depot and hence the
plantation is good.
Sindagi Range
% of
Sl Sche Area in Latitude
Year Range Village Survey No. Survi Remarks
No me (ha) Longitude
val
1 2006- FDF Sindagi Sindagi Devarhippargi
07 (OP) N-160 48’ 948” E-
Junior college 94 % Good
760 03’700”
(250 plnts)
Christ
N-160 48’ 681” E-
Compound 89 % Good
760 04’136”
(112)
Shadi Mahal 5.00 N-160 48’ 652” E-
40% Average
(25) 760 04’405”
Kondagal N-160 40’ 924” E-
88% Average
School (45) 760 12’334”
B.B.Ingalagi N-160 38’ 558” E-
81% Average
Hostel (55) 760 14’669”
Sindagi Court N-160 55’ 434” E- Good
90%
(21) 760 14’057”
2006- NAP Sindagi Ganiyar 20 Poor
29.75 N-160 57’ 460” E-
07 FDA - 147,148
% 760 12’ 4.48”
ANR
Evaluation of Works in Sindagi Range (T):

In Sindagi Range plantations raised in 2006-07 under GUA are selected and one block
plantation under FDA Nap 20 Ha 2006-07 selected evaluation.
Though some spots have been selected under public distribution during 2006-07 it
was informed that no public distribution of seedlings taken by during 2006-07 in ranges.
2006-07, GUA Plantation taken up in Sindagi Range in 4 spots totally 1159 Nos of
seedlings planted the Survival is 85-90 %. The plantation raised is good.
The plantation raised in FDA NAP at Ganiyar , 20 ha is having survival of about 30
%, as the soil is very poor the choice of species i.e., Jatropha, Honge, Cassia siamea, Nilgiri
is not suitable. Taller seedlings in bigger containers planted in pits with Ficus, Neem, Sirsal,
Anjan could have given good results, involvement of VFC in plantation & protection activity
not satisfactory.
BIJAPUR SOCIAL FORESTRY DIVISION,
RANGE WISE EVALUATION
Indi Range (SF)
157
Sl. Year Scheme Taluk Location Area in % of Latitude Longitude Remarks
No (ha/Km) Survival
2004- SGRY( Road Zalaki- N-170 16’ 118”

1 Indi 10.00 10% Poor
05 TP) Margur E- 750 48’380”
2004- Road Indi- N-170 06’ 268” E-

2 SGRY Indi 10.00 47.5% Average
05 Roogi 750 15’ 215”
Road
2005- SGRY( N-170 12’ 327”
3 Indi Gundvan- 5.5 80% Good
06 TP) E- 750 46’223”
Shiganapur
Road
2006- SGRY N-170 0’ 58” E-
4 Indi Kenginal- 5.00 40% Average
07 (TP) 750 59’ 327”
Tumba
Road
2006- SGRY( N-160 59’ 089”
5 Indi Atharga- 10.00 70% Good
07 TP) E- 750 57’193”
Thamba
Evaluation of Social Forestry Works in Indi SF Range:

Under Social Forestry 5 Road side plantations raised under SGRY (TP) were selected
in Indi Range 2004 raised 2 plantations, 2005 one plantation and 2006, 2 plantations were
Selected.
Among 2004 raised plantations selected Zalki-Margur Road side, 10 km (1000 Nos)
has 10% of survival existing bevu, average quality. In another 2004 raised Road side
plantation selected Roogi-Indi Road 10km (2000 Nos) Survival in 90-95 % (950 Nos) bevu
doing well.
Plantation Journals not produced.
The 2005 raised plantation selected on Gundavan –Shiganapur Road ,5.5 km ,1100
Nos seeding planted survival in 880 Nos (80%). Bevu doing well, plantation journal not
produced.
In 2006 Rains Road side plantation Thamba – Kanaganal Road 10km (1000 Nos)
selected survival is 40% (400 Nos). Bevu planted plantation is average. On Atharga –
Thamba Road 10km, 2006 plantation raised 2000 seeding of Bevu planted survival is 70%
Bevu doing well.
Farm Forestry Indi Range (SF) :
In Social Forestry Indi Range is all 19 spots under farm forestry were selected for
evaluation. However only two Spots in Babalad Village could be traced.
In both the plots Zizipus is planted under irrigated condition survival is 100 %.
Sindagi Range (SF)
Sl. Sche Taluk/ Area in % of Latitude
Year Location Remarks
No me Range (ha/ km) Survival Longitude
SGRY Babaleshwar- N-170 00’ 658”

1 2004-05 Sindagi 5.00 53.4% Average
(ZP) Madari E-760 15’ 207”
SGRY Road Almel- N-170 07’ 241”

2 2004-05 Sindagi 5.00 37% Average
(TP) Kadani E- 760 12’589”
Road
SGRY N-160 38’ 567”
3 2005-06 Sindagi B.B.Ingalagi- 5.00 40.5% Average
(TP) E- 760 14’664”
Ambalnur
Evaluation of Sindagi Social Forestry Plantations:
158
In Sindagi Social Forestry Range 3 Road side plantations 2 of 2004-05 and one of
2005-06 were selected for evaluation raised under SGRY (TP) and 4 spots under Farm Farm
Forestry were selected.
In 2004-05 on Bableshwar – Madari SGRY Road side 2004-05 ,1000 pits the survival
is 53% Bevu doing well. The condition of plantation is average. Almail –Kadami Road Side
5 km 1000 pits selected survival in 375 Nos (37.5%), the plantation is poor.
In 2005-06 B.B. Ingalgi- Ambalnur Road side Plantation (5km) 1000 pits raised under
SGRY was selected 400 Nos Bevu plants surviving 40% is survival, the plantation is average.
Farm Forestry Works in Sindagi Social Forestry Range:
Under distribution of Seedling 4 spots were identified in all farmers were not
available for contacting.
Seedling Planted ( 1815 Nos) are Teak, Karibevoo, & ZiZipus all the plantations are
grown under irrigated condition & Survival is 100% in 3 Spots & 80 % is One.
Bijapur Range (SF)

Area
Sl. Sche % of Latitude
Year Range Location in Remarks
No me Survival Longitude
(ha/Km)
Roadside N-160 39’ 59.2”

1 2004-05 SGRY Bijapur 5.00 48.2% Average
Yakkundi-Hokkundi E-750 32’ 07.4”
SGRY Road Shirnal- N-170 00’ 09.5”

2 2004-05 Bijapur 5.00 27% Poor
(ZP) Kannur E- 750 41’14.8”
SGRY N-160 49’ 97”

3 2006-07 Bijapur Women University. 2.00 30% Poor
(TP) E-750 38’ 44”
SGRY Road Mamdapur- N-160 34’ 04.7”

4 2005-06 Bijapur 5.00 84.8% V.Good
(TP) Kilaratti E- 750 35’26.5”
N-160 56’
SGRY Road NH 13 cross-
5 2006-07 Bijapur 4.50 95.5% 07.5” E- 750 Excellent
(ZP) Kannal LT
45’ 8.3”
Evaluation of Bijapur Social Forestry Plantations:

The team inspected & evaluated 5 plantations of Bijapur Social Forestry Range. All
were done in SGRY. Two road side plantations have been done in 2004-05, one in 2005-06 &
one road side & 1 Block plantation done in 2006-07.
2004-05 Yakkundi- Hokkundi & Shirnal to Kannur road side plantations both 5 km
each are average. Bevu is performing well. Casuality replacement has been done with arali
which is not performing as well as bevu.
Mamadapur to Kilarhatti 5 km road side plantation done in 2005-06 is a very good
plantation with Bevu as the only species. The plants are tall & well maintained. Similarly
2006-07 NH-13 cross to Kannal L-T 4.5 km road side plantation is an excellent plantation
with tall & well maintained Bevu plants.
However the block plantation at Women University is poor perhaps due to lack of
protection and soil is also poor. Only Honge is surviving.
Basavana Bagewadi Range (SF)
Sl. Year Scheme Range Location Area % of Latitude Longitude Remarks
No in (ha/ Survival
km)
159
SGRY Managoli- 5.00 N-160 42’ 00.7” E-
1 2004-05 B.Bagewadi 43% Average
(ZP) Ukkali km 750 51’ 08.8”
SGRY( Hangaragi- 5.00 N-160 28’ 321” E-

2 2005-06 B.Bagevadi 78.3%
TP) Unnibavi km 750 57’184” Good
SGRY K.Salwadagi- 5.00 N-160 37’ 210” E-

3 2006-07 B.Bagewadi 83% Average
(TP) Somanal km 760 06’ 190”
Flood N-160 31’ 902” E-

2006-07 B.Bagevadi Muttige block 9.9 0% Failed
relief 750 52’ 304”
Evaluation of Bagewadi Social Forestry Range:

In Bagewadi Social Forestry Range 3 Road side plantations raised under SJRY (TP)
and block plantation under Scarcity (Flood Relief) were selected for evaluation.
Among Road side one plantation is 2004 rains Managuly- Ukkali Road 10 km (1000
pits). 430 Nos of Bevu Surviving 43 % survival, condition of plantation is average.
Plantation journal is partially written.
Hangarki- Unnibhavi Road Side plantations is 5 km (1000 pits) raised in 2005 rains
survival is 78% ,Bevu is doing well. Plantation journal is partially written.
In 2006 raise K. Salwadagi – Somnal Road side 5 km in selected (1000 pits) 830 Nos
of Bevoo Seedlings found surviving not promising as area is infested with Prosopis juliflora
which is suppressing the growth.
In the Muttagi block plantation (9.9 Ha) only 992 seedlings are shown in 3968
Trenches excavated as planted and none are surviving it is not surviving any perpose
protection is poor survival 0%. It is neither a plantation nor a soil & moisture conservation
activity.
Mudde Bihal Range (SF)
Sl. Year Scheme Range Location Area % of Latitude Remarks
No in(ha/ Survi Longitude
km) val
2004- Muddebiha N-160 15’ 01.6”

1 SGRY Handral-Muddebihal 22.00 35% Good
05 l E-760 11’ 48.6”
2004- SGRY(Z Muddebiha N-160 15’ 26.0”

2 Nalatwad-Areshankar 5.00 30.9% Poor
05 P) l E-760 18’ 41.9”
b) ALBC (Canal)
40km to 45km left
side 5 km,
40km to 45kms right
2004- SGRY(T N-160 14’ 42.7”
3 Mudebihal side 5km, 20.00 26% Poor
05 P) E- 760 11’11.8”
45 km to 50 kms left
side 5 km,
45km to 50 km right
side 5km.
2005- SGRY(T Nagarabetta- 23.36 N-160 16’ 00.9”

4 Mudebihal 6.25
06 P) Chivanabavi % E- 760 19’37.4” Poor
N-160 18’
2006- SGRY(T
5 Mudebihal Nalatwad-Jainapur 5.00 26.1% 01.04” E-760 Poor
07 P)
30’51.1”
Evaluation Muddebihal Social Forestry Range:
160
The team inspected the road side plantations of the Social Forestry Range of
Muddebihal.
Handral to Muddebihal roadside, Nalatwad-Areshankar and ALBC Canal side
Plantations are done in 2004-05, one in 2005-06 & another one in 2006-07. All have been
done under SGRY scheme.
In all the plantations Bevu has performed best but the problem is poor protection and
poor maintenance in these roadside plantations. Plantation journals were not produced only
expenditure pages Xerox copies attached with forms.
The ALBC Canal side plantation is good in few stretches. The Canal side plantation
has been done in the soil that has been excavated for the canal formation & the soil being
comparatively loose has given better results. However in between heavy infestation of
Prosopis juliflora can be seen on the canal side.
Ghataprabha Forest Division, Gokak

ABSTRACT :
Evaluation of afforestation works and concerned SMC works and also other works
executed in division were carried out by adopting the procedure prescribed. Division officials
laid out the sample plots and provided the relevant records and documents. Local officials
accompanied the Evaluation Team.
In Ghataprabha Division, totally 25 plantations covering 823.50 Ha. were evaluated.
APO, Estimates plantations Journals and FNBs were scrutinized and copies obtained.
Plantations have been raised by utilizing the seedlings grown in the departmental
nurseries.
As observed in the field, Eucalyptus and Acacia and Anjan are showing promising
results in the block plantations. Miscellaneous species like, Bevu, Hulgal, Tapasi, Sitaphala,
etc. are performing well in better soil conditions. Nelli and Jatropa planted in some of the
patches do not seem to have the future. The block plantations in Gokak and Saundatti Ranges
are very promising. The plantations raised in black cotton soil areas of Athani, Raibag and
Chikkodi Ranges require better maintenance and improved planting techniques.
The road side plantations carried out are of good quality with tall seedlings and
species like predominately Bevu & Honge with better maintenance and watering during dry
spell. The road side results are encouraging by and large.
The overall protection status in Ghataprabha Division is quite satisfactory. Presently
the plantations are maintained only up to 3 years. Considering the refractive area the
maintenance period if extended up to 5 years would enhance the quality of plantations.
Abstract Particulars of Evaluation - Gokak Division
2004-05 to 2006-07 (FDA 2007-08)
Sl Range No of Extent Survival Species
No Plantations Has Per Cent
1 Gokak 6 287.50 84.04 Hulugal, Eucalyptus, Anjana, etc.
2 Saundatti 6 192.00 71.28 Eucalyptus, Honge, Sirsal etc.
3 Ramdurg 6 164.00 74.44 Eucalyptus, Hulugal, Bevu, etc.
4 Raibag 4 120.00 58.58 Sirsal, Sisu, Bore, Nerale, Muttuga, Hulugal, etc.
5 Athani 1 20.00 50.00 Honge, Nilgiri, Jatropa, Seemetangadi,
6 Chikkodi 2 40.00 67.50 Eucalyptus, Surishal, Rain tree, Hunse, etc.
TOTAL 25 823.50
161
Evaluation of works carried out in Plan, Non-plan for 2004-05 to 2006-07 and NAP-
FDA upto 2007-08 in the following 6 Ranges as below.
10. Gokak Range
11. Saundatti Range
12. Ramdurg Range
13. Raibag Range
14. Athani Range
15. Chikkodi Range
The list of works identified for evaluation in each of the Ranges is furnished under
each Range discussion.
The findings of the evaluation and the observations are furnished range wise briefly
• SMC Works
• Other works
• Effectiveness of VFCs
• Supervision
• General Observations, if any.
I. GOKAK RANGE
The number of plantations selected for the evaluation in this range were 6 with an
area of 287.5 ha. The survival percentage in the sample plots ranges from 64 to 96.
However, the weighted survival percentage across the plantations was 84.04.
Sl. Survival
No. Ha. val
X Ha.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 2004-05 FDF OP Khanagao Nilgiri, Acacia, Cashew, Honge, 30.00 96.00 2880.00
Fsy No.735, Somarida
736
2 2004-05 FDA AR Khanagao Eucalyptus, Anjana, Shishu, Bore, 50.00 97.62 4881.00
Fsy No.755, Bevu, Hulugulu, Ala
763
3 2005-06 KSFMBC Jamnal Neem, Hunse, Hulugulu 150.00 --- ---
Model – 1
4 2006-07 Greening of Gokak Town Bevu, Badam, Hulugulu, Boralu 2.5 64.00 160.00
Urban Area
5 2005-06 FDA AR Konnur Eucalyptus, Anjana, Hulugulu, 30.00 70.00 2100.00
6 2006-07 FDA AR Khangaon Eucalyptus, Anjana, Ageva, 25.00 83.40 2085.00
Total: 287.5 411.02 12106.00
137.50
As could be seen from the above statement the average survival percentage of the evaluated
plantations is 84. The best percentage of 97.62 is found in FDA plantation of Khangao which
162
consists of Eucalyptus, Anjana, Shishu, Bore, Bevu, Hulugulu, Ala etc. As seen in the
plantation the most suitable species for the locality is Anjana (Hardwikia binata).
As highlighted above the most suitable species for the locality is no doubt Anjan.
However, other miscellaneous species like Bevu, Hulugal are also doing well. Acacia &
Eucalyptus have also been planted extensively in almost all the plantations. Some of the
refractory areas are also treated with Agave, which is also found suitable due to shallow soil.
In most of the plantations, the protection has been with barbed wire fencing and also
cattle proof trench. Protection is generally satisfactory. The protection and soil working has
certainly enhanced the growth of the natural species. Overall the protection aspect is quite
satisfactory in the Range.
4. SMC Works
Various SMC works like construction of Earthen Dam, Percolation tank, Check dams,
Gully checks have been carried out in almost all the plantation areas. This has definitely
enhanced the growth of planted and the natural species. As could be seen from the statement
below one of the SMC work carried is construction of Earthen Dam in Konnur village of
Gokak Taluk constructed under CRF scheme worth Rs.10.00 lakhs. As verified at the spot
the catchment for this Earthen Dam is not sufficient enough to feed the considerable bigger
structure. This work could have been planned appropriately considering the total rainfall and
the extent of catchment area instead of going in for a bigger structure as executed. But for this
all other SMC works are found to very useful and satisfactory.
Sl. Surv Sanc- Remarks
Year of
No. Taluk Hobli Village ey Scheme Work tioned (Name of
Sanction
Nos. Cost (Rs.) the VFCs)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 2004-05 Gokak Kadabgatti Kadabgatti 291, FDA – Construction 47600 Kadabgatti
292 EPA of gully
Checks
2 2004-05 Gokak Maradimath Konnur 664, FDA – Construction 103000 Maradimath
665 AR of Check
Dam
3 2004-05 Gokak Shiltibhanvi Shiltibhanvi FS FDA – Construction 172740 Shiltibhanvi
No.5 ANR of Earthen
0 Percolation
Tank
4 2005-06 Gokak Maradimath Konnur 679, CRF Construction 1000000 Maradimath
680 of Earthen
Dam
5 2006-07 Gokak Jammnal Jamnal 71 KSFMB Improvement 75500.00 Jamnal

C SMC of Check dam
6 2007-08 Gokak Gada Gada - FDA Construction 250000.00 Gada
EPA of
Community
Hall
7 2006-07 Gokak Khangaon Gada 755, FDA Construction 150000.00 Khangaon
763 SMC of Gully
Checks
8 2006-07 Gokak Midaknatti Midaknatti - FDA Purchase of 89000.00 Midaknatti
EPA 7.5 KV
Kirloskar
Generator
163
Mainly Eucalyptus and Teak seedlings were distributed to the farmers. Out of four
farmers selected for evaluation the survival is 0% in three cases and it is around 60% in case
of one farmer by name Sri.Sangappa. Ningappa Teli, of Vodaratti Village. This is due to
flooding of the area planted and also negligence on the part of the farmer.
Sl. No. Year Hobli Village Number of seedlings Survival
1 2006-07 Sundholi Sundholi 950 0%
2 2006-07 Tukanatti Tukanatti (Kalloli) 36 0%
3 2006-07 Konnur Konnur 1537 0%
4 2006-07 Vadaratti Vadaratti 380 60%
6. Effectiveness of VFC’s
The involvement of village forest communities is quite considerable and effective in
some of the areas like Maradimut, Gada, Midaknatti, etc.
8. Supervision
Plantation journals are updated, however remarks of ACF and DCF need to be
entered.
As observed from the field miscellaneous species like Anjana, Bevu, Hulgal, and
Zezyphus are performing well. Eucalyptus and Acacia are also no doubt doing well due to
their hardy nature. Presently the plantations are maintained only up to 3 years. Considering
the refractive area the maintenance period if extended up to 5 years would enhance the
quality of plantations.
II. SAUNDATTI RANGE
area of 192.00 ha. The survival percentage in the sample plots ranges from 54.89 to 95.00.
The average percentage across all the plantations was 71.28.
Sl. Survival
Area Survi
Ha. val
X Ha.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 2004-05 KFDF-OP Karlakatti Ecyluptus, Cashew, 50.00 54.89 2744.50
Somangudi Anjana, Hunase,
Srirangapur Honge,
Fsy No.41-43 9/181
2 2004-05 FDA AR Aladakatti KY Ecyluptus 30.00 71..60 2148.00
Fsy No.42-43
3 2005-06 02 Hire Budanur Fsy Ecyluptus, Honge, 25.00 69.60 1740.00
Compensatory No.373 P Tapasi, Anjana,
afforestation Sitafala, Jatropa
4 2006-07 FDA – ANR Muragod Neem, Honge, Tapasi, 27.00 63.85 1723.85
Fsy No.517 Sirsal,
5 2006-07 KSHIP Yaragatti to Gokak Hulugulu, Ficus, 10.00 95.00 950.00
Tq. Boundary, Tapasi, Tamarind,
Neem, Others
6 2006-07 FDA – MP Katamalli Eucalyptus, Tapasi, 50.00 87.62 4381.00
Fsy No.54, 56 Hulugulu, Anjana,
Neem, Sirsal
Total: 192.00 442.56 13687.45
164
192.00
plantations is 71.28. The best percentage of 95.% is found in KSHIP Road side plantation of
Yaragatti to Gokak Taluk Boundary, which consists of Hulgal, Ficus, Tapasi, Tamarind,
Neem, etc. And the least percentage of 54.89 is found in KFDF-OP Plantation of Karlakatti
though the survival percentage in this plantation is low, the existing plants of Eucalyptus,
Anjan, Cashew Hunse, Hulgal have established very well.
As highlighted above the most suitable species for the locality is no doubt Anjan.
However, other miscellaneous species like Bevu, Hulugal, Hunse including Cashew are also
doing well. Acacia & Eucalyptus have also been planted extensively in almost all the
plantations. In Karalkatti Plantation which is an encroachment evicted area Hunse is doing
remarkably well. Eucalyptus has attained up to 5 meters hight in areas like in Karalkatti,
Aladakatti, and Katamalli Plantations. Some of the refractory areas are also treated with
Agave, which is also found suitable due to shallow soil.
In most of the plantations, the protection has been under taken with barbed wire
fencing and also cattle proof trench. Protection is generally satisfactory in almost all the
areas. Thus, the protection and other soil and moisture conservation measures have certainly
enhanced the growth of the natural species as well. Overall the protection aspect is quite
satisfactory in the Range.
4. SMC Works
Various SMC works like construction of Earthen Dam, Retaining wall, and Gully
checks have been carried out in almost all the plantation areas. This has definitely enhanced
the growth of planted and the natural species. As could be seen from the statement below one
of the SMC work carried is construction of Retaining wall in Subbapur village of Saundatti
Taluk constructed under FDA scheme worth Rs.1.40 lakhs. As verified at the spot this work
has definitely benefited the villagers of Subbapur. But for this work the flood water flowing
down the hill would have damaged the houses of this village.
Sanc- Remarks
Sl. Surv
Year of tioned (Name of
No. Taluk Hobli Village ey Scheme Work
Sanction Cost the
Nos.
(Rs.) VFCs)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 2004-05 Saundatti Munavalli Aladakatti 42,43 FDA – Construction of 88,686 Munavalli
KY AR Earthen dam
2 2007-08 Saundatti Murgod Subbapur 521 FDA – Construction of 140000 Murgod
ANR – Water
EPA retaining wall
and Gully
Checks
Mainly the seedlings are supplied to M/s.Renuka Sugar Mills, Located in Munavalli
Village for planting in their premises. Various varieties of Seedlings like Acacia, Eucalyptus,
Teak, and other shade and flowering plants are planted in the dumping yards, on waste lands
and all along the roads in the premises. The survival percentage is very good due to the fact
that the planted seedlings are taken care by regular watering and providing watch and ward.
Thus, the survival percentage is more than 90%.
Sl. Year Hobli Village Location Number of
165
No. seedlings
1 2005-06 Munavalli Munavalli Renuka Sugar Mills Premises 24646
2 2005-06 Saundatti Hanchinala Hanchinala Village 633
3 2006-07 Munavalli Munavalli Renuka Sugar Mills Premises 6722
6. Effectiveness of VFCs: The involvement of village forest communities is quite

considerable and effective in areas like Munavalli, and Subbapura VFC’s. The retaining wall
constructed in Subbapura Village is being maintained by the VFC members. The length of
retaining wall is 110 meters.
location maps and polygon maps on topo sheets. As noticed in the plantation journals
observations of higher officers are not recorded.
8. Supervision
Plantation journals are updated by the Range Forest Officers, however remarks of
ACF and DCF need to be entered. The overall supervision on the part of subordinate staff
including RFO and ACF is satisfactory.
As observed from the field miscellaneous species like, Bevu, Hulgal, Tapasi, Anjana,
Sitafala, etc. are doing well. Jatropa planted in some of the patches is struggling to survive
Eucalyptus and Acacia are also no doubt doing well due to their hardy nature. Presently the
plantations are maintained only up to 3 years. Considering the refractive area the maintenance
period if extended up to 5 years would enhance the quality of plantations.
III. RAMDURG RANGE
The number of plantations selected for the evaluation in this Range were 6 with an
area of 164 ha. The survival percentage in the sample plots ranges from 60 to 100. The over
all survival percentage across the range was 74.44.
Sl. Survi
Area Survi
No. Year Scheme Location/Sy. No. Species val %
Ha. val
X Ha.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 2004-05 13 – Narasapura Eucalyptus, Casoda, Hulugulu, 20.00 100.00 2000.0
Compensatory Fsy. No.181,191, Bevu, Nelli, Tapase, Hunse, 0
afforestation 192 Mavu
2 2004-05 FDA – ANR Chilmur, Eucalyptus, Sitafala, Bevu, 20.00 79.20 1584.0
Fsy No.140 Tapasi, Hulugulu, 0
3 2004-05 FDA – AR Hanumapur Eucalyptus, Anjana, Hulugulu, 50.00 63.60 3180.0
Fsy No.9 Bamboo, Tapasi 0
4 2005-06 KSHIP Sollapur Cross to Bevu 6.00 90.00 540.00
Yaragatti Road
5 2005-06 FDA – ANR Mudakavi F.S. Anjana, Bevu, Hulugulu, Tapasi, 50.00 76.50 3825.0
No.103, 107 Zatropa 0
6 2006-07 KSHIP Panchagaon Cross Bevu, Honge, Tapasi, Sirsal 18.00 60.00 1080.0
to Yaragatti Road Kms. 0
Total: 164.00 469.30 12209
166
Total survival percentage = 12209 = 74.44 %
164
plantations is 74.44. The best percentage of 100% is found in Compensatory Plantation of
Narasapura, wherein species like Eucalyptus, Casoda, Hulugulu, Bevu, Nelli, Tapase, Hunse,
Mavu are planted. Whereas the least percentage of 60 is found in KSHIP Roadside
Plantation of Panchagaon Cross to Yaragatti Road. Out of all the species planted Honge is
doing very well.
As usual Acacia and Eucalyptus are doing very well wherever they are planted. In
Narasapura & Mudakavi plantation Hulugal and Tapasi along with Bevu are doing very well.
In KSHIP road side plantations Hulugal, Tapasi and Sirsal have established very well
wherever protection and after care is provided. Anjan and Nelli are struggling to establish in
most of the areas.
fencing and also cattle proof trench. Protection is generally satisfactory in most of the areas.
Thus, the protection and other soil and moisture conservation measures have certainly
enhanced the growth of the natural species as well. The protection aspect of road side
plantations is not very satisfactory, hence heavy causality is found in Panchagaon cross road.
4. SMC Works
The SMC works included barbed wire fencing and fire line tracing to the Mudakavi
plantation and construction gully checks in KSFMBC plantation of Khanpet. It is observed
that the SMC works carried out are not commence rate with the requirement of the locality in
terms of quantity. Except Gully checks no other SMC works are found in the area.
Sanc- Remarks
Sl.
Year of Survey tioned (Name of
Sanction Nos. Cost the
(Rs.) VFCs)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 2005-06 Ramdurg Mudakavi Mudakavi 103, FDA – Barbed Wire 340800 Mudakavi
107 AR Fencing
2 2006-07 Ramdurg Katkol Khanpeth 285 KSFMBC Construction 68900 Katkol
M -2 of Gully
checks
3 2006-07 Ramdurg Mudakavi Kallapur 72 KSFMBC Fire line 138000 Mudakavi
M -1 cutting
Mostly Eucalyptus and Teak seedlings are supposed to have been distributed to the
farmers as per the statement provided here under. However, details of farmers were not
provided during the field visits. Hence, the same could not be verified.
1 2006-07 Sureban Sureban 125
2 2006-07 Katkol Sullikere 400
3 2006-07 Ramdurga Hlagatti 207
The plantation journals have not been updated fully. It has been suggested to update
all the entries and to include location maps and polygon maps on topo sheets. As noticed in
the plantation journals observations of higher officers are also not recorded.
7. Supervision
167
Plantation journals are updated by the Range Forest Officers only in few cases.
However remarks of ACF and DCF need to be entered. The overall supervision on the part of
subordinate staff including RFO and ACF is satisfactory.
As observed in the field, Eucalyptus and Acacia are only showing promising results in
the block plantations. Miscellaneous species like, Bevu, Hulgal, Tapasi, Sitafala, etc. are
struggling to establish. Nelli, Jatropa and Anjan planted in some of the patches do not seem
to have the future. Presently the plantations are maintained only up to 3 years. Considering
the refractive area the maintenance period if extended up to 5 years would enhance the
quality of plantations.
IV. RAIBHAG RANGE

The number of plantations selected for the evaluation in this Range were 4 with an
area of 120 ha. The survival percentage in the sample plots ranges from 51.16 to 71.50. The
over all survival percentage across the range was 58.58. Out of 4 plantations selected for
Evaluation 3 are raised under FDA and one in KSFMBC.
Sl.
Area Survi Survival %
No. Year Scheme Location/Sy. No. Species
Ha. val X Ha.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 2004-05 FDA AR Nagarala Sirsal, Sisu, Bore, 20.00 73.50 1470.00
102, 103, 104, 94 Nilagiri, Nelli,
Hulugulu
2 2004-05 FDA MP Shahapur Sirsal, Sisu, Anjana, 50.00 54.70 2735.00
374, 375, 379, Nilagiri, Nelli,
380, 381, Hulugulu, Muttuga,
Cashwad
3 2004-05 FDA – MP Bastwada Sirsal, Sisu, Bevu, 20.00 64.50 1290.00
162, 163, 169 Nilagiri, Muttuga,
Anjana
4 2006-07 KSFMBC B.Soudatti Nilgiri, Sisu, Jatropa, 30.00 51.16 1534.80
Model – IV 190, 191, 192 Seetafala, Honge, Bevu,
Anjana, Sisu (Pit)
Total: 120.00 243.86 7029.80
120.00
plantations is 58.58. The best percentage of 73.50% is found in FDA Plantation of Nagarala,
wherein species like Sirsal, Sisu, Bore, Nilagiri, Nelli, Hulugulu are planted. Whereas the
least percentage of 51.16 is found in KSMBCP Plantation of B. Soudatti.
Due to severe dry spell during summer months and the heavy black cotton soil, the
miscellaneous species like Sirsal, Sisu, Bore, Hulugal etc. take lot of time to get established.
Hence as could be seen from the field such of the species which are planted here are
struggling. Though the survival seems to be fairly good, the height of the seedlings is still
moderate. As usual Acacia & Niligiri are doing well. Jatropa and Sitaphala do not seem to
have future.
fencing and also cattle proof trench. Protection is generally satisfactory in most of the areas.
168
Thus, the protection and other Soil and Moisture Conservation measures have certainly
enhanced the growth of the natural species as well.
4. SMC Works
Various SMC works like construction of Percolation tank, Check dams, Gully checks,
have been carried out in almost all the plantations. Other works included Raising of Pbs,
Extraction of timber, poles and firewood and Barbed wire fencing. The entry point activity
under FDA is carried out in form of supplying Grain Separator to the villagers of Byakude
village.
Year Sanc-
Sl. Remarks
of Survey tioned
No. Taluk Hobli Village Scheme Work (Name of
Sancti Nos. Cost
the VFCs)
on (Rs.)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 2006- Raibhag Raibhag B.Soudatti 67,68,73,18 KSFMB Providing 255000 Raibhag
07 4,190, 191, C M-IV Barbed wire
192 fencing to 06
plantation
2 2006- Raibhag Raibhag Raibhag 584, 586, KSFMB Construction of 146400 Raibhag
07 589, 605 C M-IV Gully Checks
3 2006- Raibhag Raibhag Raibhag KSFMB Raising of 5x8 108000 Raibhag
07 C M-IV size 72,000 PBs
4 2005- Raibhag Raibhag Raibhag 580, 588B, 01 – Extraction of 340607 Raibhag
06 643C, 612, Timber Timber, Poles
605, 608, and Fire wood
615, 05-06
5 2004- Raibhag Raibhag Shahu 374, 375, FDA – Construction of 110000 Raibhag
05 Park 379, 380, MP Percolation
381 Tank 04-05
6 2004- Raibhag Raibhag Shahu 374, 375, FDA – Providing 163000 Raibhag
05 Park 379 MP Barbed wire
Fencing to 04-
05 Plantation
7 2007- Raibhag Raibhag Byakude 239, 242, FDA Purchase of 60000 Raibhag
08 243, 251, Grain Separator
252
8 2007- Raibhag Raibhag Byakude 239, 242, FDA Construction of 62500 Raibhag
08 243, 251, Gully Checks
252
In almost all the farmers land selected for evaluation only Eucalyptus demanded and
supplied the survival percentage is around 80% in almost all the areas. The farmers very
keen to take up more planting in their drier farm lands.
1 2006-07 Raibhag Chinchali 53
2 2006-07 Raibhag Kudchi 16
3 2006-07 Raibhag Kudchi 11
4 2006-07 Raibhag Kadapur 20
5 2006-07 Raibhag Raibhag 40
6 2006-07 Raibhag Chinchali 24
The plantation journals have not been updated fully. It has been suggested to update
all the entries and to include location maps and polygon maps on topo sheets. As noticed in
the plantation journals observations of higher officers are also not recorded.
7. Supervision
169
Plantation journals are updated by the Range Forest Officers only in few cases.
However remarks of ACF and DCF need to be entered. The overall supervision on the part of
subordinate staff including RFO and ACF is satisfactory.
As most of the plantations are raised in FDA the maintenance and after care has been
neglected due to limited provisions and belated releases of funds. As observed in the field,
Eucalyptus and Acacia are only showing promising results in the block plantations.
Miscellaneous species like, Bevu, Hulgal, Tapasi, Sitafala, etc. are struggling to establish.
Nelli, Jatropa and Anjan planted in some of the patches do not seem to have the future.
Presently the plantations are maintained only up to 3 years. Considering the refractive area
the maintenance period if extended up to 5 years would enhance the quality of plantations.
V. ATHANI RANGE
Only one plantation was selected for evaluation in Atani Range. This plantation is
raised under DDF scheme in Badagi Village to an extent of 20 ha. The survival percentage in
the plantation is 50%.
Sl. Surviv
No. Year Scheme Species al %
No. Ha. val
X Ha.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 2005-06 DDF Badagi 55 Honge, Nilgiri, Jatropa, Seemetangadi, 20.00 50.00 1000.00
Total: 20.00 50.00 1000.00

20.00
Almost all the species like Honge, Eucalyptus, Casoda, and Jatropa, are struggling to
establish.
species.
4. SMC Works
The SMC works selected for evaluation included construction of percolation tank at
Telsang which was executed under JBIC Model – II. This is an ideal SMC work which has
been appreciated by the local VFC members of Telsang VFC.
Remarks
Sl. Sanc-
Year of Survey (Name of
No. Taluk Hobli Village Scheme Work tioned
Sanction Nos. the
Cost (Rs.)
VFCs)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 2004-05 Athani Telsang Telsang 767 JBIC Construction 175000.00 Telsang
Model of Earthen
– II Percolation
Tank
Teak, Casuarina and Eucalyptus seedlings are distributed to the farmers planted by the
farmer. Casuarina is doing well survival percentage is 40%. Protection is poor. Browsing
by animals noticed.
Sl. No. Year Hobli Village Number of
170
seedlings
1 2005-06 Telsang Desaratti (Krishna Sugar works) 1076
2 2006-07 Telsang Kottalagi 200
Plantation journal has been up dated by the RFO. However, entries of other officers
is lacking
7. Supervision
Supervision is average.
The Only plantation selected is DDF plantation raised during 2005-06 in Badagi
Village. Though miscellaneous species planted supervision is lacking. Hence survival is
very poor.
VI. CHIKKODI RANGE

The number of plantations selected for the evaluation in this range were 2 with an area of 40
ha. The survival percentage in the sample plots ranges from 40 to 95. The over all survival
percentage across the range was 67.50.
Sl. Year Scheme Location/Sy. Species Area Surviv Survival

No. No. Ha. al %
X Ha.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 2005-06 KSHIP Sankeshwar to Bevu, Arali, May 20.00 95.00 1900.00
Yargatti Road flower, Hulugula,
Peltoform, Ala,
Suirshal, Rain tree,
Sishu, Hunse, Aakasha
mallige
2 2006-07 DDF Pattankudi Eucalyptus, Honge 20.00 40.00 800.00
268, 269
Total: 40.00 135.00 2700.00

40.00
Both Eucalyptus and Honge, are struggling to establish in Pattankudi plantation.
Eucalyptus is found inflected with Gall Disease. Porcupine damage is also noticed in
pattankudi plantation. The road side plantation raised under KSHIP on Sankeshwar to
Yargatti Road to an extent of 20 ha. is doing very well. The survival percentage is almost
95%. Gulmore and Bevu have attained a height of 2.5 to 3.0 meters.
The road side plantation Sankeshwar to Yargatti road has been taken care by means of
proper protection and maintenance.
171
Plantation journals have not been fully up dated. Observations of inspection officers
are also not forth coming.
5. Supervision
The Road side plantation raised under KSHIP is properly supervised and hence, the
results are there to be seen.
As in case of road side plantation the block plantation is not taken care. The height of
the plants in block plantation Pattankudi is hardly 2 feet. The root stock is slowly getting
established due to partial plantation. The road side plantation is doing extremely well.
.
Belgaum Social Forestry Division.
ABSTRACT :
Evaluation of afforestation works and other works executed in division were carried
out by adopting the procedure prescribed. Division officials laid out the sample plots and
provided the relevant records and documents. Local officials accompanied the Evaluation
Team.
In Belgaum SF Division 50 plantations covering 220.24 Ha. have been evaluated.
The plantation maintenance did not receive required attention, many a times due to lack of
fund availability from the ZP. Generally survival percentage in many locations are not
satisfactory.
Further plantations whether roadside or block are tackled in smaller extents. This
makes it difficult logistically to maintain and protect the plantations. Absence of lower level
field staff has also contributed to the situation. Many a times plantation records were also not
in place.
Abstract Particulars of Evaluation SF Belgaum Division 2004-05 to 2006-07
Sl. Range No. of Extent Has Survival Species
No Planta-tions Per Cent
1 Bhailhongal 3 15.00 48.00 Acacia, Hulugal, Ala etc.
2 Chikkodi 4 18.00 64.97 Ala, Arali, Tapasi, Hulugula etc.

3 Gokak 7 46.63 78.63 Honge, Gulmoruh, Peltaforum etc.
4 Hukkeri 7 47.60 79.65 Honge, Neem, Eucalyptus, Ashoka etc.
5 Khanpur 11 14.00 72.31 Hulgal, Gulmohar, Peltoforum, Hulugal
etc.
6 Raibag 5 38.46 50.54 Bevu, Honge, Tapasi etc.
7 Ramdurga 8 23.32 55.48 Hulugulu, Bevu, Ala, Arale, Bevu etc
8 Saundatti 5 17.73 71.00 Bevu, Honge, Tapasi, Sirsal etc.
9 Belgaum -- -- -- --
TOTAL 50 220.24 --

Evaluation of works carried out in Plan, Non-Plan and Other District Sector Schemes
in the following Ranges of Belgaum Social Forestry Division for the works carried out from
2004-05 to 2006-07.
16. Bhailhongal SF Range
17. Chikkodi SF Range
18. Gokak SF Range
172
19. Hukkeri SF Range.
20. Khanapur SF Range
21. Raibag SF Range.
22. Ramdurga SF Range.
23. Saundatti SF Range
24. Belgaum SF Range
The list of works selected for evaluation in each of the Ranges is furnished under the
respective Range discussions.
The findings of the evaluation and the observations are furnished range wise briefly
• Other works
• Supervision
• General Observations.
I. BAILHONGAL SF RANGE
The number of plantations selected for the evaluation in this range were 3 with 15 ha.
The survival percentage in the sample plots ranges from 10 to 95. However, the weighted
survival percentage across the plantations was 48.00.
Sl. Survival
Area
Ha.
X Ha.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 2004-05 SGRY – TP Bailahongal Ayurvedic Hulugulu, Nelli, Ala, 5.00 95.00 495.00
College / Kannada Hunase
Convent Bailhongal
2 2005-06 SGRY – TP Navodaya School Acacia, Nilagiri 5.00 10.00 50.00
Bailahongal
3 2006-07 SGRY – TP Jakkanayakana Koppa Hulugul, Arali, Ala, 5.00 35.00 175.00
to Honnekeri Tapasi, Basari,
Hunase, Sankeshwar,
Beete
Total: 15.00 140.00 720.00
15.00
All the above plantations consists of species like Acacia, Hulugulu, Nilagiri, Nelli, Ala,
Tapasi, Basari, Hunase etc. with an exception of road side plantation wherein species like
Sankeshwar, and Beete are planted.
The performance of Hulugal is fairly well in almost all the areas. Ficus species like
Ala, Arli, and Basari are doing well on Road side plantation of Jakkanayanakana koppa to
Honnekeri.
173
Due to rigid protection provided in the premises of Bailahongal Ayurvedic College /
Kannada Convent Bailhongal, Ficus species including Hunse, Hulgal, are doing very well.
The future of road side plantation is very bleak.
This is one aspect which has not been taken care by the staff. None of the records like
plantation journals etc. were provided during the course of evaluation.
5. Supervision
Absolutely no supervision as evident from on seeing the existing status of the
plantations.
Almost all the plantations raised under district sector schemes are allowed to fend for
themselves, which is not a desirable situation.
II. CHIKKODI SF RANGE

The number of plantations selected for the evaluation in this range were 4 with 18 ha.
of area. The survival percentage in the sample plots ranges from 54 to 70. However, the
weighted survival percentage across the plantations was 64.97.
Sl. Survival
No. Ha. val
X Ha.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 2004-05 SGRY TP Chikkodi City Ala, Arali, Tapasi, 0.50 54 27
Hulugula & Sirsal
2 2005-06 SGRY TP Nagaramuna- Ala, Arali, Tapasi, 4.50 55 247.5
valli to Hulugula & Sirsal Kms.
Kabbur Road
3 2006-07 SGRY TP Tornalli Block Casoda, Jatropa, Bamboo, 10.00 70 700
FS-167 Hulugula, Nilgiri
(Gross area
20.5 Ha.)
4 2006-07 SGRY TP Bambalwad to Ala, Arali, Tapasi, 3.00 65 195
Bennihalli Hulugula & Sirsal Kms.
Road
Total: 18 244 1169.5
Total survival percentage = 1169.5 =64.97%
18
Except Tornalli Block Plantation which consist of miscellaneous species like Casoda,
Bamboo, Hulgal, Nilgiri, etc. rest of the three plantations are either road side are Urban
plantations. The species planted are Ala, Arali, Tapasi, Sirsal etc.
Eucalyptus and Hulgal planted in Tornalli Block Plantation are faring well. Jatropa
and Bamboo are struggling to establish. The Ficus species planted in the city and on road
side are fairly doing well.
174
As these plantations are raised under district sectors scheme like SGRY-TP releases
of funds are not in time, thus the protection aspects hampered.
5. Supervision
Absolutely no supervision as evident from the existing status of the plantations.
themselves, due to belated releases and lack of funds.
III. GOKAK SF RANGE
area of 46.63 ha. The survival percentage in the sample plots ranges from 30 to 97.
Sl. Survival
Area
Ha.
X Ha.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 2004-05 SGRY TP Pamaldinni H & Hunse, Honge, 7 50 350
Bairappa compound Paltoform, Gulmorh &
Neem
2 2005-06 SGRY ZP Bilkundi Block Zatropa & Honge 12 96.33 1155.96
FS-92
3 2005-06 SGRY ZP KGI Hospital Neem 12 97 1164
Ghatprabha
4 2006-07 SGRY TP Kulgod – Yalwad Gulmourh, 6 kms. 75 450
Road. Peltoforum, Neem &
Honge
5 2006-07 SGRY GP Hunshyal GP Gulmourh, Badami, 3.24 30 97.2
Neem & Honge
6 2006-07 SGRY GP Ankalagi GP Hunse, Badami, 3.23 100 323
Gulmourh, Peltaforum
& Honge
7 2006-07 SGRY GP Naganur GP Neem, Badami, 3.16 40 126.4
Gulmourh, Peltaforum
& Honge
Total: 46.63 488.33 3666.56
46.63
As could be seen from the above statement the survival percentage is almost 100 in the areas
where the protection is very rigid i.e. in Gram Panchayat Compounds & KGI Hospital
Ghatprabha. In rest of the plantations the survival is very poor due to the fact that the
protection aspect is not taken care properly.
All the shade bearing and avenue species like Platoform, Gulmourh, Badami, Honge
are doing very well in most of the areas. Neem is also faring very well. Hunse is struggling.
175
As these plantations are raised under district sectors scheme like SGRY- TP & ZP,
the releases of funds are not in time, thus the protection aspects hampered in open areas.
5. Supervision
Absolutely no supervision as evident from the existing status of the plantations, which
are raised in open patches.
II. HUKKERI SF RANGE
area of 47.6 ha. The survival percentage in the sample plots ranges from 47 to 91. However,
the weighted survival percentage across the plantations was 79.65.
Sl. Survi Survival
Area
Ha.
(%) X Ha.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 2004-05 SGRY_TP Nidasoshi Ashoka, Honge, 2.5 70 175
(School Area) Badam, Sishu,
(Gross Area 5.00 Basari, Arali, Neem,
Ha.) Sirshal, AAkasha
Mallige
2 2004-05 SGRY_ZP Ammanagi to Neem, Arali, 3 kms. 52 156
Yadagudi Tapasi, Sirshal,
(Road side) Sishu, Honge &
Others
3 2005-06 SGRY_TP Hukkeri City Bypass Neem, Honge, 10 91 910
and Ag. Seed farm Sirshal & Gulmohre
area.
FS-425, 426
(Gross Area 20.00
Ha.)
4 2006-07 FDA Khangaon Eucalyptus, Anjana 25 83 2075
Gadi FS-755, 763 & Ageva
5 2006-07 KSFMBC Demostration plots in Eucalyptus, clones 1.1 47 51.7
farmers land
Balabi FS-570
6 2006-07 SGRY_ZP Madamkanal to Neem, Basari, 5 kms 72 360
Godbal Sishu, Arali,
(Roadside) Gulmohra, Honge,
(Gross area 8.00 Nerale, Bangalo,
kms) Sirshal,
Basavanapada,
Tapasi
7 2006-07 SGRY_ZP Gudgeri to Nadegudi Neem, Arali, 1 kms. 64 64
(Roadside) Raintree, Peltoform,
Honge, Others
Total: 47.6 479 3791.7
Total survival percentage = 3791.7 =79.65 %
47.60
176
As could be seen from the above statement the average survival percentage is 79. The one of
the best survival percentage of 91 is found in plantations, which is raised in a fully protected
Agriculture Departments Seed farm which is located adjacent to the main road near Hukkeri
Town. In rest of the plantations the survival is very poor due to the fact that the protection
aspect is not taken care properly.
The performances of Neem and Honge is extremely well in the seed farm due to the
fact, the area tackled is a arable land. The height attained is more than 4 mtrs. In rest of the
areas except Eculyaptus and Bevu and the species are struggling to establish. On the road
side fronts the survival is good only in few patches.
As most of the plantations are raised under district sectors scheme like SGRY- TP &
ZP, the releases of funds are not in time, thus the protection aspects has been hampered.
5. Supervision
Absolutely no supervision as evident from the existing status of the plantations, which
are raised in open patches.
V. KHANPUR SF RANGE
The number of plantations selected for the evaluation in this range were 11 with more
than 14 ha. The survival percentage in the sample plots ranges from 64 to 92. The survival
percentage across the range was 72.312.
The plantations included mostly Road Side, School, Individual Farmers, etc. Grafted
Mango planted in a farmers field is maintained well. The school plantation is good but the
absence of protection / compound wall, resulted in damage to the well grown plants.
Sl. Survi
Area Survi
Ha. val
X Ha.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 2005-06 SGRY (GP) Topinkatti Teak & Cashew 2.00 50.63 101.26
Sy. No. 112, 113
2 2005-06 SGRY (GP) Kasaba, Nandagad Acacia - 70.90 -
3 2005-06 KSFMBC Padalwadi Mango & Bamboo 1.00 54.15 54.15

Sy. No. 109
4 2006-07 SGRY (GP) Parishwad Miscellaneous - 50.00 -
5 2006-07 SGRY (TP) Thirthkunde Mango & Cashew - - -

Sy. No. 102, 103
6 2006-07 SGRY (TP) Bidi to Sagare Road Hulgul, Halasu, Nerala, 3.00 69.00 207.00
side Peltoforum, Kasoda,
Rain tree-3 Km.
7 2006-07 SGRY (TP) Tolagi Block-1 Hulgal 6.00 87.00 522.00
Sy. No. 27 to 31 & 149
177
8 2006-07 SGRY (ZP) Bidi SC/ST Mango 2.00 64.00 128.00
Sy. No. 85
9 2006-07 SGRY (GP) Itagi High School & Gulmohar, Peltoforum, - 86.00 -
Hospital compound area Holedasaval Kasoda,
Sy. No. 85 Basavanpada, Hulgul,
Halsu
10 2006-07 SGRY (GP) Kakkeri Gulmohar, Peltoforum, - 66.00 -

Sy. No. 85 Holedasaval Kasoda,
Basavanpada, Hulgul,
Halsu Badam, Tapasi
11 2006-07 SGRY (GP) Londa GP Area Road Gulmohar, Peltoforum, - 94.66 -

side Basavanpada, Rain tree,
Bevu, Bela, Halasu,
Mavu, Saga, Nerala
Total: 14.00 692.34 1012.4
1
14.00
Grafted Mango in farmers field is doing well and the Honge is performing better
along the nala. Other species like Gulmohur, Peltoforum, are also doing well in school
premises. Teak was wrongly chosen in Londa Gram Panchayat area and is not doing well.
In Kasaba Nandgad village in Gram Panchayat land Acacia plantation was raised
under 2005 SGRY scheme the survival percentage of Acacia was good but the plantation
needs pruning as the plants have grown bushy and in this plantation maintenance was not
carried out after planting. Instead of taking up new advance work in subsequent year these
committed works should have been the priority but there was change of scheme from the
SGRY to NREGS, this transition has caused the lack of maintenance of older plantation.
In another farm forestry plantation at Topinakatte where SC/ST individual planting
was done the beneficiaries have given the part of the land to WCPM for the eucalyptus
plantation after planting and in this part of the land they have uprooted the seedlings.
The protection provided to has been individual tree in schools needs continuous
maintenance otherwise it might result in damage to the well grown plants.
4. Distribution of seedlings
Farmer opined that the Eucalyptus is useful as small timber and fuel. Cashew is
regarded as income generating crop by the farmers.
1 2006-07 Bidi Handur 500 (5"x8")
2 2006-07 Jamboti Amte 700 (5”X8”)
3 2006-07 Jamboti Amte 700 (5”X8”)
5. Other works
At Hebbal nursery storage cum shed and a water tank was constructed under SGRY
grants the quality of the work was quite good.
Records are not maintained properly. It has been suggested to include location maps
and polygon maps on topo sheets.
7. Supervision
178
The DCF and even ACFs remarks were significantly absent in most of the journals.
Proper planning of works and scheduling of operations was not there due to
uncertainty in fund allocation. SGRY works lacked maintenance in subsequent years.
VI. RAIBAG SF RANGE
area of 38.46 ha. The survival percentage in the sample plots ranges from 43.33 to 66.
Sl. Survi
Area
No. Year Scheme Location/Sy. No. Species Survival val %
Ha.
X Ha.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 2004-05 SGRY TP Raibag Bevu, Honge, Tapasi & 15 43.33 649.95
Sishu
2 2005-06 SGRY TP Jodatti IB to Mamdapur Bevu, Honge, Tapasi, 5.5 50 275
(Roadside) Sirsal & Sishu Kms.
3 2006-07 SGRY TP Kattakbavi cross to Bevu, Honge, Tapasi, 7 66 462
Kanakanavadi Roadside Sirsal & Sishu Kms.
4 2006-07 SGRY TP Mughalkod to Khandal Bevu, Honge, Tapasi, 3 45 135
Roadside Sirsal & Sishu Kms.
5 2006-07 SGRY GP Gram Panchayat lands Bevu, Badam, 7.96 53 421.88
(Gross area 1.96 Ha.) Sankeshwar &
Peltoform
Total: 38.46 257.33 1943.8
3
38.46
As could be seen from the above statement the average survival percentage is 50 only. The
best survival percentage of 66 is found in Kanakawadi Road side plantation. This is due to
the fact that the majority of the soil is black cotton, which has very little water holding
capacity. During summer the desiccation is at its extreme thereby survival of the plants is
difficult.
The species planted like Honge, Bevu, Sissoo and Sirsal only could sustain with much
difficulty in this highly BC soil. Thus the performances of Neem and Honge is fairly well
when compared to other species.
ZP, the releases of funds are not in time, thus the protection aspects has been neglected in
most of the areas.
This aspect has not been taken care by the staff. None of the records like plantation
journals etc. were provided during the course of evaluation.
5. Supervision
The supervision is lacking both on the part of field and supervision staff.
themselves, due to the belated releases and sometimes lack of funds.
179
VII. RAMDURG SF RANGE
The number of plantations selected for the evaluation in Social Forestry Ramdurga
Range were 8 with a total area of 23.32 ha. The survival percentage in the sample plots
ranges from 12.10 to 80.00 However, the weighted survival percentage across the plantations
was 55.48.
Sl. Surviv
Area Surviv
No. Year Scheme Location/Sy. No. Species al %
Ha. al
X Ha.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 2004-05 SGRY – TP Gattigoli Hulugulu, Sisho, Anjana 6.00 59.50 357.00
198 P
2 2004-05 SGRY – TP Dodibhari to Sollapur Bevu, Hulugulu, Sirsal 4.00 63.00 252.00
Road Hunase and Others
3 2005-06 SGRY – ZP Chandaragi Kreeda Bevu, Hunse, Hulugulu, 2.00 80.00 160.00
Shale
4 2005-06 SGRY – ZP Totagatti to Katkol Bevu, Hulugulu, Tapsi, 3.00 75.00 225.00
Hunase, Sirsl
5 2005-06 SGRY – TP Malaprabha River side Bevu, Hulugulu, Hunase, 1.34 12.10 16.21
at Chikkamulangi Teak, Bamboo,
Eucalyptus
6 2006-07 SGRY – GP Begaum Bannur GP Ala, Arale, Bevu, Tapasi, 2.38 17.00 40.00
Hulugulu,
7 2006-07 SGRY – GP D – Solapur GP Ala, Arale, Bevu, Tapasi, 2.38 52.00 123.76
Hulugulu,
8 2006-07 SGRY – GP Gram Panchayat Sangal Ala, Arale, Bevu, Tapasi, 2.22 54.00 119.88
Hulugulu
Total: 23.32 412.60 1293.85
23.32
As could be seen from the above statement the average survival percentage is 55 only. The
best survival percentage of 80 is found in Chandaragi Kreeda Shale.. This is due to the fact
that the whole area is fully protected with a compound wall. And the least survival
percentage of 12 is found in Malaprabha River side at Chikkamulangi. This is due to the fact
that the plantation was raised on the foreshore of river Malprabha, which gets inundated
every year with the onset of monsoon.
Wherever the protection aspect has been taken care properly along with good
maintenance, almost all the miscellaneous species like Bevu, Hulugal, Hunase, Ala, Arali,
Tapasi etc. are doing well. Wherever these aspects have been neglected, none of the above
species are doing well.
ZP, the releases of funds are not in time, thus the protection aspects has been neglected in
most of the areas.
5. Supervision
The supervision is lacking both on the part of field and supervision staff.
180
themselves, due to the fact of belated releases and some times lack of funds.
III. SAUNDATTI SF RANGE
The number of plantations selected for the evaluation in this range were 5 with a total
area of 17.73 ha. The survival percentage in the sample plots ranges from 60.00 to 83.00.
However, the weighted survival percentage across the plantations was 71.00
Sl. Survival
Area Survival
Ha. (%)
X Ha.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 2004-05 SGRY ZP Gorvankolla TFS Kirijali, Hunase, Tapasi, 2.50 83 207.5
FS-177, P II Sisho, Arali
2 2005-06 SGRY ZP Hosur block Bevu,, Honge, Tapsi, 8.00 70 560
Sirsal & Arali
3 2006-07 SGRY ZP Munavalli, Bevu, Hunase, Raintree, 2.97 -- --
Kadu Badam, Ashoka,
Arali & Sirsal
4 2006-07 SGRY ZP Kadabi GP School Bevu, Kada Badami, 2.68 70 187.6
and Temple area Tapasi, Tamarin & Sirsal
5 2006-07 SGRY ZP Mallur GP School Bevu, Honge, Tapasi, 1.58 60 94.8

and Burial Ground Rain tree, Basavanapada
(Gross area 2.00 Ha.) & Arali
Total: 17.73 283.00 1049.90
Total survival percentage = 1049 = 71.00%
14.76
As could be seen from the above statement the average survival percentage is 71 only. This is
a fairly good percentage in comparison to the survival as could be seen in other social
forestry ranges. The best survival percentage of 83 is found in Gorvanakolla TFS, However,
the least percentage is found in Munavalli block. As usual all the miscellaneous species like
Bevu, Honge, Sirsal, Tapasi, are doing well where ever they are taken care and protection
provided.
Wherever the local Panchayath and Institutional authorities are involved in the
protection aspect the results of surviving miscellaneous species is very good. The results of
shade bearing plants like peltophorum, Hulgal, Rain tree, planted in grave yard is extremely
good.
Due to the involvement of School authorities and Panchayath authorities the results
are encouraging in few cases. The rest of the areas are neglected due to the fact that most of
these plantations are raised under district sectors scheme like SGRY- TP & ZP, the releases
of funds for their maintenance is neglected due to belated releases of funds etc.
5. Supervision
The supervision is lacking on the part of field and supervision staff. However, in
some of the institutional plantations the authorities have taken care.
181
Except few of the institutional plantations the rest of the plantations that are raised
under district sector schemes are allowed to fend for themselves, due to the fact of belated
releases and sometimes lack of funds.
IX. BELGAUM SF RANGE
Only one work i.e. distribution of seedlings was undertaken for evaluation in Belgaum
Social Forestry Range. 10,000 seedlings of Ecyluptus raised in Chennamma Nursery were
distributed to RFO-Kakati for carrying out casualty replacement the territorial Range as
follows.
1 2006-07 Kakati Kakati 10,000
Sd/- Sd/-
Dy. Conservator of Forests, Conservator of Forests,
SF (Urban), Bangalore. Kanara Circle, Sirsi.
Sd/-
(Legal Cell),
Aranya Bhavan, Bangalore.
BAGALKOT DIVISION
1. Performance of the plantations: In KSFMBC the Model 4 plantations are good,
Model 1 is also serving the purpose of natural regeneration. In NAP- FDA
plantations all plantations are good .Roadside plantations done under KSHIP are
excellent.
2. Performance of Species: Anjan is performing best in the block plantations and Bevu is
most suitable for roadside plantations.
3. Protection: Satisfactory in most cases except the NAP-FDA plantations that do not
have enough provision for protection, here CPTs are incomplete and do not serve the
purpose.
4. Soil and Moisture Conservation Works: Good work has been done under soil and
moisture conservation works.
5. Other Works: All the works evaluated are satisfactory.
6. Distribution of seedlings: In irrigated condition the distributed seedlings are 90-
100% successful. The spots visited showed good maintenance also.
7. Effectiveness of VFCs: The involvement is satisfactory however further efforts are
required to involve the members in all aspects of plantation and protection.
8. Maintenance of records: The record maintenance is satisfactory.
9. General Observations: The overall performance of the plantations is very good,
technique adopted is good, and maintenance is also satisfactory.
BAGALKOT SOCIAL FORESTRY DIVISION
1. Performance of the plantations: School, forest plantations are good, Farm forestry
plantations are also good however roadside plantations are average.
2. Performance of Species: all species like neem, badam & peltoform that are preferred
and have been planted in schools are doing well. In farm forestry teak is preferred
and doing well. Similarly Bevu is suitable for roadsides.
3. Protection: Schools where boundary walls /fencing are present are well protected
similarly in farmers land interested farmers have protected the seedlings well.
182
6. General Observations: The overall performance of the plantations is good.
BIJAPUR DIVISION
1. Performance of the plantations: In KSFMBC the Model 1 is not suitable for this
agroclimatic zone. Most of the areas taken up for plantations are in failed plantation
areas. Urban area plantations are comparatively better.
2. Performance of Species: Species like Cassia siamea, Glyrcidia,Nilgiri ,Sissoo have
been planted in block plantations and performance is poor.(Reasons could be small
seedlings untimely planting etc) Hardwickia (Anjan) would be a better choice and tall
seedlings of Bevu and Ficus .
3. Protection: For plantations done under NAP – FDA the percentage of fund allotted
for protection is no less so the provision for barbed wire fencing or CPT, as the
concept is for social fencing. Hence the protection aspect in FDA plantations has
suffered.
4. Soil and Moisture Conservation Works: The works carried out are overall
satisfactory.
6. Effectiveness of VFCs: The VFCs do not seem to be actively involved.Further efforts
are required to involve the VFC members in all aspects.
7. Maintenance of records: The record maintenance is satisfactory; however VFC
micro-plans were not made available to the team.
8. General Observations: The overall performance of the plantations is either average
or below. The reasons vary from wrong- site selection, species selection, model
selection, to untimely planting, small seedling size, improper protection measures etc.
SOCIAL FORESTRY DIVISION ,BIJAPUR
1. Performance of the plantations: Mainly roadside plantations were evaluated.
Plantations are ranging from average to excellent.
2. Performance of Species: Tall Bevu seedlings are performing well.
3. Protection: Individual fencing to seedlings has been provided and it is serving the
purpose wherever it is maintained properly.
5. General Observations: The overall performance of the plantations is satisfactory.
Annexure-III-Detailed Cirlce Reports
183
8.3 BELLARY CIRCLE
Bellary Circle has jurisdiction over the following divisions
1) Bellary Division
2) Social Forestry Division, Bellary
3) Koppal Division,Koppal
4) Social Forestry Division, Koppal
5) Davanagere Division
6) Social Forestry Division, Davanagere
7) Chitradurga Division
8) Social Forestry Division, Chitradurga
Research and Training, Bangalore under his letter No.APCCF (EWPRT)/I-32/Eval./07-08
dated:12.10.2007 has constituted evaluation teams and issued guidelines for evaluation.
The evaluation team for Mysore Circle is as hereunder:
1. Chief Conservator of Forests (Personnel) Bangalore : Team leader
2. Conservator of Forests, Research, Dharwad : Member
3. Conservator of Forests, Gulbarga Circle, Gulbarga : Member
4. Deputy Conservator of Forests (ZP), Bidar : Member
5. Deputy Conservator of Forests (ZP), Bagalkote : Member
In case of CSS NAP (FDA) scheme 25% of plantations raised during 2004-2007 were
taken at random for evaluation purpose.
route map.
Plantations are classified as very good (survival %>80), good (survival % - 60 to 80),
fair (survival % - 40 to 60), poor (survival % - 20 to 40), failure (survival % < 20).
Certain observations common to all the divisions in Bellary Circle:
1. Plantations raised in earlier planted & failed areas are not performing well. Unless
the reasons for earlier failure are analyzed and addressed, it may not advisable to
go for further afforestation in the area.
2. Eucalyptus plantations, that used to be very successful earlier, are struggling
because of gall formation. We may have to consider planting of clones resistant to
gall formation in all these areas in the years to come.
3. Area closure, SMC works like Nala bund, Check dam, Gully checks etc and
afforestation is to based on a catchment basis in an integrated manner, to be
covered in a 5 year period preferably, to have a desirable affect on the site rather
than attempting them in isolated manner in space and time
4. Records regarding seedling distribution are inadequate to trace them back for
monitoring/evaluation. At least where ever more than 100 seedlings are
184
distributed to individual/institutions, proper register with details is to be
maintained range wise.
5. The demonstration plots on farmers’ lands raised under KSFMBC are of very poor
performance in most of the cases without addressing the objective of acting as
further focal point for the dissemination of a variety/technique. This should be
relooked into. Forest Department may not take up grafted mango for
demonstration purpose under KSFMBC project.
6. Afforestation should not be carried out unless funds are certain for maintenance
after planting year. It is found that , plantations raised during 2005-06 under
NOVARD-TBOS (karanja) scheme in Davanagere division, were not maintained
subsequently as no funds were released.
7. Roadside plantations in rural areas are failing because of intensive cattle damage
and hence better not to go for roadside plantations in rural areas unless the
individual trees are protected with tree guards.
8. Miscellaneous seedlings like Nelli, Tamarind, Honge etc are struggling on
degraded lands and hence site fertility and rain fall distribution pattern may please
be kept in mind while going for miscellaneous species. Even if there is survival of
seedlings in some cases, the prospects of those plants as future trees appears
bleak.
BELLARY DIVISION
Bellary division has Bellary, Hospet, H.B.halli, Hadagali, Sandur and Kudligi ranges
in its juisidiction. A sample of 19 plantations (2004to 2007) was picked up for evaluation.
List of plantations taken up for evaluation:
S. Area Surviv
No (Ha) al %
Compensatory
1 2004-05 Plantation Bellary Kurugodu Kudithini 12,51 33 63.5
Compensatory
2 2004-05 Plantation Bellary Kurugodu Kudithini 12,51 42 56
Cultural
3 2004-05 Operation Sandur Toranagallu P.K.Halli 38 91
Sovenahalli
FDF-other (Koilaragatta
4 2004-05 plantations Hadagali Itagi RF) 276 35 73
5 2004-05 SCP(state) H.B.Halli Kogali Malvi 54 A/213 3 0
6 2004-05 SCP (state) Hadagali Hirehadagalli Hirehadagalli 609 1 37
Compensatory
7 2004-05 Plantation Kudligi Hosahalli Jarmali RF 215 18 59
8 2004-05 TSP (state) Kudligi Yarrobonahatti 5 benificiaries 2.5 15
Compensatory
9 2005-06 Plantation Bellary Toranagallu Metriki 162 30 77
Punjarhegdal
H.B.Halli to
10 2005-06 SGRY (SF) Hampapattana Roadside 3 41
Hadagahalli
(Urban
11 2005-06 GUA Hadagali Hadagali Plantation) 4 68
22,23,24,
12 2005-06 KSFMBCP-01 Kudligi Kudligi Shivapur RF 37, 39 73 Sowing
Ontigodu
13 2006-07 KSFMBCP-04 Hospet M.M.Halli Thanda 138 50 73
14 2006-07 AOA Bellary Bellary Siruguppa Roadside 40 61
185
Grant 12th Fin
15 2006-07 Commission H.B.Halli Hampapatna Halagapura 176 25 90
Compensatory
16 2006-07 Plantation H.B.Halli Kogali Hosakeri 1001 26.27 76
KSFMBC-01 Linganayakana
17 2006-07 model Hadagali Hirehadagali halli thanda 170 A, B 40 Sowing
Compensatory 228, 232,

18 2006-07 Plantation Kudligi Baruvikallu 235 31 70
19 2006-07 KSFMBC -01 Kudligi Kakkuppi RF 620, 621 40 sowing

Are
Status
S. a Pit/ Spa Spp. Mainte Micro Plnt
Year Village Model of
No (Ha Trench cing planted -nance plan Journal
VFC
)
No
1 2004-05 Kudithini 33 yes yes yes yes yes VFC ----- updated
No
2 2004-05 Kudithini 42 yes yes yes yes yes VFC ----- updated
No
3 2004-05 P.K.Halli 38 yes yes yes yes yes VFC ----- updated
Sovenahalli
(Koilaragatta No
4 2004-05 RF) 35 yes yes yes yes yes VFC ----- updated
No
5 2004-05 Malvi 3 yes yes yes yes yes VFC ----- updated
No
6 2004-05 Hirehadagalli 1 yes yes yes yes yes VFC ----- updated
No
7 2004-05 Jarmali RF 18 yes yes yes yes yes VFC ----- updated
No
8 2004-05 5 benificiaries 2.5 yes yes yes yes yes VFC ----- updated
No
9 2005-06 Metriki 30 yes yes yes yes yes VFC ----- updated
Punjarhegdal
to No
10 2005-06 Hampapattana 3 yes yes yes yes yes VFC ----- updated
Hadagahalli
(Urban No
11 2005-06 Plantation) 4 yes yes yes yes yes VFC ----- updated
12 2005-06 Shivapur RF 73 yes yes yes yes yes yes yes updated
Ontigodu
13 2006-07 Thanda 50 yes yes yes yes yes yes yes updated
No
14 2006-07 Siruguppa 40 yes yes yes yes yes VFC ----- updated
No
15 2006-07 Halagapura 25 yes yes yes yes yes VFC ----- updated
No
16 2006-07 Hosakeri 26.3 yes yes yes yes yes VFC ----- updated
Linganayakan
17 2006-07 ahalli thanda 40 yes yes yes yes yes Yes yes updated
No
18 2006-07 Baruvikallu 31 yes yes yes yes yes VFC ----- updated
19 2006-07 Kakkuppi RF 40 yes yes yes yes yes yes yes updated
186
Selection
Extent Choice
Selection of Protectio Survi General
of site Plantatio n aspects val % condition
km) Species
n model
1 2004-05 Kudithini 33 proper proper proper proper 63.5 good
2 2004-05 Kudithini 42 proper proper proper proper 56 fair
3 2004-05 P.K.Halli 38 proper proper proper proper 91 very good
Sovenahalli
(Koilaragatta
4 2004-05 RF) 35 proper proper proper proper 73 good
5 2004-05 Malvi 3 proper proper proper proper 0 failure
6 2004-05 Hirehadagalli 1 proper proper proper proper 37 poor
7 2004-05 Jarmali RF 18 proper proper proper proper 59 poor
8 2004-05 5 benificiaries 2.5 proper proper proper proper 15 failure
9 2005-06 Metriki 30 proper proper proper proper 77 good
Punjarhegdal to
10 2005-06 Hampapattana 3 proper proper proper proper 41 fair
Hadagahalli
(Urban
11 2005-06 Plantation) 4 proper proper proper proper 68 good
Sowin
12 2005-06 Shivapur RF 73 proper proper proper proper g good
13 2006-07 Ontigodu Thanda 50 proper proper proper proper 73 good

14 2006-07 Siruguppa 40 proper proper proper proper 61 good
15 2006-07 Halagapura 25 proper proper proper proper 90 very good
16 2006-07 Hosakeri 26.27 proper proper proper proper 76 good
Linganayakanaha Sowin
17 2006-07 lli thanda 40 proper proper proper proper g good
18 2006-07 Baruvikallu 31 proper proper proper proper 70 good
sowin
19 2006-07 Kakkuppi RF 40 proper proper proper proper g good
Summary:
1) 16 palntations evaluated (excluding 3 plantations under KSFMBC-model 1, with only
sowing) covering 382 ha have a weighted average survival % of 70.22 % (good).
2) Two plantations have failed with survival less than 20%
S. Name of the Quality

Year Scheme Range Hobli Village Location
No Work of work
1 2004-05 JBIC-EKAP Bellary Toranagallu Marutla Marutla RF Farm pond Good

Compensato
2 2004-05 ry Plantation Bellary Toranagallu Metriki Metriki RF CPT (1.5 Km) Good
Fencing with
3 2005-06 HKADB Bellary Bellary Bellary Town Bellary town cement pillar Good
187
Tree park near
Polytechnic Gate & Cattle
4 2005-06 HKADB Bellary Bellary Bellary Town college trap Good
Tree park near Repairs to
Polytechnic Watcher shed
5 2005-06 HKADB Bellary Bellary Bellary Town college & platforms Good
Painting to
Gunda chain link
6 2004-05 Eco-tourism Hospet MM Halli Vyasanakere Ecotourism spot mesh Good
Repairs to
Gunda Forest
7 2004-05 Eco-tourism Hospet MM Halli Vyasanakere Ecotourism spot Resthouse Good
KSFMBC- Cattle proof

8 2005-06 04 Hospet MM Halli T.B.Thanda Shivpura RF trench Good
KSFMBC- Construction
9 2005-06 04 Hospet MM Halli T.B.Thanda Shivpura RF of Nalabund Good
10 2004-05 JBIC-EKAP Kudligi Jumbonahalli CPT- 2 Kms Good
Barbed-wire
fence - 1.2
11 2004-05 JBIC-EKAP Kudligi Jumbonahalli Kms Good
12 2005-06 KSFMBCP Kudligi Jumbonahalli Nalabund Good
Poor
13 2005-06 KSFMBCP Kudligi Jumbonahalli CPT-5 Kms quality
14 2005-06 KSFMBCP Kudligi Gollarahatti Shivpur RF CPT-4 Kms
15 2005-06 HKADB Kudligi Laklahalli Kakkuppi RF Nalabund Good
Honnayakanah Kohilarghatta Construction
16 2005-06 KSFMBC Hadagali Hadagali alli RF of Nalabund Good
Kohilarghatta Construction
17 2005-06 KSFMBC Hadagali Itagi Halemudlapur RF of Nalabund Good
Honnayakanah Kohilarghatta Construction

18 2005-06 KSFMBC Hadagali Hadagali alli RF of Nalabund Good
19 2006-07 RSPD H.B. Halli Kogali Malvi Nursery Water tank Good
Grant -12th
Finance
Commission Construction
20 2006-07 (Rs 115000) H.B. Halli Halagapura Nandibanda RF of checkdam Good
Grant -12th
Finance
Commission Construction
21 2006-07 (Rs 57600) H.B. Halli Hampapatna Halagapura Nandibanda RF of checkdam Good
2006-07 Construction
22 KSFMBC H.B. Halli Hampapatna Halagapura Nandibanda RF of checkdam Good
H Construction
23 2005-06 KSFMBC .B. Halli Kogali Hosakere of Nalabund Good
All the other works evaluated are of good in terms of quality and quantity
Distribution of seedlings:
188
S. Taluk/ Num Survival
No Year Range Village Name of the Farmer Species ber % Remarks
Bevu,
2005- honge,
1 06 Bellary Belagal Yuvaraj Vibhtigudda Hunse etc 4190 70 Good
Bevu,
honge,
2005- Eucalyptus,
2 06 Bellary Belagal Prathap Reddy Hunse etc 1480 65 Good
Subabul,
2006- Mine area Honge, 3251
3 07 Sandur Tharanagara (thungabadra ML area) Teak 3 75 Good
2005- Institutions &
4 06 Sandur Sandur Individuals (9) 8200 75 Good
2006- 1100
5 07 Hospet Vyasanakere M.S.P.L limited Honge 0 90 Very Good
2006-
6 07 Hospet Vyasanakere M.S.P.L limited Kamara 180 90 Very Good
2004- Mariyamman
7 05 Hospet ahalli K.Marutesha Eucalyptus 250 0 failure
Land is used
2004- Mariyamman Eucalyptus, for storing
8 05 Hospet ahalli B.M.C Kotresh Honge 250 0 iron ore
Eucalyptus, Land is used
2004- Mariyamman C.U.M Honge, for storing
9 05 Hospet ahalli Dwarakaradhya Neem 200 0 iron ore
Kamara, Land is used
2004- Mariyamman Honge, for storing
10 05 Hospet ahalli M. Ramalingappa Neem 250 0 iron ore
Land is used
2004- Mariyamman Eucalyptus, for storing
11 05 Hospet ahalli H.Manjunatha Honge 250 0 iron ore
2004- Bevu,
12 05 Kudligi Kakkuppi M. Basavarajappa Honge 250 95 Very Good
2004- Bevu,
13 05 Kudligi Kakkuppi Gundappa Honge 250 80 Very Good
2004- Eranna s/o
14 05 Hadagali Hadagali Sannaveerappa Bevu, Teak 37 90 Very Good
2004-
15 05 Hadagali Hadagali Honnappanavar Teak, Bevu 18 88 Very Good
2004-
16 05 Hadagali Hadagali Dr subhas Teak 20 90 Very Good
2004-
17 05 Hadagali Hadagali Shivanandappa Teak, Bevu 15 40 poor
The Survival percentage in case of 17 locations evaluated for distribution of seedlings
is 75.82 %.
SOCIAL FORESTRY DIVISION, BELLARY
S. Area Surviv
No Year Scheme Range Hobli Village Sy.No (Ha) al % Remarks
2004-
1 05 SGRY Siriguppa Hacholi Siruguppa Roadside 3 25 poor
2006-
2 07 SGRY Siriguppa Karur Darur-Karur Roadside 5 57 fair
2004- KSFM
3 05 BCP Bellary Bellary Mincheri 113/A2 10 0 failure
2006- Sandur Yaradhammana
4 07 SGRY (SF) Chorunur halli 3 63 good
2006- Dharmasagar to
5 07 SGRY Hospet(SF) Upparahalli Roadside 5 14 failure
KSFM
2006- BCP-
6 07 Demo_ Hospet(SF) Dharmasagar 72 5 11 failure
189
plot
KSFM 157,160,
BCP- 161
2004- Demo_
7 06 plot Hospet-SF Hampasagar 10 0 failure
KSFM
BC-
2005- Demo Hadagali 380, 518
8 06 plot (SF) Itagi Holagundi A, B,506 11 0 failure
KSFM
BC -
2005- Demo Demonstration
9 06 plot Kudligi SF plot at kottur 11 30 poor
• Out of 9 plantations evaluated, 5 plantations have failed.

• The weighted average of survival percentage for 9 selected plantataions is 15.93 %
(Failure category)
KOPPAL DIVISION:
The Division has Koppal, Gangavathi and Kustagi ranges in its jurisdiction. 19
plantations selected randomly were evaluated.
Survival
S.No Year Scheme Range Hobli Village Sy No Extent %
65
2004-
1 05 NAP(FDA) Koppal Irakalgada Methagal 82 20
50
2005-
2 06 NAP(FDA) Koppal Itnal Hosakanakapura 75 30
49
2005-
3 06 NAP(FDA Koppal Yelburga Ballutgi 157 10
67
2006-
4 07 DDF Koppal Itnal Kasanakadi 13 20
27.5
2004-
5 05 NAP(FDA) Kustagi Hanamanal Tuggal Doni 55 50
50
2004- Rampur
6 05 03-0P Kustagi Kustagi BlockI&II 20.7
2004- 31
7 05 03-OP Kustagi Kustagi Hiremannapur 210,224,114 12.5
60
2004-
8 05 NAP(FDA) Kustagi Hanamanal Rampur 68 20
sowing
2005-
9 06 KSFMBC Kustagi Hanamanal Kadival 120
79
2006- 112 to 115,
10 07 KSFMBC Kustagi Tavargera Gadderahatti 532,534 50
76
2006-
11 07 NAP(FDA) Kustagi Hanamanal Tuggal Doni 35,58 30
73.5
2006-
12 07 GUA Kustagi Tavaregera Tavergera Roadside 5
57
2004-
13 05 NAP(FDA) Kustagi Hanamanal Vokkandurga 72,70,74 20
61
2005-
14 06 NAP(FDA) Kustagi Hanumasagar Mavina Itagi 72, 70, 74 25
190
95
2004-
15 05 NAP(FDA) Gangavathi Siddapura Kakkargola 129 40
80
2004- KSHIP
16 05 (COP) Gangavathi Karatagi Karatagi Roadside 5
53
2004- Kuntoji (Daggi
17 05 COP Gangavathi Siddapura Camp) 90 30
2004- 76
18 05 COP Gangavathi Siddapura Kakkargola 128,129 50
71.3
2006-
19 07 KSFMBC Gangavathi Siddapura Kuntoji 90 50

Extent Status
S. (in Ha/ Pit/ Spa Spp. Mainte of Micro Plnt
No Year Village km) Model Trench cing planted -nance VFC plan Journal
2004-
1 05 Methagal 20 yes yes yes yes yes yes Yes updated
2005- Hosakanaka
2 06 pura 30 yes yes yes yes yes yes Yes updated
2005-
3 06 Ballutgi 10 yes yes yes yes yes yes Yes updated
2006-
4 07 Kasanakadi 20 yes yes yes yes yes updated
2004- Tuggal
5 05 Doni 50 yes yes yes yes yes yes Yes updated
2004- Rampur No
6 05 BlockI&II 20.7 yes yes yes yes yes VFC ----- updated
2004- Hiremannap No
7 05 ur 12.5 yes yes yes yes yes VFC ----- updated
2004-
8 05 Rampur 20 yes yes yes yes yes yes Yes updated
2005-
9 06 Kadival 120 yes yes yes yes yes yes Yes updated
2006- Gadderahatt
10 07 i 50 yes yes yes yes yes yes Yes updated
2006- Tuggal
11 07 Doni 30 yes yes yes yes yes yes Yes updated
2006- No
12 07 Tavergera 5 yes yes yes yes yes VFC ----- updated
2004- Vokkandurg
13 05 a 20 yes yes yes yes yes yes Yes updated
2005- Mavina
14 06 Itagi 25 yes yes yes yes yes yes Yes updated
2004-
15 05 Kakkargola 40 yes yes yes yes yes yes Yes updated
2004- No
16 05 Karatagi 5 yes yes yes yes yes VFC ----- updated
Kuntoji
2004- (Daggi No
17 05 Camp) 30 yes yes yes yes yes VFC ----- updated
2004- No
18 05 Kakkargola 50 yes yes yes yes yes VFC ----- updated
2006-
19 07 Kuntoji 50 yes yes yes yes yes yes Yes updated
191
Extent Selection
Choice Survi
S. (in Selection of Protection General
Year Village of val
No Ha/ of site Plantation aspects condition
Species %
km) model
2004- 65 good
1 05 Methagal 20 Proper Proper Proper Proper
2005- Hosakanaka 50 fair
2 06 pura 30 Proper Proper Proper Proper
2005- 49 fair
3 06 Ballutgi 10 Proper Proper Proper Proper
2006- 67 good
4 07 Kasanakadi 20 Proper Proper Proper Proper
2004- Tuggal 27.5 poor
5 05 Doni 50 Proper Proper Proper Proper
6 2004- Rampur 20.7 Proper Proper Proper Proper 50 fair
05 BlockI&II
2004- Hiremannap 31 poor
7 05 ur 12.5 Proper Proper Proper Proper
2004- 60 good
8 05 Rampur 20 Proper Proper Proper Proper
2005- sowin
9 06 Kadival 120 Proper Proper Proper Proper g
2006- Gadderahatt 79 good
10 07 i 50 Proper Proper Proper Proper
2006- Tuggal 76 good
11 07 Doni 30 Proper Proper Proper Proper
2006- 73.5 good
12 07 Tavergera 5 Proper Proper Proper Proper
2004- Vokkandur 57 fair
13 05 ga 20 Proper Proper Proper Proper
2005- Mavina 61 good
14 06 Itagi 25 Proper Proper Proper Proper
2004- 95 very good
15 05 Kakkargola 40 Proper Proper Proper Proper
2004- 80 very good
16 05 Karatagi 5 Proper Proper Proper Proper
17 2004- Kuntoji 30 Proper Proper Proper Proper 53 fair
05 (Daggi
Camp)
2004- 76 good
18 05 Kakkargola 50 Proper Proper Proper Proper
2006- 71.3 good
19 07 Kuntoji 50 Proper Proper Proper Proper
• In case of 18 plantations covering 488.20 ha, the weighted average of survival percentage is
63.59 % (good).
• In case of 1 plantation with extent 120 ha only sowing was done under KSFMBC-model 1.
S. Name of the
Year Scheme Range Hobli Village Location Remarks
No Work
Sy No 112,
1 2006-07 KSFMBC Kustagi Gadderatti 113, 114, 532 Gully check good
2 2005-06 NAP (FDA) Gangavathi Siddapura Kakkaragola 129 Gully check good
3 2004-05 CO Gangavathi Siddapura Kuntoji 90 Gully check good
4 2004-05 NAP (FDA) Gangavathi Siddapura Kakkaragola 129 Check dam good
192
Vokkanadur
5 2004-05 NAP (FDA) ga Ladies toilet good
6 2005-06 NAP (FDA) Gangavathi Siddapura Kakkaragola 128 Borewell good
• Other works picked up for evaluation are found to be of good work.

SOCIAL FORESTRY DIVISION, KOPPAL:
S. Ext Surviv
Year Scheme Range Hobli Village Sy.No Remarks
No ent al %
1 2004-05 SGRY Koppal Koppal Halwarti roadside 6 0.00 Failure
2 2004-05 KSFMBCP Koppal Koppal Kinal 164,165,16 10 75.00 Good
6
3 2006-07 HKADB Koppal Irakalgada Irkalgada 160 40.5 69.50 Good
4 2004-05 KSFMBC Kustagi Tavaragere Pura 15 18.50 failure
5 2006-07 HKADB Kustagi Hanumanal Kyadiguppa 109 15 70.00 good
6 2005-06 KSFMBC Yalburga Mangalore Muradi 126, 126A, 11 92.00 very

(Demo 126 B, 144, good
plantation)
7 2006-07 SGRY- Yalburga Yalburga Goralli cross Roadside 6 30.00 poor

ZP(Roadside) to Thallur
8 2005-06 HKADB Yalburga Kukanoor Balgera 326 14 68.00 good

9 2004-05 KSFMBC Gangavathi Navale Hatti 19, 22 5 40.00 fair
(Demo
plantation)
10 2004-05 SGRY-TP Gangavathi Hulihydar Kanakapur Roadside 6 8.50 failure

11 2006-07 CRF Gangavathi Venkatagiri Honnagaddi Adarabavi 6 29.50 poor
(Roadside) to
Managaddi
Roadside
• The 11 plantataions evaluated with a total extent 134.5 ha, have a weighted average
of survival percentage 55.49% (fair)
• Three plantations have failed ( < 20% survival)
DAVANAGERE DIVISION:
The division has Davanagere, Honnali, jagalur and Harpanahalli ranges in its jurisdiction. A
sample of 30 randomly selected plantations were evaluated.
Area Surviv
(Ha) al %
NAP
1 2004-05 (FDA) Davanagere Harihar Kondajji 162, 170 20 40
2 2004-05 GUA Davanagere Davanagere Davanagere town Roadside 23 55
Gode
NAP (Rangaiahnadurga
3 2004-05 (FDA) Jagalur Sokke SF) 65 20 60
FDF-other Nichavanahalli -
4 2004-05 plantations Harapanahalli thoudur 267 35 75
NAP
5 2004-05 (FDA) Honnali Belagutti Kugenahalli 49 20 70
193
Cultural Dodderi
6 2004-05 operation Honnali Belagutti (Haramghatta RF) 87 25 52
NAP
7 2004-05 (FDA) Harapanahalli Adavimallapura 267 20 50
NAP
8 2005-06 (FDA) Davanagere Harihar Kondajji 169, 172 15 45
9 2005-06 NFFW Davanagere Harihar Kondaji 135 25 74
10 2005-06 NFFW Davanagere Bharamasagar Kenchemaranahalli 1 25 72
11 2005-06 TBOS Davanagere Kenchemaranahalli 15 60
NAP
12 2005-06 (FDA) Jagalur Jagalur Byatagaranahalli 17 20 68
13 2005-06 DDF Jagalur Jagalur Anabur 124, 126 19 50
14 2005-06 NFFW Harapanahalli Konganahosur 188 25 55
KSFMBC- Kodihalli (Sogi Seed

15 2005-06 Model 1 Harapanahalli RF) 1 25 sowing
NAP
16 2005-06 (FDA) Harapanahalli Jittinakatte 35 15 55
NAP
17 2005-06 (FDA) Harapanahalli Adavimallapura 354 20 60
18 2005-06 TBOS Harapanahalli Jittinakatte RF 464 15 30
Dodderi
19 2005-06 NFFW Honnali Belagutti (Haramghatta RF) 20 75
20 2005-06 DDF Harapanahalli Thoudur 469 17 52
NAP
21 2006-07 (FDA) Davanagere Harihar Kondajji 169 15 71
KSFMBC-
22 2006-07 Model 4 Davanagere Palakihalli 46 25 75
Nirthadi
23 2006-07 DDF Davanagere (Oblapura) 86 15 50
Bevinahalli
24 2006-07 NAP(FDA) Davanagere Avagodu (Gudal) 165, 166 15 80
25 2006-07 12th FC Jagalur Jagalur Guheshwara gudda 221 20 65
KSFMBC-
26 2006-07 Model 4 Jagalur Sokke Venkateshpura 82, 83 50 67
NAP
27 2006-07 (FDA) Jagalur Kariyappanahalli 1 20 30
KSFMBC- Kodihalli (Sogi

28 2006-07 Model 4 Harapanahalli RF) 1 50 71
NAP
29 2006-07 (FDA) Harapanahalli Halikere 117 15 20
NAP
30 2006-07 (FDA) Honnali Mussinal 42, 19 20 5

Extent Status
S. Pit/ Spac Spp. Mainte Micro Plnt
No Trench ing planted -nance plan Journal
km) VFC
2004-
1 05 Kondajji 20 yes yes yes yes yes yes yes updated
2004- Davanagere
2 05 town 23 yes yes yes yes yes yes updated
Gode
2004- (Rangaiahna
3 05 durga SF) 20 yes yes yes yes yes yes yes updated
2004- Nichavanaha
4 05 lli -thoudur 35 yes yes yes yes yes yes updated
194
2004-
5 05 Kugenahalli 20 yes yes yes yes yes yes yes updated
Dodderi
2004- (Haramghatt
6 05 a RF) 25 yes yes yes yes yes yes updated
2004- Adavimallap
7 05 ura 20 yes yes yes yes yes yes yes updated
2005-
2005- No
9 06 Kondaji 25 yes yes yes yes yes VFC ------ updated
2005- Kenchemara No
10 06 nahalli 25 yes yes yes yes yes VFC ------ updated
2005- Kenchemara No
11 06 nahalli 15 yes yes yes yes yes VFC ------ updated
2005- Byatagarana
12 06 halli 20 yes yes yes yes yes yes yes updated
2005- No
13 06 Anabur 19 yes yes yes yes yes VFC ------ updated
2005- Konganahos No
14 06 ur 25 yes yes yes yes yes VFC ------ updated
2005- Kodihalli
15 06 (Sogi RF) 25 yes yes yes yes yes yes yes updated
2005-
16 06 Jittinakatte 15 yes yes yes yes yes yes yes updated
2005- Adavimallap
17 06 ura 20 yes yes yes yes yes yes yes updated
2005- Jittinakatte No
18 06 RF 15 yes yes yes yes yes VFC ------ updated
Dodderi
2005- (Haramghatt No
19 06 a RF) 20 yes yes yes yes yes VFC ------ updated
2005- No
20 06 Thoudur 17 yes yes yes yes yes VFC ------ updated
2006-
2006-
22 07 Palakihalli 25 yes yes yes yes yes yes yes updated
2006- Nirthadi No
23 07 (Oblapura) 15 yes yes yes yes yes VFC ------ updated
2006- Bevinahalli
24 07 (Gudal) 15 yes yes yes yes yes yes yes updated
2006- Guheshwara No
25 07 gudda 20 yes yes yes yes yes VFC ------ updated
2006- Venkateshpu
26 07 ra 50 yes yes yes yes yes yes yes updated
2006- Kariyappana
27 07 halli 20 yes yes yes yes yes yes yes updated
2006- Kodihalli
28 07 (Sogi RF) 50 yes yes yes yes yes yes yes updated
2006-
29 07 Halikere 15 yes yes yes yes yes yes yes updated
2006-
30 07 Mussinal 20 yes yes yes yes yes yes yes updated

Selection
Extent Selecti Choice
S. of Protection Survival General
Year Village (in Ha/ on of of
No Plantation aspects % condition
km) site Species
model
2004
1 -05 Kondajji 20 proper proper proper proper 40 fair
2004 Davanagere
2 -05 town 23 proper proper proper proper 55 fair
195
Gode
2004 (Rangaiahnadu
3 -05 rga SF) 20 proper proper proper proper 60 good
2004 Nichavanahalli
4 -05 -thoudur 35 proper proper proper proper 75 good
2004
5 -05 Kugenahalli 20 proper proper proper proper 70 good
Dodderi
2004 (Haramghatta
6 -05 RF) 25 proper proper proper proper 52 fair
2004 Adavimallapur
7 -05 a 20 proper proper proper proper 50 fair
2005
8 -06 Kondajji 15 proper proper proper proper 45 fair
2005
9 -06 Kondaji 25 proper proper proper proper 74 good
2005 Kenchemarana
10 -06 halli 25 proper proper proper proper 72 good
2005 Kenchemarana
11 -06 halli 15 proper proper proper proper 60 good
2005 Byatagaranahal
12 -06 li 20 proper proper proper proper 68 good
2005
13 -06 Anabur 19 proper proper proper proper 50 fair
2005
14 -06 Konganahosur 25 proper proper proper proper 55 fair
2005 Kodihalli (Sogi Seed
15 -06 RF) 25 proper proper proper proper sowing
2005
16 -06 Jittinakatte 15 proper proper proper proper 55 fair
2005 Adavimallapur
17 -06 a 20 proper proper proper proper 60 fair
2005
18 -06 Jittinakatte RF 15 proper proper proper proper 30 poor
Dodderi
2005 (Haramghatta
19 -06 RF) 20 proper proper proper proper 75 good
2005
20 -06 Thoudur 17 proper proper proper proper 52 fair
2006
21 -07 Kondajji 15 proper proper proper proper 71 good
2006
22 -07 Palakihalli 25 proper proper proper proper 75 good
2006 Nirthadi
23 -07 (Oblapura) 15 proper proper proper proper 50 fair
2006 Bevinahalli
24 -07 (Gudal) 15 proper proper proper proper 80 very good
2006 Guheshwara
25 -07 gudda 20 proper proper proper proper 65 good
2006
26 -07 Venkateshpura 50 proper proper proper proper 67 good
2006 Kariyappanaha
27 -07 lli 20 proper proper proper proper 30 poor
2006 Kodihalli (Sogi
28 -07 RF) 50 proper proper proper proper 71 good
2006
29 -07 Halikere 15 proper proper proper proper 20 poor
2006
30 -07 Mussinal 20 proper proper proper proper 5 failure
• 29 plantations evaluated with a total extent of 639 ha, have a weighted average
survival 0f 58.60% (fair)
• One plantation failed with 5% survival of seedlings.
196
• One plantataion was under KSFMBC-model 1 with only sowing.

S. Name of the
Year Scheme Range Village Location Remarks
No Work
1 2004-05 DDF Davanagere Nirthadi SF Desilting of tank good
2 2005-06 NFFW Davanagere Konadaji Mini nala bund good
3 2005-06 NFFW Harpanahalli Thavudur Earthen Nalabund good
4 2005-06 NFFW Honnali Musinal Earthen Nalabund good
5 2006-07 12th FC Davanagere Nirthadi SF Gully Checks good
• The other works evaluated are of good quality.

Distribution of seedlings: Could not be evaluated for want of proper records to
trace back the beneficiaries in addition to the scattered location of distribution.
SOCIAL FORESTRY DIVISION, DAVANAGERE:
Area Survival
S.No Year Scheme Range Hobli Village Sy.No Remarks
(Ha) %
Demonstration
Rasthe plot - 10
1 2004-05 JBIC Jagalur Jagalur makunte farmers 10 5 failure
Shigirihalli,
Shankar Demo-plot :
2 2006-07 KSFMBC Harapanahalli Teligi halli two farmers 2 20 poor
Demonstration
plot - 11
3 2005-06 KSFMBC Harihara harihara Udayapura farmers 11 25 poor
• Three demonstration plantations on farmers lands were evaluatedand average
survival is 15.86 % only (failure).
CHITRADURGA DIVISION:
The division has Challakere, Chitradurga,Hiriyur, Holalkere, Hosadurga and Molkalmuru
ranges in its jurisdiction. A random sample of 18 plantations was taken up for evaluation.
S. Area Survival
No (Ha) %
1 2004-05 GUA Chitradurga Chitradurga Chitradurga town 10.8 68.8

2 2004-05 FDF-OP Molakalmuru Nayakanahatti Mallurahalli 125 6 94.5
Cultural
3 2004-05 Operation Holalkere Holalkere Gilakanahalli 1 24.5 83
4 2005-06 GUA Molakalmuru Molakalmuru Molakalmuru town 2 90
5 2005-06 DDF Hiriyur T.G.Halli Gowadanahalli 5,6,7 10 99
KSFMBC seed
6 2005-06 P-01 Chitradurga Chitradurga Kennedulu 40 75 sown
KSFMBC seed
7 2005-06 P-01 Hosadurga Srirampura N.N.Katte 1 71.5 sown
Medakeripura
8 2006-07 DDF Holalakere Bharamsagara (Nerthadi RF) 10 55.7
197
9 2005-06 NAP (FDA) Molakalmuru Molakalmuru Muthigaharalli 30,166 25 81
10 2005-06 NAP (FDA) Hiriyur Hiriyur Kattehole 2 25 87
11 2005-06 NAP (FDA) Hosadurga Srirampura Bukkasagara 1 32 86
KSFMBC 104 to
12 2006-07 P-04 Holalkere Talya Malasinganahalli 106 40 82.7
KSFMBC Buklarahalli
13 2006-07 P-04 Molakalmuru Nayakanahatti Bandekatta 12 40 86
KSFMBC
14 2006-07 P-04 Hosadurga Madadakere Devarahatti 303 50 88
KSFMBC
15 2006-07 P-04 Challakere Oblapura 98 50 71.5

KSFMBC
16 2006-07 P-04 Molakalmuru Nayakanahatti Mallurahalli 131 40 86
17 2006-07 NAP (FDA) Challakere Thalaku Dasarahalli 98 25 70
18 2006-07 NAP (FDA) Chitradurga Chitradurga Kennedulu 25 93

Extent Status
S. Pit/ Spa Spp. Mainte Micro Plnt
No Trench cing planted -nance plan Journal
km) VFC
2004- Chitradurga No
1 05 town 10.75 yes yes yes yes yes VFC ------ updated
2004- No
2 05 Mallurahalli 6 yes yes yes yes yes VFC ------ updated
2004- No
3 05 Gilakanahalli 24.45 yes yes yes yes yes VFC ------ updated
2005- Molakalmuru No
4 06 town 2 yes yes yes yes yes VFC ------ updated
2005- No
5 06 Gowadanahalli 10 yes yes yes yes yes VFC ------ updated
2005-
6 06 Kennedulu 75 yes yes yes yes yes yes yes updated
2005-
7 06 N.N.Katte 71.5 yes yes yes yes yes yes yes updated
2006- Medakeripura No
8 07 (Nerthadi RF) 10 yes yes yes yes yes VFC ----- updated
2005-
9 06 Muthigaharalli 25 yes yes yes yes yes yes yes updated
2005-
10 06 Kattehole 25 yes yes yes yes yes yes yes updated
2005-
11 06 Bukkasagara 32 yes yes yes yes yes yes yes updated
2006- Malasinganaha
12 07 lli 40 yes yes yes yes yes yes yes updated
2006- Buklarahalli
13 07 Bandekatta 40 yes yes yes yes yes yes yes updated
2006-
14 07 Devarahatti 50 yes yes yes yes yes yes yes updated
2006-
15 07 Oblapura 50 yes yes yes yes yes yes yes updated
2006-
16 07 Mallurahalli 40 yes yes yes yes yes yes yes updated
2006-
17 07 Dasarahalli 25 yes yes yes yes yes yes yes updated
2006-
18 07 Kennedulu 25 yes yes yes yes yes yes yes updated
198
Selection
Extent Choice Protecti
Selection of Survi General
S.No Year Village (in Ha/ of on
of site Plantation val % condition
km) Species aspects
model
Chitradurga Very
1 2004-05 town 10.75 proper proper proper proper 68.8 good
Very
2 2004-05 Mallurahalli 6 proper proper proper proper 94.5 good
Very
3 2004-05 Gilakanahalli 24.45 proper proper proper proper 83 good
Molakalmuru Very
4 2005-06 town 2 proper proper proper proper 90 good
Very
5 2005-06 Gowadanahalli 10 proper proper proper proper 99 good
seed Very
6 2005-06 Kennedulu 75 proper proper proper proper sown good
seed Very
7 2005-06 N.N.Katte 71.5 proper proper proper proper sown good
Medakeripura
8 2006-07 (Nerthadi RF) 10 proper proper proper proper 55.7 good
Very
9 2005-06 Muthigaharalli 25 proper proper proper proper 81 good
Very
10 2005-06 Kattehole 25 proper proper proper proper 87 good
Very
11 2005-06 Bukkasagara 32 proper proper proper proper 86 good
Malasinganaha Very
12 2006-07 lli 40 proper proper proper proper 82.7 good
Buklarahalli Very
13 2006-07 Bandekatta 40 proper proper proper proper 86 good
Very
14 2006-07 Devarahatti 50 proper proper proper proper 88 good
Very
15 2006-07 Oblapura 50 proper proper proper proper 71.5 good
Very
16 2006-07 Mallurahalli 40 proper proper proper proper 86 good
Very
17 2006-07 Dasarahalli 25 proper proper proper proper 70 good
Very
18 2006-07 Kennedulu 25 proper proper proper proper 93 good
• 16 plantations evaluated with extent 415.50 ha have a weighted average survival
percentage at 82.4 (very good).
• Only seed sowing was taken up in case of two plantations under KSFMBC-model1.
Name of the
S.No Year Scheme Range Hobli Village Location Remarks
Work
RCP-
1 2004-05 REFL Molakalmuru Kasaba Tumkurlahalli Sy No 78 Rubble Checks Good
RCP- Percolation
2 2004-05 REFL Molakalmuru Kasaba Tumkurlahalli Sy No 78 trenches Good
3 2004-05 CO Holalkere Gilikenahalli Gully Checks Good
• The other works evaluated are of good quality.

Distribution of seedlings: Could not be evaluated for want of proper records to trace back
the beneficiaries in addition to scattered nature of distribution.
199
SOCIAL FORESTRY DIVISION, CHITRADURGA:
Area Survival
(Ha) %
1 2005-06 KSFMBC Hiriyur Javagondanahalli Gokulnagar 10 45

2 2006-07 KSFMBC Hosadurga Mathodu R.D.Tanda 17,18,20 10 52
• The weighted average survival % of two plantations is 48.5% (poor)
Annexure-IV-Detailed Cirlce Reports
8.4 CHAMARAJANAGAR CIRCLE

SUMMARY:
200
Chamarajnagar is southern most district of Karnataka, came into official existence
after the larger Mysore district is bifurcated into Mysore and Chamarajnagar districts. The
district is 3866.37 sq.km in extent and stretches between 110 92’ North to 760 95’ east and is
encircled by Erode district of Tamilnadu and Wayand district of Kerala.
As per the 2001 census report, Chamarajnagr has a population of 9, 45,622 of which
4, 83,336 are males and 4, 62,286 females. The district has 4 Taluks i.e Chamarajnagr,
Yelandur, Kollegal and Gundlupet. Agriculture forms the backbone in the district. Richly
endowed in its forest resources and mineral deposits Chamarajnagr is having good extent of
forest land within its boundaries. Hence, it has a very high population of forest dwelling
tribals – Soligas, Jenu Kurubas, Betta Kurubas. Most of these tribes inhabit the forest of BR
hills, MM hills, and Bandipur National park.
Chamarajnagar, on the banks of the Cuvery River is treasure trove of religious and
cultural legacy. The legendry Malemahadeswara betta shrine accompanied by its annual car
festival, the revered temples of BR hills, the wild life reserves like Bandipur wild life
sanctuary and Biligirirangana hills wild life sanctuary, Kaveri wild life sanctuary and thickly
forested Mahadeswara hills attracts many tourists.
The district being endowed with rich forest resources divided in to four divisions for
administration. They are
1. Chamarajnagar wild life division comprising BRT wild life sanctuary and
2. Kollegal division
3. Bandipur national park and
4. Kanakapura wild life sanctuary which includes parts of Mandya and Ramanagar
districts.
control of Conservator of Forests, Chamarajnagar circle, Chamarajnagar, except the Bandipur
national park which is part of Project Tiger under the administrative control of Project
Director with head quarters at Mysore.
In addition, a Social forestry division functions in the district headed by the Deputy
Conservator of Forests under the administrative control of the Zilla panchayat
Chamarajnagar. His jurisdiction is outside the forestry areas of the district. There is one
subdivision headed by Assistant Conservator of Forests with head quarters at Chamarajnagar.
dated:12.102007 has constituted evaluation teams and issued guidelines for evaluation.
The evaluation team for Chamarajnagar circle is
2. Conservator of Forests (B&A) Bangalore : Member
3. Conservator of Forests, Hassan : Member
4. Deputy Conservator of Forests (ZP) Chikkaballapur : Member
5. Deputy Conservator of Forests (ZP) Mandya : Member
To begin with list of all works carried out during 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07 in plan,
seedling distribution were obtained in the Formats A,D and G from the concerned Deputy
Conservator of Forests from all the divisions of the district and work spots were selected
randomly. The method followed for selection of spots is
201
The evaluation team before starting the field work had a meeting with CF, DCFs and
other staff and finalized the methodology and route map.
CAUVERY WILD LIFE DIVISION, KANAKAPURA:
The Cauvery wild life sanctuary constituted vide Government notification No:
AHFF.4.FWL.87 dated 14.01.1987 for the purpose of protecting, propagating wildlife and its
environs. The river Cauvery, forms the northern and eastern boundary of major part of the
sanctuary, also gives its name. To the east and northeast, the sanctuary is flanked by the
Tamilnadu state. The central and eastern parts of the sanctuary are well forested and
Hogenkal falls, Mekedatu, Sangam and Muthathi are of cultural, historical and tourist
importance.
It is located in the districts of Chamarajanagar, Ramnagara and Mandya, from 110 57’
to 120 21’ N latitude and 770 15’ to 770 47’E longitude covering and area of 52,695 Ha. The
area is plain to undulating with few pockets consisting of very steep and undulating terrain
and hillocks. Altitude varies from about 125 to 1514 m, the highest point being the Ponnachi
betta on the southern edge of sanctuary.
The vegetation is mainly of Southern tropical dry deciduous type, and along the river
banks moist deciduous type forest can be seen with trees such as Terminalia arjuna and
Syzygium cumini dominating the vegetation.
The division headed by Deputy Conservator of Forests with head quarters at
Kankapura in Ramanagara District and assisted by Asst. Conservator of Forest. For
management of sanctuary area, four wild life ranges have been functioning i.e. Kanakapura,
Hanur, Cowdally and MM hills.
PLANTATIONS:
evaluation in all schemes including FDA : 605 ha
Total Number of the plantation visited by the Team : 155 ha
Details of afforestation works selected randomly for evaluation in all schemes.
Extent(in Ha/
km)
Compt 88
1 2005-06 TFC MM Hills Ramapura Gopinatham 5.00
(Alambadi)
SEED SOWING:
Kankapura Bannane Block

1 2006-07 KSFMBC Halguru Muthathi 75.00
WL II
Kankapura
2 2005-06 KSFMBC Kodihalli Soligeri Basavanabette 82.00
WL
FDA_NAP: Model
202
Rachappajinagara Chikkalur SF
1 2006-07 FDA Hanur WL Palya 30.00 AR
EDC Compt 12
Cowdally Chikkalur SF
2 2006-07 FDA Ramapura Arabegere EDC 30.00 Pasture
WL Compt 72
MM Hills Eswara temple

3 2006-07 FDA Ramapura Gopinatham EDC 30.00 ANR
WL plantation
MM Hills Pudur Bamboo

4 2006-07 FDA Ramapura Pudur EDC 40.00 Bamboo
WL plantation
MM Hills Indiganatha
5 2006-07 FDA Ramapura Indiganatha EDC 20.00 Mixed
WL plantation

Extent Status
S. Pit/ Spac Spp. Mainte Micro Plnt
No Trench ing planted -nance plan Journal
km) VFC
2005 Gopinat No Up
1 5.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes No ---
-06 ham VFC dated
SEED SOWING:
2006 Muthath Up
1 75.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
-07 i dated
2005 Up
2 Soligeri 82.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
-06 dated
FDA_NAP:
Rachapp
2006
1 ajinagar 30.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes --- --- --- ---
-07
a EDC
2006 Arabege Up
-07 re EDC dated
Gopinat
2006
3 ham 30.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes --- Yes No Partial
-07
EDC
2006 Pudur
4 40.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes --- --- --- Partial
-07 EDC
2006 Indigana
5 20.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes --- Yes No Partial
-07 tha EDC

Extent Se;ection
Choice
Ha/ of site Plantation aspects percentatge condition
Species
km) model
2005-
1 Gopinatham 5.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 59.00 Satisfactory
06
SEED SOWING:
2006-
1 Muthathi 75.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 20.0 Poor
07
2005-
2 Soligeri 82.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 16.6 Poor
06
203
FDA_NAP:
2006- Rachappajinagara
1 30.00 Improper Proper Proper Improper 0.00 Failure
07 EDC
2006-
2 Arabegere EDC 30.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 29.40 Average
07
2006- Gopinatham
3 30.00 Improper Improper Improper Improper 0.00 Failure
07 EDC
2006-
4 Pudur EDC 40.00 Improper Improper Proper ---- 0.00 Failure
07
2006-
5 Indiganatha EDC 20.00 Improper Improper Proper Improper 0.00 Failure
07
Observation and comments by the Evaluation team:

The division has raised 600 ha of FDA plantations, 5 ha of plantation in other
schemes and 430 ha of seed sowing operations from 2004-05 to 2006-07, out of
which 150 ha of FDA, 5 ha of other schemes plantations and 157 ha of seed sowing
works selected randomly were evaluated.
The plantation raised in MM hills reserve forest area in compartment 88 at Alambadi
in 5.00 ha is with 59% survival. Honge seedlings performance is better.
In Banane Block II, at Basavanabetta in 75.00 ha of area seeds of Bevu, Honge, Nelli,
sandal etc., are dibbled in natural bushes and thalliies under KSFMBC scheme. The
germination is around 20% and below average.
In 82.00 ha of area at Basavanabetta seeds of Bevu, Honge, Nelli, sandal etc., are
dibbled in natural bushes and thalliies under KSFMBC scheme. The germination is
around 16% and the performance of germinated seedlings is not satisfactory.
The 30 ha plantation raised under AR model in Rachappajinagara EDC, 30 ha of
ANR model in Gopinatham EDC, 40 ha of Bamboo model in Pudur EDC and 20 ha
of mixed model in Indiganatha EDCs under FDA scheme are complete failure due to
improper selection of site and species.
The plantation raised in Arabegere-K.hosur area compartment 72 in an extent of 30.00
ha under FDA scheme in Pasture development model is average with 29.4% of
survival.
The plantation journals are partially updated for the above plantations.
OTHER WORKS:
S.
Year Scheme Range Hobli Village Location Work
No
1. Building Maintenance:
Kanakapura Renovation of
1 2005-06 RB&BM Halaguru Muthathi Muthathi
WL twin staff qtrs
Kanakapura Construction of
2 2004-05 PADF Halaguru Muthathi Muthathi
WL Garbage bin
Eco_tour Kanakapura Muthathi Nature
3 2006-07 Halaguru Muthathi Renovation of IB
ism WL camp
Kanakapura Maintenance of
4 2006-07 RB&BM Kodihalii Kanaka pura Kanakapura
WL twin staff qtrs
Construction of
Project Gorjaguli hall
5 2004-05 Cowdally WL Ramapura Arabagere anti-poaching
Elephant compt.72
camp
204
Repairs to cause
6 2004-05 DNPS Cowdally WL Ramapura Dontolly Doddabolop
way
Roads & Maintenance of
7 2006-07 Cowdally WL Ramapura Dontolly Dontolly
Bridges staff qtrs
Construction of
Project
8 2005-06 MM hills WL Ramapura MM Hills Dudu duduki anti-poaching
Elephant
camp
2. Maintenance of Roads:
Uganidoddi to Maintennce of
Kanakapura
1 2004-05 PADF Halaguru Muthathi Galibore 8.5km Sanctuary
WL
road.
Rachappjinagar Maintennce of
2 2005-06 TFC Hanur WL Hanur --- chain gate to 6.0km Patrolling
Cauvery river road.
Mastigodanadoddi Maintennce of
to udupeane 7.0+3.0km
3 2005-06 DNPS Hanur WL Hanur --- &Balagunase to Patrolling road.
Kongahalli
Shogyam
chaingate to
Basavanakada
Maintenance of
4 2004-05 DNPS Hanur WL Hanur --- (7km)
sanctuary road
&Rachappajinagar
to Byatarayana
Devstana 3Km
Donlolly to
Maintenance of
5 2006-07 DNPS Cowdally WL Ramapura Donlolly Changady (compt
patrolling road.
74 &77)
Donlolly towards Maintenance of
6 2005-06 TFC Cowdaly WL Ramapura ----
Dobaguli track road
Donlolly towards Maintenance of
7 2005-06 DNPS Cowdaly WL Ramapura Arabegere
Gorjagulihalla patrolling road.
3.SMC WORKS:
Construction of
1 2004-05 JBIC Hanur WL Hanur --- Hitmaranahalla
Gully checks
Deepening and
Rachappaji Aldamaradakere
2 2005-06 DNPS Hanur WL Hanur desilting of check
nagara CD
dam
3 2006-07 DNPS Hanur WL Hanur --- Hitmaranahalla Creation of Tank
Deepening and
4 2005-06 PADF Cowdaly WL Ramapura Arabegere Otukunte kere
desilting of tank
Aldamaradakere Deepening and
5 2005-06 DNPS Cowdaly WL Ramapura Donlolly
haggur kere desilting of tank
Project Kurubanakere
6 2007-08 Cowdaly WL Ramapura Donlolly Creation of Tank
Elephant Compt-74
Desilting and
Kanakapura Ulyahosa
7 2004-05 DNPS Kodihalli Kolkote pitcing of check
WL doddi
dam
Deepening and
MM hills
8 2005-06 DNPS MM hills WL Ramapura Bnakobe halla desilting of
RF
checkdam
4.FIRELINE MAINTENANCE & ECO TOURISM
Kanakapura Drilling of
1 2005-06 DNPS Kodihalli Sangama Sangama
WL Borewell
205
Kanakapura Fixing of Motor to
2 2005-06 DNPS Kodihalli Sangama Sangama
WL Borewell
Kanchikatte D
Project Reconditioning of
3 2004-05 Hanur WL Hanur --- line to Sundrally
Elephant EPT
D line
Mantenance of
Kanakapura
4 2005-06 DNPS Halaguru Muthathi Sujikalu Fireline
WL
Kolkote –
Muthathi 6km,
Kanakapura Thirugana mada – Creation of new
5 2006-07 DNPS Halaguru Muthathi
WL Bhemeswari 6km, fireline
Uganidoddi to
Galibore 8km.
¾ The team visited 8 building works, 7 works of maintenance of sanctuary roads, 8
soil moisture conservation works including de-silting of Check dams, tanks, 2 fire
lines maintenance and creation works and an ecotourism work.
¾ The building works include construction of anti poaching camps and maintenance
of existing staff quarters and an inspection bungalow. All the works executed
satisfactorily, but the construction of permanent anti poaching camps would make
the staff fixed to a place and their movements become predictable by the poachers.
¾ The existing Roads were maintained and the works are satisfactory.
¾ The quality of Soil and moisture conservation works is satisfactory. The division
has taken up de-silting of existing tanks and old check dams in the sanctuary area
which is essential as construction or creation of new works involves considerable
amount money.
¾ Bore well was dug at Sangam for supply of water to visitors during the year 2005-
06 and a motor was also purchased in the same year but till the time of inspection
the motor is not fixed to the bore well defeating the very purpose of the work.
DISTRIBUTION OF SEEDLINGS:
No seedlings were raised or distributed to the public by the division during the period
under evaluation
CHAMARAJANAGAR WILD LIFE DIVISION:
The Protected Area known as Biligiri Rangaswamy Temple (BRT) wild life sanctuary
comprising over 540 sq, kms, and little forests of its adjoining areas of 30 sq.kms constitutes
the Chamarajnagar wild life division. The division has two subdivisions. Chamarajnagar sub-
division with its head quarters at Chamarajnagar, comprises Kyathe Devaragudi (K.Gudi)
range and Punajanur range. Yellandur sub-division with its head quarters at Yellendur
comprises of Yelendur and Bylore ranges.
The sanctuary is a unique Bio-geographical entity, situated at the junction of the
Eastern and Western Ghats of South India and located between 11043’ and 12049’ North
latitudes and 77001’ and 77015 East longitudes.
BRT sanctuary biogeographically is very unique with habitats ranging from dry
deciduous scrub vegetation to evergreen forests, undulating plateau land to high hills with
deep valleys and rocky clefts. The flora and fauna is equally diverse, the diversity and its
types is the result of variety of topographic features, soil types and bio-climates.
The drainage is characterized by two major streams i.e. Suvarnavati and Gundal halla
and its various tributaries.
PLANTATIONS:
Evalution in all schemes excluding FDA : 3 (100 ha)
206
Total Number of the plantation visited by the Team : 2 (50 ha)
Extent(in
Ha/ km)
SEED SOWING:
Chandaka Punjeir SF,

1 2005-06 KSFMBC Punajur Budipadaga 50.00
vadi Yarekatte Bl-I
Chandaka Punjeir SF,
2 2006-07 KSFMBC Punajur Budipadaga 25.00
vadi Yarekatte Bl-II
Kurubanakatte
3 2006-07 KSFMBC Bylore ---- Arepalya 30.00
Doddasampige RF
PLANTING:
4 2005-06 KSFMBC Yellandur Yerambahally K.Devarahally 54 &55 45.00
K.Gudi
5 2006-07 TFC Haradanahalli Attigulipura --- 10.00
WL
Summary fo Evaluation of Individual plantations:

Extent Statu Plnt
S. Pit/ Spp. Mainte Micro
Year Village (in Ha/ Model Spacing s of Journa
No Trench planted -nance plan
km) VFC l
2005 K.Devara Up
1 54 &55 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
-06 hally dated
2006 Attigulipu Up
2 Yes Yes No Yes Yes No --
-07 ra dated

Extent Se;ection
Choice
Year Village of
No Ha/ of site Plantation aspects percentatge condition
Species
km) model
2005- 54
1 K.Devarahally Proper Proper Proper Proper 70.00 Not healthy
06 &55
2006-
2 Attigulipura Proper Proper Proper Proper 87.00 Satisfactory
07
Details of afforestation works and Entry Point Activities selected randomly for
evaluation in FDA_NAP scheme.
Extent
S. (in
Year Range Hobli VFC/ EDC Village Sy.No Model
No Ha/
km)
Back waters of
2004- K.Gudi
1 Chandakawadi Attigulipura Attigulipura Suvarnavathi 10.00 ANR
05 WL
dam
2005- K.Gudi Mahadeswara Mahadeswara
2 Chandakawadi Gantasalakatte 20.00 ANR
06 WL colony colony
2005- K.Gudi
3 Chandakawadi Hongalvadi II Hongalawadi Hongalvadi II 16.00 ANR
06 WL
2005- Kirubanakatte
4 Punjeer Chandakawadi Kodipalya Kodipalya 15.00 ANR
06 Punjeer SF
2005- Kirubanakatte
5 Punjeer Chandakawadi Punjeer gate Punjeer gate 15.00 ANR
06 Punjeer SF
207
Neeragundi
2004-
6 Bylore -- Havinamoole Havinamoole area, near 10.00 ANR
05
Hunasepalya
2004- BRT extension
7 Yellandur Yellandur Vibuthigudda T.Hosur 10.00 ANR
05 forest
2004- Devarahally
8 Yellandur Yellandur Desanahundi Desanahundi 10.00 ANR
05 mala
2005- Kollegal Maduvanahalli
9 --- Thimmarajipura Thimmarajipura 35.00 ANR
06 WL gudda
2004- K.Gudi Near Ganesna
10 Chandakwadi Hongalvadi I Hongalwadi I 10.00 Mixed
05 WL temple
2004- K.Gudi
11 Chandakwadi Kuntagudi Kuntagudi Kuntagudi 10.00 Mixed
05 WL
2005- K.Gudi Kumbeswara Kumbeswara Kumbeswara
12 Chandakwadi 4.00 Mixed
06 WL colony colony colony
2004- Muneswara Muneswara
13 Punjeer Chandakwadi Deverekere 10.00 Mixed
05 colony colony
2004-
14 Bylore Lokkanahally Kathegal podu Hiriyambala Kallihoddu area 10.00 Mixed
05
2005-
15 Yellendur Yellendur Gangavadi Gangavadi Gangavadi 15.00 Mixed
06
2004- K.Gudi Silvi-
16 Chandakvadi Kullur Kullur colony Kullur 16.00
05 WL pasture
2005- Maraligudde Silvi-
17 Punjeer Chandakvadi Chikkamudehalli Chikkamudehalli 25.00
06 area pasture
2005- Belada marada Silvi-
18 Bylore Lokkanally Uddatti Uddatti 25.00
06 padaga pasture
2005- Silvi-
19 Yellendur Gowdally Budethitta Budethitta Shanthanakatte 20.00
06 pasture
2005- K.Gudi
20 Chandakvadi Hongalavadi -II Hongalavadi -II Hongalavadi -II 16.00 Bambooo
06 WL
2005-
21 Punjeer Chandakvadi Kolipalya Kolipalya Kalkere 25.00 Bambooo
06
2005- Madhuvanahalli
22 Kollegal --- Thimmarajipura Thimmarajipura 25.00 Bambooo
06 gudda
2005-
23 Yellendur Yellendur A.Devarahalli A.Devarahalli A.Devarahalli 20.00 Bambooo
06
NAP_FDA Entry Point Activities:
S.No Year Range Hobli VFC/ EDC Village Entry Point Activity
2004- K.Gudi Attigulipura

1 Chandakvadi Attigolipura Construction of Temple
05 WL Girijana colony
2005- K.Gudi Hongalvadi Providing Shamiyana, Chairs &
2 Chandakvadi Hongalvadi
06 WL EDC-II Tables for community use.
2005- K.Gudi
3 Chandakvadi Kullur Kullur Erection of Flour mill
06 WL
2004-
4 Bylore --- Kothegalpodu Kathegal podu Formation of New tank
05
2004- Muneswar Muneswar
5 Punjur Chandakvadi EPT
05 colony colony
208
2005-
6 Punjur Chandakvadi Chikkamudahalli Chikkamudahalli Purchase of Vessels
06
2005-
7 Punjur Chandakvadi Kollipalya EDC Kollipalya Purchase of Shamiyana set
06

Extent
Status
VFC
km)
Back waters of
2004-
1 Suvarnavathi 10.00 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Submerged
05
dam
2005-
2 Gantasalakatte 20.00 Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Up dated
06
2005-
3 Hongalwadi II 16.00 Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Up dated
06
2005- Kirubanakatte
4 15.00 Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Updated
06 Punjeer SF
2005- Kirubanakatte
5 15.00 Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Updated
06 Punjeer SF
Neeragundi area,
2004-
6 near 10.00 Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Up dated
05
Hunasepalya
2004-
7 Vibhthigudda 10.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Up dated
05
2004- Devarahally
8 10.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Up dated
05 mala
9 35.00 Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Up dated
06 gudda
Hongalvadi I
2004-
10 (Near Ganesna 4.00 Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Up dated
05
temple)
2004-
11 Kuntagudi 10.00 Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Up dated
05
2005- Kumbeswara
12 4.00 Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Up dated
06 colony
2004-
13 Deverekere 10.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Up dated
05
2004- Kathegal podu
05 Kallihoddu area
2005-
15 Gangavadi 15.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Up dated
06
2004-
16 Kullur 16.00 Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Up dated
05
Chikkamudehalli
2005-
17 (Maraligudde 25.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Up dated
06
area)
2005- Belada marada
06 padaga
2005-
19 Shanthanakatte 20.00 Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Up dated
06
2005-
20 Hongalavadi -II 16.00 No Yes Yes No Yes Yes yes Up dated
06
209
2005-
21 Kalkere 25.00 Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes yes Up dated
06
22 25.00 Yes No Yes Yes No No No Up dated
06 gudda
2005-
23 A.Devarahalli 20.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Up dated
06

Extent Se;ection
Choice
Ha/ of site Plantation aspects % condition
Species
km) model
Back waters of
2004- Sub-
1 Suvarnavathi 10.00 --- --- --- --- ---
05 merged
dam
2005-
2 Gantasalakatte 20.00 Proper Proper Improper Proper 69.00 Satisfactory
06
2005-
3 Hongalwadi II 16.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 80.00 Satisfactory
06
2005- Kirubanakatte
4 15.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 75.00 Satisfactory
06 Punjeer SF
2005- Kirubanakatte
06 Punjeer SF
Neeragundi area,
2004-
6 near 10.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 85.50 Good
05
Hunasepalya
2004-
7 Vibhuthigudda 10.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 95.0 Not healthy
05
2004- Devarahally
8 10.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 89.0 Not healthy
05 mala
2005- Maduvanahalli
06 gudda
Hongalvadi I
2004-
10 Near Ganesna 4.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 78.3 Satisfactory
05
temple
2004-
11 Kuntagudi 10.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 58.0 Satisfactory
05
2005- Kumbeswara
06 colony
2004-
13 Deverekere 10.00 Proper Proper Improper Proper 70.0 Satisfactory
05
2004-
14 Kallihoddu area 10.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 90.0 Good
05
2005-
15 Gangavadi 15.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 90.0 Not healthy
06
2004-
16 Kullur 16.00 Proper Proper Improper Proper 64.0 Satisfactory
05
2005- Chikkamudehalli
17 25.00 Proper Proper Improper Improper -- --
06 Mardigudde area
2005- Belada marada
18 25.00 Proper Proper Improper Proper 80.7 Good
06 padaga
2005-
19 Shanthanakatte 20.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 85.0 Not healthy
06
210
2005-
20 Hongalavadi -II 16.00 Proper Improper Proper Proper 73.0 Satisfactory
06
2005-
21 Kalkere 25.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 72.0 Satisfactory
06
22 25.00 Improper Improper Improper Improper 29.5 Poor
06 gudda
2005-
23 A.Devarahalli 20.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 90.0 Not healthy
06

The division has raised 100 ha of plantations in all schemes excluding FDA during
the period under evaluation, out of which 50 ha selected randomly taken up for
evaluation.
In an extent of 340 ha, seed sowing operations were carried out and 105 ha of area
taken up for evaluation on random basis.
The division has raised 1630 ha of plantations under NAP_FDA during 2004-05 and
2005-06 and the evaluation team randomly selected 392 ha of plantation in all models
and ranges for evaluation.
2005-06 ANR model 35.00 ha plantation in Timmarajipura of Bylore range. Nelli,
Tamarind, Nerale and Neem seedlings have been planted at 200 plants per Ha. The
seedlings have come up well and survival is 90%.
2004-05 ANR model 10.00 ha plantation in Attugulipura village on the back waters of
Suvarnavathi dam in K.Gudi range was submerged in back waters. Before taking up
afforestation works in back waters, it should have been ascertained the FRL of the
reservoir to avoid wasteful expenditure.
The ANR model platations of 16 ha at Gantasalekatte(69%), 16ha at Hongalwadi
Block II in K.Gudi range(80%), 15 ha of Kolipalya EDC (75%) and 15 ha of Punjur
gate EDC(71%) in Kirubanukallu in Punjur range, are raised in thorny bush areas in
gaps, and spacement could not be maintained, and laying of sample plots on random
basis is difficult. Here though planted with local species, but due to casualty
replacement with acacia and Eucalyptus, the composition of species changed. The
maintenance operations were done for the planting year only. The plantation journal
are updated but without survey sketch.
In Neeragundi area of Havinamule village 10 ha of ANR model plantation raised
during 2004-05. The plantation has been done in sanctuary area frequented by
elephants. Though seedlings were planted at close spacement, the general condition of
the plantation is good with 85% survival.
In T.Hosur village at Vibuthigudda 10 ha and another 10 ha of plantation in
Devarahalli mala of Desanhalli village of Yellendur range were raised under ANR
model during 2004-05. In these plantations the survival is good with more than 90%,
but the general condition of the plantation is not healthy, and only fire wood species
are performing well.
Hongalwadi-I 4 ha, Kuntagudi 10 ha, Kumbeswara colony 4ha of Mixed species
plantations in K.Gudi range and Muneswara colony 4ha in Punjur range are gap
planting in thorny bush areas. The team agrees with species and model of plantation
but differs about the spacement. The maintenance operations were done during the
first year only and journal are posted up without survey sketch.
In Kathegalpodu village at Kallihoddu area 10 ha of mixed plantation model raised
during 2004-05 in Bylore range, but only Eucalyptus seedlings were planted and the
performance of the plantation is good with 90% survival.
211
The condition of 15 ha of mixed plantation raised in Gangavadi village of Yellendur
range not healthy though the survival is 90% and only fuel wood species are doing
well.
In Hiriyambala 10 ha of mixed plantation raised during 2004-05 in Bylore range. The
choice of species and model compatibility is improper. Though the survival is more
than 90%, the choice of species is not compatible with the plantation model. Species
yielding minor forest produce and medicinal plants should have planted under this
model.
In Uddathi 25 ha 2005-06 plantation, Silvi-pasture model the choice of species is not
in accord with model. Out of the 4 species, except Neem, no other fodder species
were planted.
2005-06 Bamboo model 25.00 ha plantation in Timmarajipura bamboo and teak has
been planted. The area is with considerable population of elephants, and falls across
their movement corridor and seedlings been damaged by and browsed by wild
animals. The plantation work could have been avoided in such areas. The survival is
29%. Similarly the 25 ha plantation of Bamboo at Kalkere in Punjur range the
seedlings were damaged by wild animals. The plantation is carried in thorny bush area
and spacement could not be maintained and also sample plot could not be laid out
because of this. The acacia seedlings planted as replacement could have been avoided
and survival is 72%.
2005-06 Bamboo model 16.00 ha plantation in Hongaldoddi II area of K.Gudi range
the replacement was done by other miscellaneous species as the bamboo seedlings
were failed. The planting was done in gaps, and obviously spacement could not be
maintained and plantation journal with out survey sketch maintained but clubbed with
other plantations. The survival of plantation is 72%.
2005-06 Bamboo model 20.00 ha plantation in A.Devarahalli of Yellandur range,
though survival is 90% the plantation is not looking healthy. Only fuel wood species,
replacements for original bamboo seedlings are surviving.
FDA Entry-point Activities:
In NAP_FDA scheme the funds provided for entry point activities were utilized for
revenue generating works, de-silting and creation of water ponds, digging of EPT and
for construction of temples etc.,
In EDCs such as Hongalwadi-II, Kullur, Chikkemuddehalli, Kolipalya revenue
generating works like erection of Flour mill, and items required for functions such as
shamiana, chairs, tables, utensils were purchased. But the details about revenue
realized are not available.
In Kathegal podu EDC a new water tank has been created which was very useful to
wild animals as no perennial stream is in the neighborhood and the quality of work is
good.
OTHER WORKS:
S.
Year Scheme Range Hobli Village Location Work
No
2006- Construction
1 DNPS(C) Yellendur --- --- Amekere beat
07 Gully checks
212
Construction of
2006- Cause way at
2 DNPS(C) Yellendur --- --- ----
07 Munda sampige
halla
2005- Doddahalla, Construction of
3 DNPS(C) Yellendur Cowdally ---
06 Purani section Checkdam
2004- Improvement to
4 DNPS(C) K.Gudi WL Chandakwadi --- Hulibiddahalla
05 Tank
2006- Construction
5 DNPS© Punjur Chandakwadi Bhorewadi Bale area
07 Gully checks
2006- Project Excavation of
6 Bylore Lokkanahally Havinamule Havinamulepodu
07 elephant 600 mts of EPT
2006- Project Excavation of
7 Bylore Lokkanahally Mavathur Mavathur
07 elephant 2000 mts of EPT
2005- Project Kadagadamarada Construction of
8 Punjur Chandakawadi Punasanur
06 elephant halla Causeway
2006- Nature Excavation of
9 Yelendur Yelendur ---- Kullikothale
07 conservation 1000 mts of EPT
Excavation of
2006- Nature
10 Bylore Lokkanahalli Yergabalu ---- 1000 mts of EPT
07 conservation
From 9th mile to
2006- Nature Kumbeswara Excavation of
11 K.Gudi WL Chandakawadi Kumbeswara
07 conservation colony EPT
colony
147-Land Construction of
2006- Central Nursery
12 and Chamarajanagar Kasabu Chamarajnagar Compound wall
07 area
Buildings at North block
Nilagiri Improvement to
2004- Jyothigowdara Jyothigowdara
13 Biosphere K.Gudi WL Chandakawadi Maramonkatte
05 pura pura
reserve tank
Nilagiri Improvement of
2005- Santhe- Honganoor
14 Biosphere K.Gudi WL Honganoor Nallimaradakatte
06 maranahalli (Kurubarahundi)
reserve water hole
Nilagiri
2005- Mudahalli new Creation of
15 Biosphere Punjur Chandakwadi Mudahalli
06 nursery water hole
reserve

• The EPT works carried out at Yeragabalu, Mavathur and Havinamule in Bylore range
under Project Elephant and Nature conservation schemes to consolidate sanctuary
area and prevent entry of elephants to the adjoining agricultural fields found to be
effective in reducing the crop damage.
• The EPT excavated in K.Gudi range under nature conservation scheme is not
effective as it is not continuous. Wherever rock formation encountered, solar fence
could have been taken up to prevent the entry of elephants into the adjacent lands.
• The Gully plugs constructed in Amekere beat in Yellendur range are in order and
would serve the purpose.
• Construction causeway across munda sampige halls satisfactory.
• The de-silting of tanks and checkdam works are satisfactory and purposeful.
• The building maintenance works are satisfactory.
DISTRIBUTION SEEDLINGS:
No seedlings were raised or distributed to the public by the division during the period
under evaluation
CHAMARAJANAGAR SOCIAL FORESTRY DIVISION:
213
Chamarajnagar social forest division under the administrative control of Zilla
Panchayat Chamarajnagar is headed by Deputy Conservator of forest with head quarters at
Chamarajnagar, and assisted by an Asst. Conservator of Forests. This division has
jurisdiction over the entire district consisting of 4 SF Ranges of Chamarajnagar, Gundlupet,
Kollegal and Yellendur. Its mandate is Afforestation and forestry extension out side the
notified forest areas.
PLANTATIONS:
Social forestry division has not carried out any afforestation works except for raising
of demonstration plots in willing farmers’ land under the on going KSFMBC project. The
division has raised Demonstration Plots on farmers’ land. The team has selected 7 spots in all
four ranges covering an area of 9.40 ha randomly for evaluation.
Details of demo plots selected randomly for evaluation.
S. Extent(in Ha/ Survival
Year Scheme Range Hobli Village Sy.No percentage
No km)
Kollegal
1 2005-06 KSFMBC Palya Chikkalur 1075 1.00 5.4
SF
Yellendur
2 2005-06 KSFMBC Kasaba Yergemballi 210 0.40 0.00
SF
Gundlupet
3 2004-05 KSFMBC Kasaba Kandegala 197 1.00 35.6
SF
C.Nagar 444/1 & 2
4 2005-06 KSFMBC Kasaba Badanaguppe 3.00 83.0
SF 446/1 & 2
C.Nagar
5 2005-06 KSFMBC Kasaba Badanaguppe 70 1.00 54.0
SF
38/1&2,
C.Nagar
6 2005-06 KSFMBC Kasaba Badanaguppe 41/12A, 2.00 74.0
SF
581
C.Nagar
7 2006-07 KSFMBC Kasaba Gowdahally 1010 1.00 27.0
SF
¾ The survival percentage and is good where farmers have shown interest in
protecting the seedlings planted.
¾ In chikkalur village only 15 seedlings are surviving out of the 277 grafted mango
planted. The farmer has not shown any interest in the planting.
¾ In Yergemballi, the farmer cultivated sugar cane as intercrop and due to severe
root competition and competition for light the plantation is a total failure.
¾ In demonstration plots where seedlings are planted on the bunds the results are
better.
¾ Teak, Nelli and Silver oak planted on bunds are shown better results than grafted
mango and other horticultural species.
Farm forestry is important component of the afforestation programme of KFD.
The department supplies the seedlings either free of cost by some wings or at subsidized
cost by other wings, to the interested farmers and others for planting. Apart from farmers,
seedlings are supplied to institutions like schools, colleges, other Government
departments and NGOs.
Chamarajnagr Social forest division has distributed 99,360 during 2004-05
and 2,27,347 seedlings in 2006-07 covering all the four ranges of the district namely
Chamarajanagar, Gundlupet, Yellandur and Kollegal, as well as neighboring villages of
214
other districts, however no seedlings were distributed during 2005-06. The distribution of
seedlings was taken up under KSFMBC scheme. The evaluation team selected randomly
10% of the total sample, in all ranges and at least one sample per hubli. In
Chamarajanagar range totally 12 spots were selected, like wise Yellendur range 6 spots
were selected in Gundlupet range 13 samples were selected and in Kollegal range 11
spots were selected.
The team has visited the following spots and interviewed the beneficiaries to assess
the performance of various species and to find out the interest of farmers in the Farm
forestry.
S. Taluk/ Name of the Species Num Survi-
Dodda
1 Kollegal Palya Masanasetty Eucalyptus 4000 48 Good
indavadi
2 Kollegal Palya Sathegala Prakash Eucalyptus 1000 62 Good
Jachani
3 Kollegal Kasaba Kempanapalya Teak 2000 62 Good
Ashrama
Saint Margaret
4 Kollegal Palya Kamagere Teak 2000 68 Good
Vasathi School
5 Kollegal Palya Palya Maleyappa Eucalyptus 1000 72 Good
T.S.Shankara
6 Kollegal Bandalli Halagumoole Casuarina 700 87 Good
narayana
7 Kollegal Lokkanahalli Kondainapalya Mariabhovi Eucalyptus 1000 48 Poor
8 Kollegal Lokkanahalli Kondainapalya V.Muttegowda Eucalyptus 1200 82 Good

Casuarina 600
M.Vasanth
9 Kollegal Palya Sathegala Eucalyptus 400 55 Poor
kumar
Teak 200
Casuarina
1000
10 Kollegal Palya Sathegala Basavalingaiah Teak 86 Good
600
Teak 400
Doddathu-
11 Gundlupet Kasaba G.V.Venkateaha Eucalyptus 350 30 Poor
ppuru
Acacia 350
Teak 200
12 Gundlupet Beguru Kurubarahundy K.K.Mahesha Eucalyptus 500 40 Poor
Acacia 400
Teak 300
13 Gundlupet Hangala Mangala K.Santhosh Casuarina 300 55 poor
Nugge 100
Teak 200
Chikka-
14 Gundlupet Terakanambi Kandegala Eucalyptus 260 60 Good
thimmayappa
Acacia 200
Teak 200
15 Gundlupet Kasaba Gundlupet S.Rajashekara T.Bevu 100 85 Good
Eucalyptus 300
Maddaiahna
16 Gundlupet Hangala Shivashankara Teak 600 68 Good
hundy
Maddaiahna
17 Gundlupet Hangala Radhakrishana Teak 400 72 Good
hundy
18 Gundlupet Begur Thoravalli Basappa Eucalyptus 3000 86 Good
Halladamandal Turukabev Good
19 Gundlupet Beguru Sunder 3000 65
ly u
Turukabev
500
20 Gundlupet Beguru Thondavady Yathiraj u 82 good
200
Teak
215
Eucalyptus
250
21 Gundlupet Terakanambi Kodasoge Nagamallappa Turukabev 82 Good
240
u
020
Others
Teak 800
22 Gundlupet Kasaba Hasagooty H.S.Nagaraj 50 Good
Nugge 200
N.K.Chandra- Turukabev
23 Gundlupet Terakanambi Hullepura 200 81 Good
shekar u
24 Yellandur Kasaba Yellandur Nagesh Teak 500 0 Failure
Teak 160
Eucalyptus 200
25 Yellandur Agara Basavapura Shesha Rao 80 Good
Casuarina 200
Silver Oak 40
Teak 25
26 Yellandur Kasaba Gumbally Karuna trust Casuarina 100 70 Good
Honge 75
27 Yellandur Kasaba Yeragambally Soma naika Teak 112 70 Good
28 Yellandur Kasaba Yeragambally Kappana Teak 72 60 Good

Thammaiah
29 Yellandur Kasaba Gumbally Teak 126 60 Good
naika
Eucalyptus Very
30 C.Nagar Kasaba Vedapura Mysore minerals 1000 60
& others Good
Teak &
31 C.Nagar Harave Kalpure M.Subbanna 2600 35 Poor
others
32 C.Nagar Chadakwadi Hondarawadi Rajendra Hebbevu 1000 25 Poor
Mahadeswara Honge &
33 C.Nagar Harave Kalpure 890 6 Poor
temple others
Gram Panchayat
34 C.Nagar Kasaba Shivapura Honge 1250 60 Good
main road
Chandaka
35 C.Nagar Rechamballi Renukamba Teak 1000 80 Good
wadi
Chandaka
36 C.Nagar Kotamballi Nanjaiah Teak 1000 20 Poor
wadi
Heradana
37 C.Nagar halli Virayana pura Nagibai Teak 500 30 Poor
Heradana
38 C.Nagar halli Virayana pura M.G.Naika Teak 500 65 Poor
Heradana
39 C.Nagar Virayana pura Ramanaika Teak 500 45 Good
halli
Heradana Teak 300
40 C.Nagar Kolipalya Sacrenaika 40 Poor
halli Casuarina 200
Heradana Dore Teak 300
41 C.Nagar Punjur 40 Poor
halli Muthugowda Casuarina 200
¾ Mostly Eucalyptus, Teak, Silver oak, Turukabevu, Honge and Nugge seedlings
were distributed. The performance of teak and eucalyptus seedlings is better.
¾ The seedlings were planted by the beneficiaries, but most of the farmers have not
taken up any cultural operations and watering, but the performance surviving
plants is generally good.
¾ Where irrigation is made available the seedlings’ performance is good.
¾ In cases where performance is reported to be poor, most of the seedlings have died
because the farmers have neither given adequate care to protect it from fire nor
216
provided adequate watering. Further the farmers, who have purchased the
seedlings and planted on farm land, have ignored to nurture the forestry crop and
it appears they have nurtured the agricultural crop more.
¾ The onus is on the Social forestry division to educate the farmers about the
relevance of farm forestry and guide the beneficiaries for better forestry
operations by extending technical help. It appears, the motivators who need to
motivate farmers or beneficiary neglected to do so.
General Observations and Suggestions:
¾ The team suggests strengthening of Eco-development activities in the surrounding
habitations of wild life areas to enlist better cooperation in the overall
management of protected areas.
¾ The carrying of EPT works in patches should be avoided, and wherever rock
formations are encountered it should be made fool-proof with solar fencing to
prevent the frequent man-animal conflict and crop damage.
¾ The raising of plantations and choice of species should aim at better management
of wildlife habitat and fodder requirement of wild animals. Raising of fuel wood
plantations should strictly be avoided inside the protected areas.
¾ All on going schemes may be continued. It is desirable to evaluate only those
plantations whose maintenance cycle is already completed.
The Compliance report submitted by the Conservator of Forests
Chamarajnagar circle is appended to the report.
KOLLEGAL FOREST DIVISION:
The present Kollegal division has been re-constituted after the creation of Cauvery
wildlife division, Kanakapura, and transfer of parts of areas to Mandya division and
Chamarajnagar wildlife division and falls entirely in Kollegal taluk of Chamarajnagar district.
The total forest area of the division is 113197.75 hectares with an additional area of 3766 ha
pertaining to Satthegal jagir that has been notified under section 4 of KFA 1963. The division
is bounded in the North by Cauvery River, Kanakapura wildlife division and Mandya district.
In the south it runs along the inter-state border between Tamilanadu and Palar river. The
eastern boundary of the division runs along Kanakapura wildlife division, Palar River, and
Tamilnadu state boundary and on western part bounded by Mysore, Mandya districts and
Cauvery River. The division lies between latitudes 110 45’ and 120 24’north and between
longitudes 770 06’ to 770 47’ east and spans over 77 km from east to west and 92 km from
north to south.
The division is more or less undulating with a series of small hills running parallel to
each other giving rise to several valleys. The hills have steep to precipitous slopes towards
south and the plateau of Ponnachi reaches an elevation of 1514 m in Mahadeswaramalai.
The division receives rainfall mainly from Northwest monsoon and few showers from
southeast monsoon. Major portion of rainfall in the division drains in to the Cauvery River
and towards the east in to Palar River. The other important streams are Gundal and Uduhtorai
halla.
PLANTATIONS:
Evaluation in all schemes excluding FDA : 34 (533 ha)
217
Details of afforestation works selected randomly for evaluation in all schemes except
FDA_NAP.
Extent(in
Ha/ km)
Comp. Yedeyaralli
1 2004-05 Kollegal Lokkanalli Compt:107 5.00
plantation RF
2 2004-05 KFDF-03 OP Kollegal Palya Sattegal 174 15.00
Yedeyaralli
3 2005-06 DDF Kollegal Lokkanalli Compt:108 15.00
RF
Forest protection
4 2005-06 Gundlupet Gundlu pet Road side 16.00
&Regeneration &COP
MM Hills
5 2006-07 TFC Ramapura Ramapura Konankere 20.00
RF
6 2006-07 KSFMBC Kollegal Lokkanalli Hosadoddi 106 30.00
The division has raised 533 ha plantation excluding FDA_NAP during the period of 3
years under evaluation, out this 101.00 ha was selected for evaluation which works out to be
18.94% of the area. In addition to afforestation works the division has carried out seed
sowing/ dribbling in trenches, pits and bushes in an extent of 2425 ha, out of which 270 ha
evaluated covering 11.13% area.
Extent Mainte- Status Micro Plnt
S. (in Pit/ Spp. nance of plan Journal
Year Village Model Spacing
No Ha/ Trench planted VFC
km)
2004 Yedeyar No Up
-05 alli RF VFc dated
2004 No Up
2 Sattegal 15.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes --
-05 VFc dated
2005 Yedeyar No Up
-06 alli RF VFc dated
2005 Road No Up
-06 side VFc dated
2006 Konanke No Up
-07 re VFc dated
2006 Hosado Up
-07 ddi dated

Extent Se;ection Survival General
Choice
(in Selection of Protection percentatge condition
Species
km) model
2004- Yedeyaralli
05 RF
218
2004-
2 Sattegal 15.00 Proper Improper Proper Improper 93.00 Satisfactory
05
2005- Yedeyaralli
3 15.00 Proper Proper Proper Improper 94.00 Satisfactory
06 RF
2005-
4 Road side 16.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 48.00 Average
06
2006-
5 Konanakere 20.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 73.50 Good
07
2006-
6 Hosadoddi 30.00 Proper Proper Improper Proper 73.00 Good
07
Observation and comments of the Evaluation team:

¾ Out of 6 plantations visited by the team 5 are block plantations and one is road side
plantation.
¾ All the plantations raised in reserve forest and notified forest areas.
¾ The survival percentage varies from 43% in case of road side plantation in Gundlupet
range to 93% in Sathegal jager section 4 notified areas.
¾ All the areas selected for block plantations are having moderate scrub vegetation with
good root stock of Chloroxylon switenia, Albizzia amara, Acacia leucophloea,
Anogeissus latifolia, etc., with open gaps. Plantations are raised in open gaps in pit
model except KSFMBC Lokkanalli plantation which is trench mound model.
¾ All the areas selected for plantations are prone to biotic interference particularly by
wild animals. In all the plantations though survival is good, wild elephants’ damage is
observed and the future of the plantations is not promising. Even well grown up
saplings are damaged by wild elephants.
¾ The road side plantation raised on Mysore to Sulatanbateri road on either side of
Gundlupet town for 16kms, and planted with Melia dubia. The survival and growth is
good where adjoining lands are irrigated. Other species wherever planted as casualty
replacements are struggling.
¾ Lokkanalli 30 ha plantation raised under KSFMBC scheme is trench cum pit (model
4) with ripping, planted with Eucalyptus and cassia species in trenches and Pongamia
and Neem in pits. The seedlings planted in open gaps are doing well particularly
Eucalyptus, but in other areas they are struggling and survival is also poor. The area is
undulating with good natural vegetation, with good scope for soil and moisture
conservation works which are very much needed to the area. But no such works area
carried out.
¾ Except one plantation raised under KSFMBC none of the plantation are having VFCs.
¾ Plantation journals are maintained for all the plantations.
S. Extent(in
Year Range Hobli VFC Village Sy.No Ha/ km) Model
No
1 2006-07 Kollegal Lokkanalli Kuduvale Kuduvlae Compt.106 40.00 Bamboo
2 2006-07 Kollegal Lokkanalli Kuduvale Kuduvlae Compt.106 100.00 ANR
3 2006-07 Hanur Palya Mariapura Mariapura Compt.26 50.00 AR
4 2006-07 Ramapura Ramapura Konankere Konankere MM hills RF 25.00 ANR
219
MM hills RF
5 2006-07 Ramapura Ramapura Bidrally Bidrally 30.00 AR
Compt.98
Summary fo Evaluation of Individual plantations:

Extent
Status
(in Pit/ Spp. Mainte- Micro Plnt
S.No Year Village Model Spacing of
Ha/ Trench planted nance plan Journal
VFC
km)
2006-
1 Kuduvlae 40.00 Bamboo Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Partial
07
2006- Not
2 Kuduvlae 100.00 ANR Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes
07 written
2006- Up
3 Mariapura 50.00 AR Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes
07 dated
2006- Up
4 Konankere 25.00 ANR Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
07 dated
2006- Up
5 Bidrally 30.00 AR Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
07 dated

Se;ection Survival General
Extent Choice
S. Selection of Protection percentatge condition
No of site Plantation aspects
km) Species
model
2006 Improp
1 Kuduvlae 40.00 Improper Improper Improper 55.48 Poor
-07 er
2006
2 Kuduvlae 100.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 45.60 Average
-07
2006
3 Mariapura 50.00 Proper Improper Proper Proper 68.00 Average
-07
2006
4 Konankere 25.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 65.8 Good
-07
2006 Satisfactor
5 Bidrally 30.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 71.20
-07 y

The division has raised 1000ha of plantations under FDA_NAP , and in 3 ranges 245
ha of plantations raised in JFPM areas of 4 village forest committees, taken up for
evaluation in 4 models.
In Kuduvale VFC 40 ha of Bamboo and 100 ha of Assisted natural regeneration
model plantations were raised. The area selected is not suitable for bamboo model as
it is rocky and with fairly dense vegetation. The bamboo seedlings planted are also
very small and their future is not encouraging. The ANR model area is also with fairly
good natural vegetation and suited to the model, but due to poor protection and wild
animals the survival percentage and growth is not satisfactory. Except Honge all other
species are struggling. The area is having good potential for soil and moisture
conservation works but very little attention was paid. In fact well planned good soil
moisture conservation works could have helped the existing natural vegetation and
also the wild animals. The village is facing severe elephant problems and under entry
point activities solar fencing was done by spending Rs.1, 90,360 to control the
problem.
220
In Mariapura VFC artificial regeneration model plantation taken up in an extent of
50.00 ha. The area is suitable for model and survival is 68%. The president and
members were enthusiastic about the JFM and under entry point activities, purchased
Shamiana and other items that can be given on rent for functions and realized revenue
of Rs.1000 within 3 months. Though some SMC works were taken up the area is
having still potential for carrying out such works.
In Konankere VFC 25 ha of ANR model plantation raised and survival is 65%. The
selection site, choice of species and protection aspects are satisfactory and seedling
attained average height of around 1 m. The funds available under EPA were spent on
purchase of function items and VFC realizing revenue by renting out these items.
In Bidrally VFC 30 ha of AR model plantation raised and survival is 71%. The
selection sites, choice of species and protection aspects are satisfactory and seedling
attained average height of around 1 m, but seedlings are damaged by wild elephants.
Amount available under EPA was spent on purchase of function items and VFC
realizing revenue by renting out these items.
OTHER WORKS:
Extent(i
S. Yea
Scheme Range Hobli Village Location Sy.No n Ha/
No r
km)
1.Seed sowing:
2004
1 FP.CoP Hanur Palya Chikkalur Chikkalur RF Compt.6,7 100.00
-05
2005
2 DDF Ramapura Ramapura Cowdally Konanker Compt.98 100.00
-06
2006 KSFMB Hangala Somanathpura
3 Gundlupet Hangala 101 50.00
-07 C Dahosahalli sandal reserve
2005
4 DDF MM Hills Ramapura MM Hills MM hills RF. Compt.56,57 20.00
-06
2. Building maintenance:
Land&
2005
1 Building Hanur Palya Kothanur Kothanur Maintenance of staff qtrs
-06
s
Building
2005
2 Maintena MM Hills Ramapura Cowdally Cowdally Maintenance of RFO qtrs
-06
nce
Land&
2006
3 Building Kollegal Kollegal Kollegal Kollegal Maintenance of DCF qtrs
-07
s
Land&
2006
4 Building Kollegal Kollegal Satthegal Satthegal Maintenance of staff qtrs
-07
s
Building
2006
5 Maintena Kollegal Kollegal Kollegal Kollegal Maintenance of staff qtrs
-07
nce
3. Other works:
2005 Project Terakana Shattarakatte

1 Gundlupet Kadabur Tank Desilting of tank
-06 Elephant mbi
Nature Beladahalla to
2006 Terakana
2 Conserva Gundlupet Ramaiahpura suvarnanagara Excavation of new EPT
-07 mbi
tion
221
2005 Palar to Maintenance of forest
3 TFC MM Hills Ramapura MM hills Garikekandy
-06 Road
2006 Chengadi to Maintenance of forest
4 TFC MM Hills Ramapura MM hills Marapala
-07 Road

¾ In all the 4 spots where seed sowing operations are evaluated the germination is
poor or not satisfactory.
¾ The building maintenance works are satisfactory and DCF quarters of Kollegal
still in need of repairs.
¾ Road maintenance works are satisfactory.
¾ Shattarakatte tank which is out side the forest area taken up for desilting under
project elephant scheme. The work is satisfactory.
¾ The excavation of EPT from Beladahall to suvarnnagara to a length of 9km is
satisfactory, but in some places where rock formation encountered the trench
could have made by other means.
Kollegal division has raised 34,000 seedlings during 2006-07 for public distribution.
The seedlings were not distributed to the public since there was not much demand, and used
for the FDA plantations as stated by the DCF.
Sd/-
Chief Conservator of Forests
(Evaluation)
& Team Leader
Annexure-V-Detailed Cirlce Reports
8.5 CHICKMAGALUR CIRCLE
222
Chickmagalur Circle comprises of Chickmagalur forest Division, Koppa Forest
Division, Bhadra Wildlife Division and Social Forestry Division, Chickmagalur. Evaluation
of works implemented under plan and non-plan schemes of 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07
was conducted by an evaluation consisting of Team Leader Chief Conservator of Forests,
Working Plan and with Team Members Conservator of Forests, Shimoga Circle, Deputy
Conservator of Forests, Forest Mobile Squad, Shimoga (now Conservator of Forests,
Research, Bellary), Deputy Conservator of Forests, Social Forestry Research, Bangalore and
Deputy Conservator of Forests, Social Forestry Division, Mangalore. Division wise
Evaluation Report is submitted below.
BHADRA WILDLIFE DIVISION
Introduction:
Bhadra Wild Life Sanctuary has finally been constituted vide notification No.FEE-58-
FWL-96 Dt: 9th March 1998 under Section-26A (b) Wild Life Protection Act 1972 (amended
2002). The total area of the sanctuary is 492-46 sq. kms. There are 17 Reserved Forests
included in the sanctuary spread in Chikmagalur, Tarikere, N.R.Pura and Bhadravathi Taluks.
The Bababudangiri Hill Ranges separated the Muthodi and Hebbe Ranges in south, and
western parts from Lakkavalli and Thanigebylu Ranges in north and eastern parts. The entire
sanctuary area is part of the Bhadra River Water shed. The Forest in Muthodi and Hebbe
Range is moist deciduous type where as the dryness increases towards the North and Eastern
parts, the forest tract becomes dry deciduous to scrubby jungle in eastern fringes.
There are two sub-divisions and four ranges in the division. The administrative
boundary of the sanctuary is well demarcated on the ground and stones slabs have been fixed
to indicate the boundary.
The prime objectives for the management of the sanctuary are as follows:
a) To protect the sanctuary to fullest extent possible so that many endangered and
endemic flora and fauna inhabiting the area are adequately protected and
propagated.
b) To restore the degraded portions of the sanctuary to its original glory through
habitat management and water shed management.
c) To create awareness among the public about the need to protect the nature in
general and Bhadra Wildlife Sanctuary in particular.
d) To maintain and develop, to the extent considered necessary, tourism for
recreation, education and scientific exploration.
e) To create a nucleus of wildlife from where surrounding areas could be stopped by
natural migration.
Evaluation:-
In Bhadra Wildlife division totally 25 spots have been evaluated which could be
classified into:
1) Excavation of Elephant Proof Trenches
2) Construction/Maintenance of buildings
3) Construction of culverts
4) Maintenance of tanks
5) Survey and demarcation
6) Raising of plantations
7) Other miscellaneous works.
Following are the specific observations on each class of works:
1) Excavation of Elephant Proof Trenches:
223
EPTs are dug continuously along the periphery of the sanctuary to consolidate forest
area and to prevent entry of Wild animal to adjoining agricultural lands. Works carried out
satisfactorily. Here and there some portions of EPTs are found silted up, so maintenance is
required. Sowing of suitable forest seeds on trench mound is necessary.
2) Construction/Maintenance of buildings:
Three staff quarters, two semi permanent sheds for antipoaching camps are
constructed and the quality of work is found satisfactory. Forest check post at Khodi repaired
satisfactorily. For the staff quarters built at Chikagrahara white wash is required, and water
supply can be provided from the existing overhead tank. Semi permanent sheds built for
anti poaching camps are maintained very well.
3) Construction of culverts:
Culverts are constructed across the small nalas mainly for movement of patrolling
vehicles especially during rainy season. Design and construction of culverts is satisfactory.
However construction of such concrete structures in midst of natural habitat should be kept as
minimum as possible.
4) Maintenance of tanks:
Formation of bund and protection work to Kesarahalla tank-II and desilting of tank
and embakment formation to Saldana waterhole was done in Thanigebyle range. Works
carridout satisfactorily. However after the execution of work a portion of embakment is
damaged by elephants which needs repair. These waterholes are found to be frequently
visited by elephants.
5) Survey and demarcation works:
Survey and demarcation works done for reorganization of Muthodi and Thanigebyle
ranges but maps are not prepared.
6) Raising of plantations:
Under NAP-FDA scheme 100 ha of block plantation raised in 3 blocks in Hebbe
range during 2006-07. These plantations are raised in narrow strips, wherever gaps are found
seedlings are planted. These areas are having heavy population of wild animals especially
deer, sambar, gaurs, elephant, etc., These animals damaged plantations by grazing and
trampling. These areas are not suitable for planting activities. In future such areas should not
be taken up for plantation purpose. Details are given in Table-A.
7) Other miscellaneous works:
Trekking path from Kudreabbi to Deepadakallu formed during 2005-06 is maintained
well. Open well dug at Uddinakatte during 2005-06 for drinking water purpose. Work is
found satisfactory. Water is available during summer also. Road improvement work from
Sukalahatti to Saave is satisfactory.
An attempt is made to develop grassland by raising fodder grass plot during 2006-07
in Hipla village of Muthodi range. This attempt was found not successful due to damage by
wild animals.
In general, works evaluated in Bhadra wildlife division are found good except
plantation activities. Details of other works evaluated are given in Annexure-B
Table-A
224
Evaluation of Bhadra Wildlife division (Plantations)
Sl. Area Species Survival
Year Scheme Range Village Remarks
No. (Ha) Planted %
1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9
Damaged by wild
animals. Instead of
planting activities
Bamboo &
NAP- distribution of suitable
1 2006-07 Hebbe Vaddihatti 40 other 55%
FDA seedlings to the
miscellaneous
neighbouring villages
under farm forestry can
be taken up.
Damaged by wild
animals. Instead of
planting activities
Bamboo &
2 2006-07 Hebbe Madla (I) 30 other 52%
miscellaneous
be taken up.
Damaged by wild
animals. Instead of
planting activities
Bamboo &
3 2006-07 Hebbe Madla (II) 30 other 53%
miscellaneous
be taken up.
225
Table-B
Evaluation of Bhadra Wildlife Division (Other works)
Sl. Year of Sy. Sanctioned

Taluk Village Scheme Work Remarks
No. Sanction No. Cost
1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10
Excavation
of EPT at
Chikmag Project Tiger
1 2004-05 Khodi - Gangegiri 58,000.00 Good
alur (Central)
Block (Near)
Khodi Estate
Construction
Chikmag Project Tiger of pipe
2 2004-05 Khodi - 62,500.00 Good
alur (Central) culvert at
Terugudda
Excavation
Chikama Project Tiger of EPT at
3 2004-05 Sugudavani - 100,000.00 Good
galur (Central) Uddinakatte
Block
Survey
Chikama Project Tiger demarcation Maps not
4 2004-05 - - 55,000.00
galur (Central) works, map prepared
preparation
Desilting
tank and
N.R. Dandubittah Project Tiger formation of
5 2004-05 36 90,000.00 Good
Pura ara (Central) embankment
at Saldhana
waterhole
Construction
of pipe
6 2004-05 Hipla 37 culvert at 68,000.00 Good
alur (Central)
Hipla,
Karuvana-1
Survey
N.R. Dandubittah
Project Tiger demarcation Maps not
7 2004-05 Pura and ara Manna 36 35,000.00
(Central) works, map prepared
Tarikere jungli
preparation
Excavation
of EPT
(Jungle
Clearance
work)
Project Tiger
8 2004-05 Shimoga Umbalebyle - Kangalsara 10,800.00 Good
(Central)
cross to
Aldhara
Anti-
poaching
camp
Construction
of staff
N.R. Project Tiger
9 2004-05 Nagalapura 79 quarter at 332,850.00 Good
Pura (Central)
Chikkagraha
ra
Formation of
trekking
Chikmag path
10 2005-06 Bidare - D.P.A 25,000.00 Good
alur Kudreabbi to
Deepadakall
u
Digging of
11 2005-06 Sugadavani 366 open well at 75,000.00 Good
alur (State)
Uddinakatte
Construction
12 2005-06 Kesuve - of Foresters 435,000.00 Good
alur (Central)
residential
226
quarters at
Muthodi
Construction
of semi
N.R. Dandubittah Project Tiger
13 2005-06 36 permannet 41,000.00 Good
Pura ara (Central)
shed at
Kesarahalla
Formation of
Bund and
N.R. Dandubittah Project Tiger protection
14 2005-06 36 47,200.00 Good
Pura ara (State) work to
Kesarahall II
tank
Improvemen
t to road
Project Tiger
15 2005-06 Tarikere Lakkavalli - from 90,000.00 Good
(State)
Sukalhatti to
Saave
Contruction
of semi
Project Tiger
16 2005-06 Tarikere - - permanent 30,000.00 Good
(Central)
shed at
kundur
Forest
Chikmag Project Tiger Checking
17 2006-07 Khodi - 9,900.00 Good
alur (State) gate, Khodi
(Repair)
Construction
Chikmag Project Tiger of Forest
18 2006-07 Sugudavani 366 400,000.00 Good
alur (Central) Guard
quarters
Developmen Result not
19 2006-07 Hipla - t of 42,300.00 satisfactor
alur (State)
Grassland y
Chikmag Project Excavation
20 2006-07 Jagara - 330,000.00 Good
alur Elephant of EPT
Chikmag Construction
21 2006-07 Kesuve - 12th Finance 23,000.00 Good
alur of Culvert
Muttinakopp Project Excavation
22 2006-07 Tarikere - 330,000.00 Good
a Elephant of EPT
CHICKMAGALUR FOREST DIVISION

Introduction:
The Chikmagalur Forst Division was reorganized in the year 1965 vide Govt. order
No. AFD.125.FEG.64 dt. 20-03-1965 and started functioning w.e.f 01-04-1965. At present
this division has jurisdiction over Chickmagalur Sub – Division consisting of
Chickmagalur,Muthodi Kadur and Mudigere Sub – Division consisting of Mudigere
and Aldur Ranges.
Chickmagalur Forest Division comprises of Revenue Taluks of Mudigere,
Chikmagalur & Kadur Taluks but some parts of Jagara and Kandya Hobli of Chickmagalur
Taluk come under Bhadra Wildlife Division. Similarly Kalasa Hobli of Mudigere taluk and
Yagati Hobli of Kadur Taluk comes under Koppa and Bhadravathi Divisions, respectively.
The geographical area of the division is 3257.80 sq. km. The forest of Chikmagalur
Division are situated between 750 30’ and 760 25’ Eastern longitude and 120 56’ and 130 40’
Northern latitude. The average rainfall in this Division is 1925 mm. The Kadur taluk of the
district receives minimum rainfall i.e., 595 mm, whereas, the Mudigere taluk of this District
receives 2379 mm of rainfall. The Division receives rains from South-West and North-East
monsoons from June to November which covers 79% of rainfall. During April to May the
rainfall is scattered in nature. The average temperature of the day is usually 30.70 C while
227
minimum temperature of the day is 190 C. Thunder and hail storms are common in monsoon
shower and the general climate is hot & humid.
The hill rock of the division forms the catchment area of several rivers like
Hemavathi, Vedavathi, Yagachi and other perennial streams.
Evaluation
For plantation works selected sampling intensity was 2% where 0.1 Ha. plots were
laid by transect method. On an average one sample plot was laid for each 5 Ha of plantation
area. G.P.S readings were also taken and recorded in the forms for these plots Annexures are
also attached with each plantation form recording readings of longitude, latitude, Elevation,
%age of survival and average height of plants etc., GPS readings were recorded for all other
works also. For FDA plantations sampling intensity of 25% was adopted.
After field inspection and verification of records following observations are made.
In Chickamaglur division a total of 47 works of following nature have been evaluated.
(a) Plantation Works
(b) Distribution of Seedlings
(c). Civil Works (Culverts/Compound Wall/Gate etc)
(d). SMC Works, Gully Checks, Check Dams
(e). Miscellaneous Works (Anti smuggling camps, transportation of timber,
uprooting of coffee, sandal wood stumps, fire lines etc.,)
In general the quality of works is found to be satisfactory. Action taken report on part
evaluation is enclosed.
(a) Plantation Works:-
1. In 2004-05 – 24 Ha. plantation of Udgere in Kadur range it was observed that
trench planting should have been taken up instead of pit planting . This areqa
is bordering Chitrdurga district with low rain fall. Soil quality is poor.
Acacia species should have been avoided, other species growth was average.
2. In 2006-07 – 42 Ha. Hanumapura plantation of Kadur range it was noticed that
Acacia & Casurina were not doing well. This also is a low rain fall area hence
these two species may not do well. Other species are doing well.
3. In 2004-05 town planting in Chikamaglur range under the head of Greening of
Urban areas more than 50% of the plants have disappeared. The main reason
was road widening and coming up of new layouts. But the surviving plants
are having very good growth.
4. Acacia growth is good in 2004-05 Miscellaneous plantation in Tathkola of
Mudgere range, but protection from cattle is required.
5. Growth of 2005-06 Cane plantation in Toruve (Balur R.F) of Mudgere range
is average. The area is having good natural regeneration also.
6. In Phalguni village of Mudgere range 49 Ha. plantation was raised in 2004-
05. Here area was planted by evicting the encroachment. Miscellaneous
species were planted which are having good growth. It is a good effort. Same
is the situation in 2005-06 – 40 Ha. plantation in K. Talagur, Koorve Sy.
No. 49 in Aldur range where part of the plantation area was evicted from
encroachment.
7. In 2006-07 – 25 Ha. Miscellaneous plantation in Kolagame (Malegaru) Sy.
No. 285 of Muthodi range wild life damage was seen. Growth was average.
Wild life damage was also seen in Bikkankere Sy. No. 51 2006-07 – 50 Ha
plantation in Aldur range.
Summary of evaluation is displayed in Table-A.
228
(b) Distribution of Seedlings:- At most of the spots survival %age was found very good.
Silver Oak seedlings planted in coffee estates were well protected. In other lands also
protection was good. Some farmers had the opinion that the price of the seedlings
was very high. On the other hand especially in coffee estates some farmers expressed
that they were happy as they get quality seedlings from forest department which are
not available in the private nurseries. Details are given in Table-B.
(c) Civil Works:- In this category the works carried out are fencing works at GTD
Chikmagalur, fixing of Iron Gate at GTD Kadur, Digging of Borewell at GTD Kadur,
construction of pipe culvert and compound wall at Srinivasnagar in Chikmagalur
town. All the works are carried out satisfactorily and as per required sanctions.
Fencing work at GTD Chikmagalur has been partly removed due to construction of
compound wall. Approximately 300 mtrs fencing is existing on the ground which is
in good condition.
(d) SMC Works:- Gully checks were taken up in Halelakya Sy.No. 85, 30 in
Chikmagalur range. Check dam constructed in Payagondanahali Sy.No 66, 67 in
Chikmagalur range was found to be very effective. SMS works (Boulders Check)
was constructed in Bilachenhalli of Chikmagalur range. All the works are carried
out satisfactorily and as per necessary sanctions.
(e) Miscellaneous Works:- Various kinds of works were inspected like uprooting of
coffee stumps at Tathkole encroachment evicted area. Uprooting of Sandal stumps
from Thangli R.F and transportation to Sandalkate. Transportation of timber and
firewood (FOC material) to depot. These works were verified with ground condition
and depot receipts etc., Extraction and transportation of Acacia trees from
Ghattadahalli area in Mudgere range was done by KSFIC. Department only did
uprooting of stumps for which an expenditure of Rs. 33,000/- only was incurred. For
anti smuggling camps Range Forest Officer and Asst. Conservator of Forest informed
that PCP watchers were engaged for protection duty. Summary of evaluation of other
works in displayed in Table-C.
Table-A
Evaluation of plantations of Chikmagalur Division for 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07
Sl. Year of Nature of Survi

Range Village Sy.No. Scheme Remarks
No. Sanction Works val %
1 2005-06 Kadur Manjihalli 63 FDA 40 Ha. Misc 85.09 Good condition.

plantation Micro Plan
completed.
2 2004-05 Kadur Udugere 117, DDF 24 Ha. Misc 73.85 Trench planting
114 plantation should have been
done. Acacia
should be
avoided.
3 2005-06 Kadur Manjihalli 103 FDA 15 Ha. Misc 71.76 Good condition.
Trench Micro Plan yet to
plantation be approved.
4 2006-07 Kadur Hanumapura 60, 61 KSFMBC 42 Ha. Misc 85.85 Good condition.
Trench Micro Plan yet to
plantation be approved.
5 2006-07 Chikma Churchegud 1 12th 40 Ha. Misc 93.36 Good condition
galur da Finance plantation of the plantation.
6 2005-06 Chikma Ardoralli 337, FDA 16.5 Ha 92.94 Good condition

galur 338 Misc average height is
plantation 3 - 4 mtrs.
229
7 2004-05 Chikma Chikmagalur - Greening 5 Ha. Mis., 40.00 Survival %age is
galur Town of Urban plantation 40% some plants
areas damaged due to
road widening.
8 2004-05 Mudger Paddy field 2, 13, KFDF 12 Ha. 62.50 Performance of
e of Tathkola 15 Misc., Acacia is good.
Plantation
9 2005-06 Mudger Toruve 155, FDA 40 Ha. Cane 55.00 Satisfactory.

e 158, plantation
162
10 2006-07 Muthod Kolagmane 285, NAP - 25 Ha. Misc 79.00 Growth is
i (Malgaru) 286 FDA plantation average some
wild life damage
is observed.
11 2005-06 Aldur K. Talagur, 49, 256, KSFMBC 40 Ha. Misc 10.00 Eviction of
Koove 179 plantation encroachment is a
good work. Seed
sowing in Thalis
showed poor
result.
12 2006-07 Aldur Bikkankere 51, 52, NAP - 50 Ha. 75.00 Growth of
57 FDA Bambo seedlings is not
plantation good due to wild
life damage.
Table-B
Evaluation of distribution of seedlings of Chikmagalur Division for 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07
Sl. Year of
Range Village Nature of Works Remarks
No. Sanction
1 2006-07 Kadur Sadrahalli Distribution of Seedlings 80% Survival resentment
against high price.
2 2006-07 Kadur Bislehalli Distribution of Seedlings 80% Survival. Two forms

attached.
3 2006-07 Kadur Birur Distribution of Seedlings Eight forms attached.
Satisfactory growth.
4 2006-07 Kadur Hogerhalli Distribution of Seedlings Due to improper planting
method and pit size seedlings
have not come up.
5 2006-07 Kadur Sakrepatna Distribution of Seedlings Seven forms attached for

different location, satisfactory
survival.
6 2006-07 Kadur Tarikere Distribution of Seedlings Spots could not be located.
7 2006-07 Chikmagalur Anoor Distribution of Seedlings 90% survival. Resentment

against high price.
8 2006-07 Chikmagalur Avathi Distribution of Seedlings Spots could not be located.
9 2006-07 Chikmagalur Hulvalle Distribution of Seedlings Spots could not be located.
10 2006-07 Mudgere Kuduvalli Distribution of Seedlings 90% Survival. Good condition.
230
11 2006-07 Mudgere B. Hosahalli Distribution of Seedlings 90% Survival. Good condition.
12 2006-07 Mudgere Halekote, Distribution of Seedlings 90% Survival. Good condition.

Mudgere
hand post
13 2006-07 Mudgere Bilagole Distribution of Seedlings 90% Survival. Good condition

of seedlings.
14 2006-07 Aldur Sattihalli Distribution of Seedlings 90% Survival three forms

attached.
15 2006-07 Aldur Aldur Distribution of Seedlings Spots could not be located.
Table-C
Evaluation of other works of Chikmagalur Division for 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07
Sl. Year of Nature of

Taluka Range Village Sy.No. Scheme Remarks
No. Sanction Works
1 2004-05 Kadur Kadur Thangli - 01 Uprooting of Work carried out
Sandal Timber Sandal Trees satisfactorily as per
Reserve depot receipts.
2 2005-06 Kadur Kadur Thangli R.F - 12th Anti PCP watchers were
Finance smuggling engaged for protection
camp duty.
3 2004-05 Kadur Kadur GTD Kadur - 01 Fixing of Work carried out

Timber Irong gate at satisfactorily.
GTD
4 2006-07 Kadur Kadur GTD Kadur - 01 Digging bore Work carried out
Timber well at GTD satisfactorily.
Kadur
5 2006-07 Chikma Chikma Bilchanhalli 1 KSFM SMC Works Satisfactory.
galur galur Kamenhalli BC (Boulder
Checks)
6 2004-05 Chikma Chikma Nagenhalli 28, 33 01 Transportatio Depot receipts checked,

galur galur Timber n of FOC works carried out
material satisfactorily.
7 2006-07 Chikma Chikma Payagondan- 66, 67 KSFM Contruction Carried out

galur galur halli BC of Check satisfactorily.
Dam
8 2006-07 Chikma Chikma Halelakya 85, 30 KSFM Gully Checks Carried out
galur galur BC satisfactorily.
9 2004-05 Chikma Chikma GTD - 01 Fencing work Part of the fencing was
galur galur Chikmagalu Timber removed due to
construction of
compound wall.
Approximately 300
mtrs existing.
10 2006-07 Chikma Chikma Srinivasnaga - 01 Construction Carried out

galur galur r in Timber of pipe satisfactorily.
Chikmagalur culvert and
compound
wall.
231
11 2006-07 Chikma Chikma Chowdihara - 12th Anti PCP watchers were
galur galur Finance smuggling engaged for protection
camp duty.
12 2005-06 Mudger Mudger Ghattadahall 15 01 Uprooting of Extraction &

e e i Timber Acacia transportation of Acacia
stumps was done by KSFIC.
KFD did only uprooting
of stumps. And
expenditure incurred
was Rs. 33,000/- only.
13 2004-05 Mudger Mudger Bankal 353 11 - Formation of Carried out

e e Forest fire lines satisfactorily.
Protecti
on
14 2006-07 Mudger Mudger Bankal 212, 12th Anti Work carried out
e e B. Hosahalli 213 Finance smuggling satisfactorily.
camp
15 2004-05 Mudger Mudger Phalguni 306 11 - Uprooting of Work carried out
e e Forest coffee stumps satisfactorily.
Protecti at Tathkola
on encroachment
eviction area
17 2005-06 Mudger Mudger Mudgere Range Integrat Creation of Work carried out
e e Jurisdi ed Fire Line satisfactorily.
ction Forest
Protecti
on
18 2004-05 Chikma Muthod Kolagmane - KFDF- Fire Works carried out
galur i and Maskali 03 protection satisfactorily.
other wokrs
plantati
ons
19 2005-06 Chikma Muthod Maskali, - Integrat Creation of Works carried out
galur i Muthodi & ed Fire Line satisfactorily.
other places Forest
Protecti
on
20 2005-06 Chikma Aldur Kundur, - Integrat Creation of Works carried out
galur Aldur ed Fire Line satisfactorily.
Forest
Protecti
on
21 2004-05 Chikma Aldur Sargod 205, KFDF - Fixing of Work carried out
galur 202 Other stones satisfactorily.
plantati
ons
KOPPA FOREST DIVISION AND SOCIAL FORESTRY DIVISION

INTRODUCTION:
Koppa Division was created with effect from 1/4/1965 vide GO. No.PFD.125.PEG 64
DT: 20/3/65 by re-organising Chikmagalur division and Tarikere division. The geographical
area of the present Koppa forest division is 2000.24 square kilometers of which 1089.64
square kilometers constitute forest area. The division is situated between longitudes 76°15′ to
75° 42′ east of Greenwich and between latitudes 13°7′30″ to 13°34′0″ north of Equator.
Koppa forest division is full of greenery. Except for civil structures like buildings and
roads, the entire division is covered with vegetatation either privately owned (Coffee, Tea or
Rubber and Areca plantations) or government forests. Vegetation of the division varies from
semi-evergreen and Sholas in Kalasa and Sringeri ranges to moist deciduous forests in
232
Balehonnur, Chikkagrahara and NR Pura Ranges. The moist deciduous to dry deciduous
forests consist of highly valuable hardwood species like Beete, Nandi, Mathi, Honne, Sandal,
Hunal, etc.
Evaluation works has been carried out in Koppa Forest Division and Social Forestry
Divison Chickmaglur Koppa division consists of Koppa, Chikkagrahara, N.R. Pura, Kalasa,
Balehonnur, Sringeri Ranges, where as Social Forestry Divison consists of Chickmagalur,
Kadur, Tarikere Koppa, Sringeri, Mudigere, N.R.Pura Taluks, Social Forestry Division,
Chickmagalur consists of entire districts.
The evaluation team consisting of team leader Conservator of Forests, Shimoga
Circle, Shimoga and Deputy Conservator of Forests, Social
Forestry Division, Mangalore and co-opted officials Deputy Conservator of Forests and
Technical Assistant, Shimoga Circle, Shimoga and Asst. Conservator of Forests, FMS,
Shimoga Circle, Shimoga, has inspected the plantations and other works of Koppa division
and S.F. division, Chikamaglur for the year 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07 as per the list
furnished by the Office of the CCF, Working plan, Bangalore. A sampling intensity of 2%
was adopted for evaluation of plantations except FDA. For FDA plantations sampling
intensity of 25% was adopted. The team has spent in all five days starting from
09-04-2008 to 22-05-2008 for inspection of plantations distribution of seedlings, Logging
works, Civil works etc.,
During the course of inspections, discussions were held with the implementing
officer. In each spot the team members assessed performance of different species, number of
surviving plants and growth details of different species, quality of Civil works & logging
works and procedure followed..
Survival Percentage
Survival percentage was worked out based on the number of plants counted in the
sample plots laidout in the plantations as per the sampling procedure described. The details of
modelwise survival percentage of plantations for Koppa and Social Forestry Chikmagalur is
summarized as below.
Sl.No. Model 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07
1 Fuelwood 71 % 71.5% 83%
2 Cane - - 33%
3 Bamboo 29% 69% -
4 Silvipasture - 65% -
5 MPC 26% - -
6 A.N.R 80% 80% 42%
A detail of plantations inspected with the remarks of the Inspecting Officer are given
in the Table-A .
Choice of species:
The choice of species were proper in all the plantations except the plantations raised
in Horanadu Sy.No.62 in Kalasa Range during 2004-05 which has completely failed and one
reason could be aspect of the hill as no other reason could explain the failure of hardy
species like acacia. . Nearly 60% of plantation have acacia as major species and it proved to
be better performer, irrespective of the location of the plantations.
In FDA plantation proper protection by way of fencing was not done and this resulted
in less survival. This was observed in K.Kusbur plantation. Madaboor bamboo plantation
raised during 2004-05 to has failed due to cattle grazing and trampling. It had brush wood
fencing The involvement of VFCs in the protection and maintenance of plantation raised
under FDA during 2004-05 is found un-satisfactory.
233
Protection aspects:
The protection was not proper in Cane and Bamboo plantations and other mixed
plantations, as a result of fact, the bamboo plantation raised during 2004-05 in Kelakuli
Sy.No.38 of Koppa range was a failure.
The seedlings distributed both by the Koppa Division and S.F. divisions are doing
well in the field. The survival percentage vary from 60-80. List of seedlings distributed is
enclosed as Table-B.
The seedlings distributed by Koppa Division and SF division were in the field.
During the inspection it is found that large number of silver oak and teak seedlings is
supplied from the Watershed Development Department at a
lower rate i.e. at the rate of 50 paise for 5x8 PBS and Rs. 2.00 for 8x12 pbs. Most of the
farmers demand is met by the Watershed Development Department. Since the rate for Social
Forestry Division for the seedlings supplied is more it is learnt that Social Forestry staff
found difficult to dispose the seedlings raised.
During the inspection it is found that teak, silveroak and acacia seedlings are better in
the field. It is noticed that there are private nurseries in the divisions which raise Silver Oak
seedlings and other Misc., seedlings.
Other works:
The team inspected in all 82 other works among the other works inspected, in case of
logging of acacia plantations, after felling no felling hammer mark is put on the stumps. In
case of tank constructed during 2006-07 at Yadur Sy. No. 50 of Kalasa Range, no proper
outlet is provided. The check-dam constructed during 2006-07 at Kusboor (Sathkoli) in Sy
No.48 of N.R. Pura range has faulty design. Since more height is provided, side scouring is
noticed. Logging works and thinning of teak plantations are carried out as per the approved
list and are satisfactory. The list of other works inspected is enclosed as Table-C . The
remarks wherever found necessary has been mentioned by the inspecting officer.
Logging works;- Major logging works are found to be logging in acacia plantation as
per the approved working plan and extraction of dead and fallen materials. They all have
been carried out as per the approved working plan. Felling hammers marks are noticed on the
stumps of dead and fallen timber but no felling hammer mark is put on the stumps of acacia
trees. After felling of acacia plantation, the area has been planted during the next year as per
working plan prescription..
Thinning of teak plantation;- Pertaining to thinning in teak plantation, the team has
inspected four spots. Thinning is done as per the approved working plan and approved list.
All procedures have been followed. During the inspection it is brought to the notice of the
team leader that there is huge back log of teak plantations due for thinning.
Civil works and building construction activities.
Civil works like construction of staff quarters, compound wall constructed at Koppa
are of good quality and as per specification.
Desilting of tanks; Desilting of tank carried out in N.R.Pura range during 2004-05 under
Scarcity Relief Works has helped in storing more water, which helped the water regime
during summer season.
Water supply works;- Water supply works carried out at Koppa and ring well constructed
at S.pete, GTD are satisfactory and as per the approved estimate.
Eco-Tourism: Steps constructed to Sirimane falls in Sringeri range is of very good quality
and found very useful to the tourist.
Construction of antipoaching camp buildings;Construction of antipoaching camp
buildings at NR Pura range are found to be in use and are of good quality.
234
Construction of tanks by utilizing SMC Component amount under FDA;-
Tanks are constructed in the plantation area as well outside the plantation area.Instead
of utilizing the SMC amount for construction of tanks, it would have been proper if
staggered water harvesting trenches are made.
235
Table-A
Survi
Sl. Area in Species
Year Scheme Range Village & Sy.no Model val
No Ha Planted
%
I.Koppa Division:
Balehon Medicinal
1 2004-05 FDA Bannur, 58 10.00 MPC 24%
nur Plants
Yadadall Cane & 13.36

2 2004-05 FDA Sringeri 146, 25 15.00 Cane
i, Nallur Bamboo %
3 2004-05 FDA Koppa′ Kelakuli 53 10.00 Bamboo 0% Bamboo
Acacia,
Dhoopa,
Artificial
Horanad 20.60 Halasu,
4 2004-05 FDA Kalasa 62 15.00 Regenerat
u % Gulmavu,
ion
Murugunah
ulli
Acacia,
Honge,
03-Other Chickma Mixed
5 2004-05 Sarya 73 15.00 '72% Matti,
Plant. galur plantation
Neralu,
Halasu
Acacia,
Artificial Bellale,
125, 89.5
6 2004-05 FDA Sringeri Asagodu 10.00 Regenerat Goldmohar,
160 %
ion H.Halasu
etc
Madaboo 23.3
7 2004-05 FDA NR Pura 57 20.00 Bamboo Bamboo
r %
Artificial Acacia,
100
8 2004-05 FDA NR Pura Seethur 86 20.00 Regenerat Mathi,
%
ion Neralu
Chickma 69.5
9 2004-05 FDA Bale 39 &81 25.00 Bamboo Bamboo
galur %
Fuel wood Acacia &

10 2005-06 DDF Koppa Herur 9 23.50 90%
Plantation others
K.Kenab Bamboo 69.5

11 2005-06 FDA NR Pura 62 & 38 20.00 Bamboo
oor Model %
Mavinak Silivipastu 82.2 Halasu,

12 2005-06 FDA Kalasa 496 10.00
ere re % Hebalasu,
Herur
Silivipastu Acacia &
13 2005-06 FDA Koppa (kariman 46 & 55 15.00 50%
re Others
e)
Hoone,
Bellur( 82.5
14 2005-06 FDA NR Pura 26 10.00 ANR Halasu,
Hathur) %
Nelli,
236
Vidyaranayapur Mixed
15 2005-06 FDA Sringeri 247, 19 10.00 83%
a plantation
Kelakuli Block-
16 2006-07 FDA Koppa 53 15.00 ANR 80%
II
17 2006-07 FDA Sringeri Markal 160 10.00 Cane 54%
Chickmag Mixed
18 2006-07 FDA Kanur 19 10.00 92%
alur plantation
12th Mavinakere & 123 &

19 2006-07 Kalasa 13.00 Fuel wood 82.5%
Finance Yedur 6
12th
20 2006-07 Sringeri Masige 119 8.00 Fuel wood 95%
Finance
12th Chikkagr
21 2006-07 Nagalapura 28, 49 12.00 Fuel wood 97%
Finance ahara
22 2006-07 KSFMBC NR Pura Konakere 74, 90 10.00 Model-IV 78%
JBIC Balehonn
23 2006-07 B.Kanabur 195 10.00 Model-IV 82%
KSMBC ur
Compens
Artificial
atory Honnekodige & 28 &
24 2006-07 NR Pura 10.00 Regeneratio 58%
Afforestat Salur 14, 104
n
ion
Kalaseswara
25 2006-07 FDA Kalasa 496 15.00 ANR 42.5%
Mavinakere
Artificial
72 &
26 2006-07 FDA NR Pura Kanive 10.00 Regeneratio 99%
98
n
Mixed
27 2006-07 FDA Sringeri Asagodu 227 15.00 92%
plantation
III. Social Forestry Division,

Chikmagalur
Hosura
1 2004-05 D.W.G Koppa 189 10.00 Fuel wood 98%
Plantatation
2 2005-06 S.G.R.Y. Tarikere Krishnepura 22 15.00 Fuel wood 61.3%
Fuel wood
Chickmaga 93. 97,
3 2006-07 S.G.R.Y. Shiravalour 14.00 Pit 98%
lur 98
plantation
237
Table-B
List of Seedlings distributed Evaluation in Chickmagalur and Social Forestry Division & Koppa Division
Number of Species of
Sl Survi-
Year Talur Hobli Villlage Seedlings seedlings Remarks
NO val %
distributed distributed
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Casurina
1 2006-07 Tarikere Lakkavalli Gundenahally 580 Nos Acacia, Silver 90
Oak Oak
Teak,
2 2006-07 Tarikere Amruthapura Vitalapura 1201 Nos Casurina, 95
Acacia
Honge,
3 2006-07 Tarikere Lingadahalli Lingadahally 165 Nos., Survey, Silver 95
Oak
Silver Oak,
4 2006-07 Koppa Megunda Herur 9050 Nos., 80
Acacia
Silver Oak,
5 2006-07 Koppa Hariharapura Shanuvalli 1000 Nos., 90
Acacia
Silver Oak,
6 2006-07 Koppa Kasaba Koppa rural 4745 Nos., 90
Acacia
Silver Oak,
7 2006-07 NR pura Balehonnur Hennagi 465 Nos., Acacia, Geru, 50
Saguvani
Silver Oak,
8 2006-07 NR pura Kasaba Honnekodige 1135 Nos., Acacia, Geru, 70
Saguvani
Silver Oak,
9 2006-07 NR pura Kasaba Guladhamani 1000 Nos., 90
Acacia
Silver Oak,
10 2006-07 NR pura Kasaba Hiluvalli 1175 Nos., 90
Acacia
11 2006-07 NR pura Balehonnur Kanooru 1750 Nos., Acacia, Honge 70

Silver Oak,
12 2006-07 NR pura Kasaba Muluvalli 2100 Nos., Acacia, 90
Saguvani
Silver Oak,
13 2006-07 NR pura Kasaba Mudubagilu 800 Nos., Acacia, 90
Saguvani
14 2006-07 NR pura Kasaba Badababylu 333 Nos., Teak 100
15 2006-07 NR pura Kasaba 2500 Nos., Silver Oak 98
16 2006-07 NR pura Balehonnur 375 Nos., Teak
17 2006-07 NR pura Balehonnur Haravari 200 Nos., Acacia 98
18 2006-07 NR pura Balehonnur B.Kanabur 1000 Nos., Silver Oak 75
19 2006-07 Chikmagalur Kandya Huigere 500 Nos., Teak 90
20 2006-07 Koppa 100 Nos., Muruganahuli 80
21 2006-07 Chikmagalur Menboor Khandya 500 Nos.,
238
22 2006-07 Koppa HH Pura Nilvagilu 1200 Nos., Acacia 80
23 2006-07 Koppa 1000 Nos., Silver Oak 80
24 2006-07 Koppa Kasaba Asagodu 4850 Nos., Teak
25 2006-07 Koppa 200 Nos., Teak 80
26 2006-07 Sringeri Sringeri Sringeri 350 Nos., Silver Oak
27 2006-07 Sringeri Kigga Nemmar 5000 Nos., Acacia 95
28 2006-07 Koppa Megunda Agalagandi 100 Nos., Acacia 100
29 2006-07 Mudigere Kalasa Horanadu 1900 Nos., Silver Oak 80
30 2006-07 Mudigere Kalasa Talagodu 150 Nos., Silver Oak 80
Table-C
LIST OF OTHER WORKS INSPECTED BY THE EVALUATION TEAM IN KOPPA FOREST DIVISION
Sl Year of Sanctione Remar

Taluk Village Suvey No. Scheme Work
No. sanction d cost ks
Chikka
1 2004-05 S.pete (Devadana) Depot 01 Timber Lotting 20600
magalur
2 2004-05 Koppa kelakuli Plantation 01 Timber Logging 131300
3 2004-05 Mudigere Amburthirtha Plantation 01 Timber Logging 65200
4 2004-05 Mudigere Hadivani Plantation 01 Timber Thinning 252500
5 2004-05 Mudigere Karemaneguddas Plantation 01 Timber Logging 44600
6 2004-05 Mudigere Darimane Plantation 01 Timber Logging 68264
7 2004-05 Mudigere Aramballi Copm-1 01 Timber Logging 252600
8 2004-05 N.R. Pura Shedigar Plantation 01 Timber Road 24700
9 2004-05 N.R. Pura Bannur 14 01 Timber Logging 10500
10 2004-05 N.R. Pura Bannur Block-III 01 Timber Thinning 244000
11 2004-05 N.R. Pura Halasur RF 01 Timber Thinning 53300
12 2004-05 N.R. Pura Bannur Plantation 01 Timber Logging 24900
13 2004-05 N.R. Pura Halasur Plantation 01 Timber Thinning 72000
239
14 2004-05 N.R. Pura Neralekoppa Plantation 01 Timber Logging 112244
15 2004-05 N.R. Pura Kolale PF 01 Timber Logging 287888
Other Gove
16 2004-05 N.R. Pura Bale 01 Timber Logging 18902
Land
17 2004-05 N.R. Pura Megaramakki Comp-7 01 Timber Logging 122063
18 2004-05 Sringeri Markal Plantation 01 Timber Logging 79000
Scarcity
Desilting
19 2004-05 N.R. Pura Aramballi Relief 35000
of Tanks
Works
Scarcity
Desilting
20 2004-05 N.R. Pura Aramballi Relief 150000
of Tanks
Works
21 2004-05 N.R. Pura Karkeswra PF Plantation 01 Timber Logging 80700
Chikkamag
alur
Chikkamag
23 2005-06 huigere Plantation 01 Timber Logging 16400
alur
24 2005-06 Koppa Devarahalli Plantation 01 Timber Logging 15800
25 2005-06 Koppa Gantanayakanakatte Plantation 01 Timber Logging 21600
26 2005-06 Koppa Bandigadi Plantation 01 Timber Logging 47600
27 2005-06 Koppa Megur Plantation 01 Timber Logging 62700
28 2005-06 Koppa Kulur Govt. Land 01 Timber Logging 29500
29 2005-06 Mudigere Hemavathi Plantation 01 Timber Logging 60500
30 2005-06 Mudigere Nellikere Plantation 01 Timber Logging 125100
31 2005-06 Mudigere Goligunda Plantation 01 Timber Logging 35900
32 2005-06 N.R. Pura N.R.pura Depot Depot 01 Timber Lotting 24800
240
33 2005-06 N.R. Pura Kusugal Comp-8 01 Timber Logging 29100
35 2005-06 N.R. Pura Balekoppa Plantation 01 Timber Thinning 11600
36 2005-06 N.R. Pura Mallandurgudda Comp-8 01 Timber Logging 179300
37 2005-06 Sringeri Kamalapura Plantation 01 Timber Logging 27000
38 2005-06 Sringeri Asagodu Govt. Land 01 Timber Logging 36100
Chikkamag
39 2005-06 Yadadalli Govt. Land 01 Timber Logging 41800
alur
Construc
tion of
2406-01-
Chikkamag Culvert
40 2005-06 S.Pete 105-0-01 26000
alur at
Timber
G.T.D.S.
Pete
Construc
tion of
antipochi
ng camp
12th Finance
41 2005-06 N.R. Pura Kusgal at 100000
commission
KusgalC
ulvert at
G.T.D.S.
Pete
Providin
g water
supply to
2406-01-
staff
42 2005-06 Koppa Koppa 105-0-01 25000
quarters
Timber
and
forest IB
at koppa
Construc
tion of
staff
(twin
43 2005-06 Koppa Koppa KSFMBC quarter) 500000
at koppa-
Sringeri
Road,
Koppa)
Construc
tion of
antipochi
12th Finance
44 2005-06 N.R. Pura Saluru ng camp 100000
commission
at Salur
M.F.G.T.
D.S. Pete
241
Construc
tion of
Fire
Forest Camp
Protection building
45 2005-06 N.R. Pura Aramballi 50000
and Cultural at Sy.
Operation No. 32
of
Aramball
i village
46 2005-06 N.R. Pura Mudubagilu Plantation 01 Timber Logging 91300
Chikkamag
alur
48 2006-07 Koppa S.pete (Devadana) Depot 01 Timber Lotting 25000
49 2006-07 Koppa Heggar Plantation 01 Timber Logging 200100
50 2006-07 Koppa Gadikal Plantation 01 Timber Logging 31600
51 2006-07 Koppa Koppa Depot 01 Timber Lotting 18000
52 2006-07 Koppa Bandigadi Plantation 01 Timber Logging 23100
53 2006-07 Koppa Somlapur Plantation 01 Timber Logging 34900
54 2006-07 Koppa Harakumakki Plantation 01 Timber Logging 112200
55 2006-07 Mudigere Goligunda Plantation 01 Timber Logging 35900
56 2006-07 Koppa Heggarkudige Plantation 01 Timber Logging 231800
57 2006-07 Mudigere Mavinakere Plantation 01 Timber Logging 44200
58 2006-07 N.R. Pura N.R.Pura Depot 01 Timber Lotting 25500
59 2006-07 N.R. Pura Kanive Plantation 01 Timber Logging 30400
60 2006-07 N.R. Pura Kananakere Plantation 01 Timber Logging 120900
61 2006-07 N.R. Pura N.R.Pura Depot 01 Timber Lotting 24000
242
62 2006-07 N.R. Pura Hatur Plantation 01 Timber Logging 196400
64 2006-07 N.R. Pura Magodu Plantation 01 Timber Logging 32000
Road side
65 2006-07 N.R. Pura Nagaramakki 01 Timber Logging 42100
trees
66 2006-07 N.R. Pura Kamalapura Plantation 01 Timber Logging 36100
67 2006-07 N.R. Pura Mallandurgudda Comp-II 01 Timber Logging 69500
68 2006-07 N.R. Pura Mudubagilu School 01 Timber Logging 4600
69 2006-07 Sringeri Honnavalli Plantation 01 Timber Logging 90100
70 2006-07 Sringeri Vidhyaranyapura Plantation 01 Timber Logging 8700
71 2006-07 Sringeri Heggar Plantation 01 Timber Logging 68200
72 2006-07 Sringeri Dharekoppa Plantation 01 Timber Logging 69900
Construc
tion of
2406-01- Ring
Chikkamag
73 2006-07 S.Pete 105-0-01 well at 85000
alur
Timber G.T.D.
Premises
at S.Pete
Construc
tion of
multipur
74 2006-07 N.R. Pura Alehalli 68 KSFMBC pose 61500
earthen
tank at
Alehalli
Construc
tion of
multipur
pose
earthen
75 2006-07 N.R. Pura Karkeswra PF 65 KSFMBC 15000
pond at
Sy. No.
65 of
Karkesh
wara
243
Construc
tion of
Water
Storage Outlet
76 2006-07 Mudigere Yadur 50 KSFMBC Tank at 80000 very
Sy. No. narrow
50 of
Yedur
Village
Construc
tion of
2406-01- compoun
77 2006-07 Koppa Koppa 105-0-01 d at 100000
Timber Firewoo
d Depot
Koppa
Re
Construc
78 2006-07 Koppa kelakuli 85 KSFMBC tion of 35000
Tank at
Kelakulli
Construc
tion of Improp
Cement er
Concrete design
79 2006-07 N.R. Pura Kusubar(Sathikoli) 48 KSFMBC check 52000 as side
dam at breach
Sy. No. ing
48 of noticed
Kusubar
Construc
tion of
Multy
K. Kanabur purpose
80 2006-07 N.R. Pura 68 KSFMBC 97500
(Varkatte) tank at
Sy. No.
68 of K.
Kanabur
Digging
of CPT
along the
K. Kanabur
81 2006-07 N.R. Pura 59 KSFMBC contour 39700
(Varkatte)
under
SMC
work
Construc
tion of
Good
82 2006-07 Sringeri Yadadalli Eco-Tourism Steps to 150000
work
Sirimane
falls
244
ACTION TAKEN REPORT ON CHIKMAGALUR FOREST DIVISION
Action taken report on the suggestions / recommendations made by the Departmental
Evaluation Report of Forestry Works (10 Years Compensatory Afforestation Scheme, All
Schemes except Schemes slated for External Evaluation for the year 2002-03 and 2003-2004)
Suggestions / recommendation made in the evaluation report Action

Gener taken by
Sl. Main
No Area Survi- al the
No. Year Scheme Range Village Species
. in Ha. val % Condi implement
Planted ing officer
tion
I 1 1998- Comp Aff Chikmaga Devarahalli 10.00 Hunase, 65.80 Avera
99 lur gudda Bevu, ge The
Mathi, plantations
Ala,Arali are being
etc., protected
2 2001- Comp Aff Kadur Panchehosa 20.00 Acacia 82.50 Good against
02 halli grazing &
3 2002- AOFFP Mudigere Taruve 50.00 Acacia, 88.40 Good fire by
03 Nelli deploying
4 2002- CSSMFP Aldur Kuduvalli 15.00 Miscella 87.30 Avera watchers.
03 neous ge Furthers
5 2003- Greening Chikmaga Town 3.00 Basavan 81.00 Good the
04 Urban lur apada, observation
Area Peltofor s have been
m, Hole noted for
Dasavala future
, Neralu, interventio
Jakarand n and
a, improve
Spethodi ment
a etc.,
Suggestions / recommendation made in the evaluation report Action taken

Sl. by the
No. Sanction implementing
No. Taluk Hobli Village Scheme Work Remarks
Cost officer
2002-03
1 Chikmag Jagara Jagara 01-Timber Timber- 84000.00 Works is not

alu 62.000 M3 done as per
Action has
r Working Plan
been taken to
implement
Working Plan
2 Mudigere Bankal 1983-87 01-Timber Timber- 64150.00 Satisfactory prescription
Bankal B. 48.350 M3 but Working properly and to
Hosahalli Plan ensure that no
prescriptions violation takes
are not place in future.
Acacia 1 A poles - properly
Plantations. 524 Nos. followed Further action
I B Poles - has been
346 Nos. initiated to
Firewood - approve the
272.650 M3 deviations in
Billets - implementation
1053.968 M3 of the
prescriptions of
3 Chikmag Kandya Basthi 01-Timber Timber - - Works is not
the Sanctioned
alur Reserve 455.083 M3 done as per
Working Plan.
Forest Firewood - Working Plan
Sargod 180.935 M3
245
Suggestions / recommendation made in the evaluation report Action taken by
Sl. the
No. Sanction implementing
No. Taluk Hobli Village Scheme Work Remarks
Cost officer
2003-04
4 Kadur Kadur Thangali 01-Timber Uprooting 40000.00 Satisfactory The observation

Sandal Reserve of Sandal is noted for future
- 3390 Kg intervention and
improvement
2002-03
5 Chikm Muthodi Maskali 2406-01- Masakali 12265.00 Satisfactory

agalur 101-2-01- Shola - 5
Protection Kms
from fire
2003-04
6 Mutho Muthodi Maskali Protection Masakali 10000.00 Satisfactory
di from fire SF - 26
Kms
2002-03
7 Chikm Kasaba Chikmagalur 2406-01- Providing 20900.00 Good

agalur 070-0-03- sandal
Building- store at
139-Major Sandal
works Koti,
Chikmaga
lur
Suggestions / recommendation made in the evaluation report

Sl. Action taken by the
No. Sanction Remar implementing officer
Cost ks
2003-04
Repair
2406-01- works at
Observations have been
070-0-03- ACF, FMS
Chikm Kasab Srinivasana noted for future
8 Building- office 5100.00 Good
agalur a gar intervention and
139-Major buildings at
improvement
works Srinivasanag
ar
2003-04
Demolition
KFDF-03
Mudig of buildings
9 - Thatkola Other 61200.00 Good
ere in Thatkola
Plantation
R.F
246
Annexure-VI-Detailed Cirlce Reports
8.6 DHARWAD CIRCLE

I Introduction:
The Dharwad circle comprises of six divisions and one sub-division. They are as
follows:-
1. Dharwad Territorial division
2. Dharwad Social Forestry division
3. Gadag Territorial division
4. Gadag Social Forestry division
5. Haveri Territorial division
6. Haveri Social Forestry division
7. Wild Life, Sub-division, Ranebenuur
The forestry activities are mainly concentrated in three districts except some of the
Sanctuaries of Wild Life sub-division, Ranebennur. The three Sanctuaries taken for
evaluation are:-
1. Attiveri Bird Sanctuary, North Canara district.
2. Ranebennur Black Buck Sanctuary, Ranebennur. Haveri district.
3. Daroji Sloth Bear Sanctuary, Hospet, Bellary district.
DHARWAD DISTRICT
Dharwad district has been named after the district headquarter town. Dharwad
district is situated in the western sector of the northern half of Karnataka state. Bedthi
river originates in Dharwad district. The district is drained by Malaprabha, Shalmala
river and Bennihalla towards the Arabian sea for a distance of about 190 km through the
black soil plains in the central parts of the district. It is basically an agricultural district
with agro climatic factors encouraging hybrid seed production. Industrial development is
slowly picking up and infrastructural development is very much needed.
GADAG DISTRICT
Gadag District is located in the North Interior of Karnataka. It was carved out of the
erstwhile Dharwad district in 1997. The general terrain of the district is typical of the
Deccan plateau. The important rivers flowing through the tract are Malaprabha and
Tungabhadra.
HAVERI DISTRICT
Haveri district is one of the seven new districts formed in the state of Karnataka
during the year 1997. It was carved out of the erstwhile Dharwad district. It is located slightly
to the north of Central Karnataka, well connected by network of roads and railways. Rivers
like Tungabhadra, Kumuadvathi, Dharma and varada flow through the district. It is basically
an agricultural district with agro climatic factors encouraging hybrid seed production.
Industrial development is slow and infra structural development is very much needed.
II Location and Physical Aspects :
DHARWAD DISTRICT
Dharwad district is situated between the latitudinal parallels of 140 17’N and 150 50’
N and the longitudinal parallels of 740 48’ E and 750 -50’E. The district is bounded on the
north by the districts of Belgaum and Bijapur; on the east by the Gadag district; on the
south by the district of Haveri and on the west by the district of Uttar Kannada. The
Malaprabha river separates the district from Bijapur. Total geographical area of the
district is 4,23,000 Ha. The tract lies on extensive deccan plateau.
247
GADAG DISTRICT
Gadag district lies between latitudes 750 16’ E to the West and 760 02’E to the East
and longitudes 150 52’ N to the North and 140 57’N to the South. The district is bounded on
the north by Bagalkot district, on the south by Haveri district, on the east by Koppal and
Bellary district and on the west by Dharwad and Belgaum districts. The main geographical
feature of the district is the Kappat hills, a range of hills, which run in the North – South
direction for a length of nearly 60 Kms. The lower reaches of these hills and the ensuing flat
lands are important from the point of agriculture. Valleys are scenic, well wooded with a
great number of seasonal nalas and adequate wild life.
HAVERI DISTRICT
Haveri district is situated between 140 16’ 25” and 5 0 10’ 0” north latitudes and
between 750 0’ 45” and 750 49’ 50” east longitudes. The total geographical area of the district
is 4,85,156Ha. The tract lies on extensive Deccan plateau. It is bounded on the north by
Dharwad, Gadag districts; on the east by Davangere, Bellary districts; on the west by Uttar
Kannada, Shimoga districts and on the south by Davanagere, Shimoga districts. The hill
ranges run in northern direction except in Hirekerur range where they run in west to east
direction. The highest point is 2933ft. MSL in Hirekerur taluk. The average altitude is 2000ft
MSL.
III Forest types :
DHARWAD DISTRICT
Amongst the districts situated in the northern maidan of the state, Dharwad district,
especially its western portion is relatively rich in flora and fauna. The forest of the district
are of three types; mixed deciduous forests, Dry deciduous forests and the scrub forests.
The Decidous forests have Teak, Matti, Dindal as the predominant species along with
Nandi, Kindal, Heddi, Gojjal etc,. The trees normally attain an height of 8-10Mtrs in the
western portion and it decreases towards east. The under storey has Carrissa, Randea, etc.
The mixed deciduous forests and Dry deciduous forests cover the western fringe where the
rainfall is relatively heavy. These forests exhibit regional variation from dense forests to
the poorer types. The thorn forests is typical of the dry black-soil plains. The scrub jungles
are met with in the northern and eastern parts and offer a dry landscape dotted with a
sporadic growth of thorny shrubs and rough grasses. The wild animals found in the
district include leopard, wild cats, sloth bear, wolf, hyena, jackal, Indian fox, spotted deer
and black bucks.
GADAG DISTRICT
Forests of this district are mainly found on either sides of the Kappat hills. The
forests comprise a meager 7.2% of the geographical area (338.49 Km2). The major forest
type is Southern Trophical Thorn and Scrub Forests. Mundargi taluk has the biggest chunk
of forest spread over 20,769.51 Ha. and Ron taluk has the least area under forests spread over
846.79 Ha. Nargund taluk has no forests.
The major species are Ficus, Hardwickia binata, Feronia elephantum, Albizzia
odoratissima, Acacia leucophloea, Zizyphus jujuba, Anogiessus latifolia, etc.,
HAVERI DISTRICT
A large portion of the district is treeless and forests are found in scattered patches in
most of the taluks. These forest patches are mostly situated on hillocks and undulating
country sides which are considered unfit for cultivation. The species composition of the
forests change with the quantum of rain fall received in that patch. As one traverse from west
to east, there is a change in the vegetation and the forests tend to become less luxuriant. The
best forests are in the western part of the district ie., Hangal, Shiggaon taluks abutting Uttara
Kannada district and are typically the “Southern dry mixed deciduous” forests. Common
248
species seen are Mathi, Nandi, Honne, Kindal, Heddi, Kalam, Gojjal, Teak, Neral, Dindga
etc. Both Medri and Dowga bamboos are present. In the past, Mudur and Shirgod forests of
Hangal taluk had a good representation of Sandal. The eastern part receives less rainfall and
has scrub forests comprising of species like Acacia leucophloea, Chloroxylon swietenia,
Ixora species, Capparis divaricata, Flacourtia species, Euphorbia species etc., In this tract, the
trees are stunted, interspersed with large grassy blanks. The ground cover has bushes of
Dodonea viscosa, Carissa caranda, Cassia auriculata, Zizyphus sps etc. In parts of
Rannebennur, Anjan (Hardwickia binata) occurs almost as a pure crop and at places is
associated with Acacia catechu (Khair- Katha tree). Parts of Hirekerur have Boswellia forests
to a limited extent.
IV Climate :
DHARWAD DISTRICT
Dharwad district has an agreeable and healthy climate. Within the district itself the
western part has a more pleasant weather. The year is usually divided into four seasons.
Summer sets in during the second half of February and lasts till the end of May, this
season is marked by harsh eastern winds, rising temperature, whirlwinds and occasional
thunderstorms accompanied by sharp showers. Southwest monsoon season starts during
early June and lasts till the end of September. This is a period of cool and damp climate.
The months of October and November constitute the post monsoon or the northeast
monsoon season and this period witnesses a radical rise in day temperatures and a
substantial amount of rainfall as well. The winter season covers the period from
December to mid-February. The district enjoys a moderate weather and is not subject to
extremes either during summer or winter.
GADAG DISTRICT
The climate of Gadag District is semi arid. Rainfall though substantial, is erratic in
distribution making agriculture highly unpredictable. The lowest recorded temperature is 140
C and the highest is 410C. The months of June – October are very windy and wind speed of
30 Kms/hr as normal – with a high potential for harnessing wind energy. Rainfall occurs
primarily from the South West monsoon in Gadag and Shirahatti taluks and from the
retreating monsoon in Mundargi, Ron and Nargund taluks.
HAVERI DISTRICT
The climate of Haveri District is governed mainly by the southwest monsoon. The
year can be divided into three seasons. Namely, rainy, cold and hot seasons. In the western
part of the tract, most of the rains are received in the early part of monsoon, while towards the
east, rainfall gets lesser and most of it is received in the months of October and November.
The rainfall varies from an average of 960 mm in the west to about 560mm in the eastern
parts. Temperature varies from a minimum of 180C in winter to a maximum of 400C during
summer.
V Rainfall :
DHARWAD DISTRICT
The average annual rainfall for Dharwad district as a whole is 680 mm. The area in
the west of the Bankapur-hubli axis receives a higher amount rainfall. In contrast, in the
western-most parts around Kalghatgi the rainfall averages to about 1000 mm per annum.
The southwest monsoon is relatively more active in the western zone and accounts for
nearly 70 percent of the annual rainfall. The northeast monsoon is however more active in
the eastern zone where it accounts for about 25 percent of the rainfall. Towards the end of
April and onwards most parts of the district receive pre-monsoon showers.
GADAG DISTRICT
In the western part of Gadag District most of the rains are received during monsoon
while the eastern part of the district receives the rain fall during north east monsoon. The
249
average rain fall varies from 450 mm to 650 mm. There are early showers in the months
of April and May preceding the Southwest monsoon. The rain fall is irregular, erratic and
unevenly distributed.
HAVERI DISTRICT
In the western part of the district most of the rain falls in the early part of monsoons
while towards the east, rainfall gets less and less and most of it falls in the months of
October and November. There are early showers in the months of April and May
heralding the Southwest monsoons, and the eastern winds of October and November bring
the Northeast monsoon showers. The rainfall varies from an average of 960 mm in the
west to about 560 mm in the eastern parts of the division.
VI Soil types :
DHARWAD DISTRICT
The soils of Dharwad district are from the mixture of decomposed rock, of all types.
The predominant soil that occupies the great part of the district is black cotton soil. The
black cotton soils are admirably suited to the dry climate of the table-land.
GADAG DISTRICT
The soil of Gadag District passes through every grade from bare rock to fairly deep
loam with thin covering of humus. The soil is poor on hilltops and improves in valleys
and lower slopes. The soils in the valleys are highly fertile but the productivity is limited
by the rain fall received. Lot of canker nodules of lime are seen on flat and undulating
land of forest and even on some agricultural lands. One can see a few lime kilns around
these areas.
HAVERI DISTRICT
The soil of Haveri District passes through every grade from bare rock to fairly deep
loam with thin covering of humus. Soil depth is good along the riverbeds. In general soil
is poor on hill tops but soil depth and fertility improves in valleys and in lower slopes.
VII Administrative boundaries:
DHARWAD DISTRICT
Dharwad district comprises of two forest divisions. Viz Dharwad Territorial Forest
Division and Dharwad Social Forestry Division. Dharwad Territorial division has two
sub divisions. One is at Dharwad and the other is at Kalghatagi. Dharwad sub division
comprises Dharwad Range and Hubli Range. Kalghatagi sub division comprises of
Kalaghatagi and Dundshi range. Dharwad Social Forestry division has only one sub
division viz Dharwad and has 5 ranges viz Dharwad, Hubli, Kundgaol, Navalgund &
Kalaghatgi.
GADAG DISTRICT
Gadag district comprises of two forest divisions. Viz Gadag Territorial Forest
Division and Gadag Social Forestry Division. Gadag Territorial division has one sub
division namely Gadag sub-division. Gadag sub division comprises Gadag Range, -
Shirahatti Range, and Mundargi Range. Gadag Social Forestry division has only one
sub division viz Gadag and has 5 ranges viz Gadag, Mundargi, Shirahatti, Nargund and
Ron ranges.
HAVERI DISTRICT
Haveri district comprises of two forest divisions. Viz Haveri Territorial Forest
Division and Haveri Social Forestry Division. Haveri Territorial division has two sub
divisions. One is at Haveri and the other is at Hanagal. Haveri sub division comprises
Haveri Range, Byadagi Range, and Ranebennur Range. Hanagal sub division comprises
of Hanagal and Hirekerur range. Haveri Social Forestry division has only one sub division
viz Haveri and has 5 ranges viz Haveri, Ranebennur, Hirekerur. Shiggaon & Hanagal.
250
VIII Evaluation assignment:
The evaluation team was given the task of evaluating forestry works in Dharwad,
Gadag and Haveri districts for the years 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07. Each district has 1
Territorial and 1 Social Forestry divisions. Apart from 2 divisions, Haveri district has 1 wild
Life sub division. The works taken up for evaluation were broadly of the following
categories.
1. Plantation works.
2. Distribution of seedlings.
3. JFPM works.
4. Soil and Moisture Conservation works,
5. FDA works.
6. Other forestry works.
IX Evaluation Team :
The Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (EWPRT), Bangalore in his
order No. APCCF(EWPRT)/1-32/Eval./07-08 Dated 08-10-2007 Constituted the following
team.
Sl. Circle Team leader Other members
No.
1 2 4 5
1 DHARWAD Sri.M.R.Karki, IFS, 1) Sri. Shiv Raj Singh, IFS,
Chief Conservator of Forests Conservator of Forests, Working Plans, Shimoga.
(Research & Utilisation) 2) Sri.Nagaraj, IFS,
Bangalore. Conservator of Forests, Chamarajanagar Circle,
Chamarajanagar.
3) Sri.K.M.Srinivasa Murthy,
Deputy Conservator of Forests, Zilla Panchayat,
Chitradurga.
4) Sri.R.Raghavendra Rao,
Deputy Conservator of Forests, Zilla Panchayat,
Bellary.
A meeting of all the Deputy Conservators of Dharwad Circle, ACF (W.L)
Ranebennur and the members of the evaluation team was convened at the chambers of the
Conservator of Forests, Dharwad Circle on 28-12-2007 and a tour programme for the
evaluation of works was chalked out. Evaluation of works of Dharwad district was done by
all the team members jointly. Evaluation works started in the afternoon of 28-02-2007 to 30-
12-2007. Further evaluation work was carried out on 09-04-2008 and 10-04-2008.
The Evaluation of Gadag District was done by Sri. Shivaraj Singh, IFS.,and Sri. K.M.
Srinivasamurthy, under the guidance of the team leader Sri M.R. Karki, IFS., Evaluation
works of Gadag district was started on 19-02-2008 and completed on different dates by team
members.
The Evaluation of Haveri District was done by Sri. Nagaraj, IFS., and Sri. R.
Raghavendra Rao, under the guidance of the team leader Sri M.R. Karki, IFS,. Evaluation of
works of Haveri district was started on 20-02-2008 and completed on different dates by team
members.
X Method of evaluation :
The procedure adapted for evaluation was as detailed in letter No.
APCCF(EWPRT)/1-32/Eval./07-08 Dated 10-01-2008. All works under Plan and Non-plan
schemes including FDA works, wild life works, carried out during the years 2004-05, 2005-
06 and 2006-07 were taken up for evaluation. A total list of works carried out during the
years 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07 by Dharwad -Territorial, Dharwad - Social Forestry
under Plan and Non-plan schemes was obtained from the respective divisions. The
plantations to be evaluated were selected and intimated by The Additional Principal Chief
Conservator of Forests (EWPRT), Bangalore. The works to be evaluated under FDA, Soil &
Moisture Conservation works and other forestry works including 25% of the works carried
251
out under FDA were selected and indicated by the Team Leader – Chief Conservator of
Forests, (Research & Utilisation), Bangalore. Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, had
issued a directions on 3-1-2008 to restrict the sampling intensity to 2% irrespective of the
extent of plantation. Sample plots of required dimensions and numbers were laid out by the
respective division staff as per the guidelines issued under “ Note on the line transect
method “ and data collected. In all the areas that have been evaluated GPS latitude and
longitude readings were recorded.
XI DHARWAD (TERRITORIAL) DIVISION.
Total of FIFTEEN FDA plantations, FIVE Plantations of non plan schemes and THREE
SMC forestry works were selected chosen to cover all the ranges, all the schemes and all
types of SMC works for evaluation for the period from 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07.
The details of plantations and other SMC works evaluated are given below :
A. FDA Plantation
DHARWAD RANGE
1) 2004rains Kalkeri Plantation–(Natural Regeneration)-25Ha.+25Ha=50 Ha.
10000 plants of Bamboo, Honne, Honge, Matti, Nandi, Anjan, Heddi, Teak, Nelli,
Holemathi, Muthl, Tari, Nerale and other species have been planted in 10000 pits of
0.50M3. in Sy.No.196 and 93 of Compartment No. 7, 8, 14, Block No. VII of Kalkeri
Reserve Forest. Plantation has been raised in two patches of 25 Ha. each. Planting and
other cultural operations have been carried out during 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07.
Survival percentage is 71%.
It’s a good plantation. And average height of the plants is 1.2M in 1st patch and
0.50M in 2nd patch. In 1st patch honge and bamboo has survived well. In 2nd patch
Anjan has been planted which is not suited for this area. In both the patches the planted
species are struggling due to over head shade. Plantation journal is posted up-to-date.
VFC has been active. Micro plan has been approved on 05-02-2001 and same has not
been revised from 2006 onwards.
2) 2004 rains Kumbara koppa Plantation – (Mix ) - 15Ha.
16500 plants of Acacia, Bamboo, Honne, Honge, Matti, Beete, Holemathi, Muthl,
Tari, Nerale and other species have been planted in both trenches and pits. In open
patches ripping has been done at 5.00M apart and in ripped lines trenches of 4.00M
have been formed. In these trenches Two Acacia and One Bamboo Bamboo seedlings
have been planted. Acacia has attained good growth of 8.00Mtrs. and bamboo
(Douga) 4.00Mtrs. In other patches pitting and planting of other species have been
done in Sy.No. 16, 12, 70/P, 1, 79, of Kumbara koppa Reserve Forest. Planting and
other cultural operations have been carried out during 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07.
Performance of acacia, bamboo and honge are encouraging and survival percentage is
75%. It is a good plantation. journal is written up-to-date. VFC has been active.
3) 2004 rains Kedanatti Plantation –(Mix ) - 45Ha.
Area has been ripped at 4.00M apart and 22500 trenches of 4.00M length have been
planted with 49500 seedlings of Acacia (40500) Bamboo, Honge, Matti Muthl, Tari,
and other species have been planted in Sy. No. 42/P & 43/P of Kedanatti Forest lands.
In 13500 trenches acacia have been planted @ 3 seedlings / trench (on the slopes of the
hillocks) and in the balance 9000 trenches (done in degraded natural growth area) One
8” X 12” seedlings of misc. species have been planted per trench. In these 9000
trenches only bamboo has survived well and other species have been suppressed by the
re juvenated natural growth. Acacia has attained good growth of 3.50Mtrs. and
bamboo (Douga) 2.00Mtrs. Planting and other cultural operations have been carried
out during 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07. Survival percentage for acacia is 83% and
252
for misc. species is 45%. It is a good plantation. Plantation journal is written up-to-
date. VFC has not been active. Micro plan has been approved on 01-04-2003.
4) 2005 rains Venkatapur Plantation –(Management Intervention ) - 25Ha.
planted with 27500 seedlings of Acacia (5” X 8” size -22500), Bamboo, Nandi,
Holemathi, Heddi, Nelli, Honge, Matti, Muthl, Tari, and other species (5000 – 8” X
12” size) have been planted in Sy. No. 41/P, 42/P & 43/P of Venkatapur Forest lands.
In 7500 trenches acacia is planted @ 3 seedlings / trench and in the balance 5000
trenches one 8” X 12” seedling of misc. species has been planted in each trench. In
two rows of ripped lines acacia have been planted and in the third row only misc.
species have been planted. The fast growing acacia has suppressed the misc. species
planted in between them and these misc. species have no future. Acacia has attained
good growth of 5.00Mtrs. and misc. species 1.50Mtrs. Planting and other cultural
operations have been carried out during 2005-06 and 2006-07. Survival percentage is
82% It is a good plantation. Plantation journal is written up-to-date. VFC has not
been active. Micro plan has been approved on 30-09-2001 and the same has not been
revalidated.
5) 2006rains Chikkamalliwada Plantation -(Management Intervention) - 05 Ha.
5500 plants of Acacia, Bamboo, Nelli,Tari, Nerale, Honge species have been planted
in 5250 pits of 0.45M3 and 250 pits of 0.60M3. in Chikkamalliwada Forest lands.
Planting and other cultural operations have been carried out during 2006-07. Survival
percentage is 54%. It’s a satisfactory plantation. Average height of the plants is
1.00M Plantation journal is posted up-to-date. VFC has not been active. Micro plan
has been approved on 01-04-2003. Except acacia other species have not fared well.
Perhaps pitting and planting might not have contributed to good growth when
compared to ripped areas.
6) 2006 rains Kotur Plantation (Venkatapura)-(Management Intervention) - 20Ha.
planted with 22000 seedlings of Acacia (5” X 8” size -21000) Nandi, Nellii, Matti,
Tari and other species (1000 – 8” X 12” size) have been planted in Sy. No. 279/P of
Kotur Forest lands. 8” X 12” seedlings of misc. species have been planted in trenches
in between acacia plants. The fast growing acacia has suppressed the misc. species
planted in between them and these misc. species have no future. Acacia has attained
good growth of 2.50Mtrs. and misc. species 0.60Mtrs. Planting and other cultural
operations have been carried out during 2006-07. Survival percentage is 92.50%. It
is a very good plantation. Plantation journal is written up-to-date. VFC has not been
active. Micro plan has been approved on 30-09-2001 and the same has not been
revalidated. Clonal acacia seedlings have been planted along with spring vale variety.
These are faring very well.
KALAGHATGI RANGE
7) 2004 rains Kudlagi (Birnal plantation )–(Natural Regeneration)–30 Ha.
6000 plants of Teak, Honge, Nelli, Nandi, Bamboo and Acacia species of planted in
6000 pits of 0.60 M3 in Sy.No.17 of Reserve Forest. Plantation has been maintained
during 2005-06 and 2006-07 also. Nelli, Bamboo and Teak are doing well and
survival percentage is 72%. It’s a good plantation. Plantation journal is posted up-to-
date. VFC has been active Rs.41,500.00 has been spent for Entry Point Activities such
as Shamiyana, utensils and furnitures. Rs. 4,017.00 has been realised as revenue from
the rent. Micro plan has been approved on 7-12-2000 and same has not been revised
from 2005 onwards.
253
8) 2004 rains Machapur plantation– (Management Intervention )- 25 Ha.
27500 plants of Acacia, Teak, Honge, Nelli, Tapasi and other species ( 22000 Acacia )
planted in 27500 pits of 0.45M3 in Sy.No.43 of Machapur Block No. IX of the
Reserve Forest. Planting and other cultural operations have been carried out during
2004-05 and causalities replaced during 2005-06. during 2005-06 and 2006-07 no
cultural operations have not been carried out except fire tracing. Acacia is performing
well and survival percentage is 72%. It’s an average plantation. Plantation journal is
posted up-to-date. VFC has not been so active. Micro plan has been approved on 7-
12-2000 and same has not been revised from 2005 onwards.
9) 2004 rains Kalkundi Plantation –(Management Intervention ) - 30 Ha.
33000 plants of Acacia, Nelli, Matti, Honge, Teak and other species have been planted
in 27000 pits of 0.45 M3 and 6000 pits of 0.50M3 at 2.50Mtrs. apart in Sy.No. 43 of
Kalkundi Block No. IX of Reserve Forest. 27000 acacia, nelli, matti, honge have been
planted in 0.45M3 pits and 6000 teak species have been planted in 0.50M3 pits.
Planting and other cultural operations have been carried out during 2004-05, 2005-06
and 2006-07. Acacia and Bamboo are doing well and survival percentage is 71%. It is
a good plantation. Plantation journal is partially written. VFC has been active. Micro
plan has been approved on 07-12-2000 and same has not been revised from 2005
onwards.
10) 2004rains Bangaragatti Plantation–(Arebasanakoppa) (Management
Intervention)-25 Ha.
22000 plants of Acacia, Honge, Bamboo, Teak have been planted in 22000 pits of
0.45M3 in Sy.No.11 & 12 of Bangaragatti Block No. III of Reserve Forest. Planting
and other cultural operations have been carried out during 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-
07. Acacia is performing well and survival percentage is 89%. It’s a good plantation.
And average height of the plants is 3.5 mtrs., Plantation journal is posted up-to-date.
VFC has been active. Micro plan has been approved on 23-03-2001 and same has not
been revised from 2006 onwards.
11) 2005 rains Tambur Plantation – (Management Intervention ) - 50 Ha.
45000 plants of Acacia, Bamboo, Tapasi, Honge, Nerale and other species have been
planted in 45000 pits of 0.45 M3 in Sy.No. 446 of Tambur Block No. XII of Reserve
Forest. Planting and other cultural operations have been carried out during 2004-05,
2005-06 and 2006-07. Performance of all species are average and survival percentage
is 88%. It’s an average plantation. journal is partially written. VFC has been active.
Micro plan has been approved on 7-12-2000 and same has not been revised from 2005
onwards.
12) 2006 rains Kendanatti Plantation – (Natural Regeneration ) - 35 Ha.
7000 plants of Bamboo, Honne, Nandi, Matti, Beete, Tare, Nelli and other species
have been planted in 7000 pits of 0.60 M3 at 7.00Mtrs. apart in Sy.No. 43 of
Kedanatti Reserve Forest. Planting and other cultural operations have been carried out
during 2006-07. Survival percentage is 75%. It is a satisfactory plantation. Plantation
journal is written up-to-date. VFC has not been active. Micro plan has been approved
on 01-04-2003. Plantation has been taken up in natural forest. The natural suppressed
root stock of Dindal, Channangi, Carissa have regenerated well and these have
suppressed the planted seedlings.
13) 2006 rains Signalli Plantation – ( Natural Regeneration ) – 15 Ha.
3000 plants of Nerale, Honge, Bamboo, Matti, Nelli, Tapasi and other species have
been planted in 3000 pits of 0.50 M3 in Sy.No. 46 of Block No. X of the Reserve
Forest. Planting and other cultural operations have been carried out during 2005-06
and 2006-07. Bamboo is performing well in patches. and survival percentage is
87%. It’s an average plantation. Plantation journal is posted up-to-date. VFC has not
254
been so active. Micro plan has been approved on 7-12-2000 and same has not been
revised from 2005 onwards.
HUBLI RANGE
14) 2004 rains Anchatageri plantation –(Management intervention ) –05 Ha.
2500 trenches of 4M x 0.5M x 0.5M have been manually excavated at 5Mtrs apart and
5500 plants of Honge species (8”x12” 1000 and 5”x8” 4500) planted in Forest
Sy.No.76/C of Anchatageri Forest lands. Plantation has been maintained during 2004-
05, 2005-06 and 2006-07. survival percentage is 87%, and the average height of
seedlings is 1Mtr. It’s a good plantation. Seedlings are healthy but biotic interference
is high. The coppice growth of Eucalyptus is affecting the growth of Honge seedlings.
Plantation journal is posted up-to-date. VFC has been active Rs.55,000.00 has been
spent for Entry Point Activities such as Samudaya Bhavana, Micro plan has been
approved on 27-6-2002 and same has not been revised from 2007 onwards.
15) 2005 rains Anchatageri plantation – ( MP )– 25 Ha.
10,000 trenches of 4M x 0.5M x 0.5M have been manually excavated / by ripping at
5Mtrs apart and 28,250 plants of Honge, Bevu, Acacia species planted in Forest
Sy.No.94P. 95P, 96, 97 & 100 of Anchatageri Forest lands. Plantation has been
maintained during 2005-06 and 2006-07. survival percentage is 91%, and the average
height of seedlings is 4Mtrs. It’s a very good plantation. Seedlings are healthy. The
growth of Acacia is suppressing Honge & Bevu seedlings. Plantation journal is posted
up-to-date. VFC has been active Rs.55,000.00 has been spent for Entry Point
Activities such as Samudaya Bhavana, Micro plan has been approved on 27-6-2002
and same has not been revised from 2007 onwards.
B. Other Plantations:
HUBLI RANGE
1) 2004 rains Bidnal & Shreya layout plantation– GUA Planting-20 Kms.
2000 pits of size 0.75M3 at 8 Mtrs apart have been planted with Honge,
Basavanapada, Kadubadami, Bevu, Sampige, Tabubia etc., have been planted in
Bidnal & Shreya layout of Hubli City. Plantation has been maintained during 2004-05,
2005-06 and 2006-07. The survival percentage is 67% and the height of the plants is
3.50 Mtrs. It’s a good plantation. Plantation journal is posted up-to-date.
DHUNDSHI RANGE
2) 2005 rains Gudashi plantation – KFDF- OP Plantation– 15 Ha.
4500 trenches of 4.00M X 0.45M X 0.45M have been manually excavated and 13250
Acacia seedlings have been planted along with 250 Dowga bamboo in Forest Sy. No.
136/P Gudshi kunnur Reserve Forest Lands. Plantation has been maintained during
2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08. The survival percentage is 94%. The plantation is very
good and average height of plants is 5.00Mtrs., Plantation journal is written partially.
VFC has been active.
3) 2006rains Halavathralagatta plantation–12th Finance Plantation–17 Ha.
Area has been ripped at 4M apart and 8500 trenches of 4.00 M length have been created
and 25500 Acacia auriculiformis (Springwel) seedlings have been planted in Forest
Sy.No. 155, 167 of Halavathralagatta Reserve Forest Lands. Plantation has been
maintained during 2006-07 and 2007-08. The survival percentage is 83%. The
plantation is good and average height of plants is 2.80Mtrs., plantation journal is
partially written. VFC has been active.
255
DHARWAD RANGE
4) 2005 rains Neeralkatti plantaion- 02 Cultural Operation- 16.59 Ha.
Area has been ripped at 4 M apart. 2600 pits of 0.75 M3 have been planted with
Neem,
Hunse, Ala, Holemathi, Bamboo, Hulagal, Cherry, Nerale and Others in forest Sy. No.
253
of reserved Forest. The plantation is maintained during 2006-07 and 2007-08. The
survival percentage is 95% and the plantation can be graded as good.
5) 2006 rains Dhopenatti plantation– Gap Planting- 12TH Finance Plantation -65 Ha.
2420 pits of size 0.75M3 have been planted with Teak, Honge, Nandi, Bamboo, Heddi,
Neralu, Holematti, etc., have been planted in Forest Sy.No.21 of Basapur. Plantation
has been maintained during 2006-07 and 2007-08. The survival percentage is 80%
and the height of the plants is 0.60 Mtrs to 0.80 Mtrs., It’s a good plantation. Plantation
journal is posted up-to-date.
KALAGHATGI RANGE
6) 2006 rains Galagi (Benchi)Plantation –Compensatory Afforestation - 1.50 Ha.
580 trenches of size 4.00M X 0.45M X 0.30M have been excavated manually and
1740 plants of Acacia species of planted in 580 trenches in Forest Sy.No.14 Galagi
Block- I. Plantation has been maintained during 2006-07. The survival percentage is
81% and the average height of plants is 1.20Mtrs. It’s a good plantation. Plantation
journal is posted up-to-date. Acacia auriculiformis –spring well variety has been
planted.
The survival percentage of the plantations evaluated is as shown below :
Sl. Survival
Scheme Range Location Extent
No. %
1 2 3 4 5 6
DHARWAD DIVISION :
FDA PLANTATIONS
1 FDA – NR Kalaghatgi Kudlagi (Birnal 30 Ha. 72 %
plantation)
2 FDA – M I Kalaghatgi Machapur 25 Ha. 72 %
3 FDA – M I Kalaghatgi Bangaragatti 25 Ha. 89 %
4 FDA – M I Kalaghatgi Kalkundi 30 Ha. 71 %
5 FDA – M I Kalaghatgi Tambur 50 Ha. 88 %
6 FDA – NR Kalaghatgi Signalli 15 Ha. 87 %
7 FDA – NR Kalaghatgi Kendanatti 35 Ha. 75%
8 FDA – Mix Dharwad Kumbara koppa 15 Ha. 75 %
9 FDA – NR Dharwad Kalkeri 50 Ha. 71 %
10 FDA – Mix Dharwad Kedanatti 45 Ha. 83% &
45%-Misc
11 FDA – M I Dharwad Venkatapur 25 Ha. 82 %
12 FDA – M I Dharwad Chikkamalliwada 05 Ha. 54%
13 FDA – M I Dharwad Kotur 20 Ha. 92.50 %
14 FDA – M I Dharwad Anchatageri 05 Ha. 87 %
15 FDA – M P Dharwad Anchatageri 25 Ha. 91 %
OTHER PLANTATIONS
1 2 3 4 5 6
1 Compensatory Kalaghatgi Galagi ( Benchi ) 1.5 Ha. 81 %
Afforestation
2 12th Finance Kalaghatgi Dhopenatti 65 Ha. 80 %
3 GUA-Plantation Hubli Bidnal & Shreya layout 20 Kms 67 %
4 KFDF- OP Dundishi Gudashi 15 Ha. 94 %
5 12th Finance Dundishi Haralagatta 17 Ha. 83 %
6. 02 Cultural Dharwad Neeralkatti 16.59 95%
Operation Ha.0
Overall survival percentage in the FDA plantations of Dharwad territorial division
varies from 92.5% to 71%. Out of 15 plantations selected, 14 plantations were found to be
256
in the category of 92.5% to 71% survival percentage. Only one plantation at
Chikkamallivada the survival percentage was 54%. Extent was only 5 ha and improper
protection aspects for a small extent of plantation was one of the factors for the lower
percentage. In Kednatti plantation of Dharwad range, survival percentage of Acacia is
83% and miscellaneous species is 45%.
Performance of species :
Among the planted species, Bamboo (Dowga), Acacia auriculiformis (spring vale
variety), Acacia auriculiformis (local variety) and Eucalyptus are the better performing
ones. Nelli, Tare, Honge, Matti, Nandi, Holematti, have not fared as good as Bamboo,
Acacia. It is necessary to give more attention for selection of species depending upon
locality factors.
Performance of plantations :
In majority of the plantations, pitting and planting has been undertaken because of
the existence of natural forest with tree growth. In some areas where there is no tree
growth ripping has been done and planting done. Miscellaneous species have not shown
higher rate of growth but are surviving. A positive effect of the plantation activity is
recharging the surface moisture through pitting which has indirectly helped the existing
natural vegetation. Protection of the plantations also has enhanced the quality of the
natural forest.
In ripping areas, ripping has accelerated the dormant natural stunted seedlings and
are growing well. It is observed in most of the FDA plantations that Micro plan prepared
for concerned Village forest Committee has expired and new plan has to be prepared so as
to include the fresh plantations undertaken under FDA schemes.
C. Other Works : (Including SMC Works )
In Dharwad division two SMC works and one other forestry work were selected by
the team leader for evaluation and the details of evaluation are as follows :
KALAGHATGI RANGE
1) 2005-06 -Construction of Gully Checks at Emmetti– KSFMBC- Model 04 :
Gully plugs have been constructed in forest Sy. No. 66 of Emmetti Block-IC-9 & 10
of Emmetti village, of Hullambi Beat, Hasarambi Section, Kalagatagi Range during
2005-06 at an estimated cost of Rs.14,100.00. Rs.14,100.00 has been spent. Selection
of site is proper. The quality of the work is good and works have been carried out as per
sanction.
2)2005-06 – Clearing & Maintenance of transit lines– PROJECT TIGER
2 Kms length of transit lines of 3 ft wide have been cleared during 2005-06 for
predator – prey census data collection in Galagi Block-I Huli Koppa – Hubli road of
Galagi Beat, Hasarambi Section, Kalagatagi Range during 2005-06 at an estimated cost
of Rs.17,500.00. limited to Rs.4,000.00. Rs. 4,000.00 has been spent. Selection of site
is proper. The quality of the work could not be assessed, as the undergrowth has grown
during 2006-07 and 2007-08 rains.
DHARWAD RANGE
3) 2005-06 - Construction of Rubble Checks – 12th Finance
Gully plugs have been constructed in forest Sy. No. 15 of Block-IV – C – 22 to 40 of
Udadna galavi of Mavina koppa Beat, Bandur Section, Dharwad Range during 2005-06
at an estimated cost of Rs.32,500.00. Rs.32,400.00 has been spent. Selection of site is
proper. The quality of the work is good and works have been carried out as per
sanction.
257
General Observation :
The SMC works have been carried out as per sanction and the selection of sites are
proper. The SMC works have been carried out inside the forest area which has helped in
Soil and Moisture Conservation leading to improvement of the existing vegetation.
D. Distribution of Seedlings :
In Dharwad division evaluation of seedlings that were supplied to the farmers @ rate
fixed by the government, who have purchased their required species were carried out in
16 places. These spots were evaluated which were on the way to the other plantations and
other evaluation work spots.
DHARWAD RANGE
1) 2006 rains - Mandyal village :
500 Teak, 50 Casuarina 16 Nugge, seedlings have been given to Sy.No.79 of Mandyal
village of Dharwad taluk by recovering cost. Survival percentage is 85% for Teak and
100% for Casuarina. Planted plants- teak have attained a height of 1.50Mtrs and Casuarina
2.50Mtrs. Teak planted along the fence & internal paths. Nugge plants have yielded fruits.
Farmer was happy with the departmental seedlings. The planted seedlings are healthy and
good.
2) 2006 rains - Alnavar village :
400 Teak seedlings have been given to Sri. Deepak kalal of Alnavar village of Dharwad
taluk by recovering cost. Survival percentage is 10% and planted plants- teak have
attained a height of 1.00Mtr and planted along the fence. Farmer was not available for
comments at the time of evaluation. The planted and surviving seedlings are healthy and
good.
3) 2006 rains - Gamanagatti village :
100 Nugge and 50 Bevu seedlings have been given to Sri. Nagaraj S. Menasinkayi of
Gamanagatti village of Dharwad taluk by recovering cost. Survival percentage is 32% for
Nugge and 10% for Bevu planted plants- nugge have attained a height of 2.00Mtrs & have
flowered and yielded fruits. Bevu has not survived. Farmer was not available for
comments at the time of evaluation. The planted and surviving nugge seedlings are healthy
and good.
4) 2006 rains - Mansur village :
1200 Teak, 5 Halsu and 2 Sampige seedlings have been given to Sy.No. 155/P and 154/2 of
Mansur village of Dharwad taluk by recovering cost. Survival percentage is 90% and
planted plants- teak have attained a height of 1.50Mtrs and planted along the fence.
Farmer was not available for comments at the time of evaluation. The planted and
surviving seedlings are healthy and good.
KALGHATAGI RANGE
5) 2007 rains – Chalamatti village :
1000 Teak seedlings have been given to Sri. Satiesh Vivekanand of Chalamatti village of
Kalghatagi taluk by recovering cost. Survival percentage is 80% and planted plants- teak
have attained a height of 1.00Mtr because of irrigation facility and planted along the fence in
two rows. Farmer was happy with the departmental seedlings. The planted seedlings are
healthy and good.
6) 2006 rains – Kuruvina koppa village :
2000 Teak seedlings have been given to Sri. C.G. Uppar of Kuruvina koppa village of
have attained a height of 1.50Mtrs because of irrigation facility and planted along the fence
in two rows. Farmer was happy with the departmental seedlings. The planted seedlings are
healthy and good.
258
7) 2006 rains – Hindsgeri village :
500 Teak seedlings have been given to Sri. Basappa Sangappa Huddar of Hindsgeri village of
have attained a height of 1.00Mtr. Farmer was not available for comments at the time of
evaluation. The planted seedlings are healthy and good.
8) 2006 rains – Dasti koppa village :
950 Teak seedlings have been given to Sri. Allabhaksh bepari of Dasti koppa village of
have attained a height of 1.00Mtr. Farmer was happy with the departmental seedlings. The
planted seedlings are healthy and good.
9) 2006 rains – Sange devara koppa village :
100 Teak seedlings have been given to Sahadevappa Ningappa Uganikeri of Sange devara
koppa village of Kalghatagi taluk by recovering cost. Survival percentage is 95% and
planted plants- teak have attained a height of 1.20Mtr because of irrigation facility. Farmer
was not available for comments at the time of evaluation. The planted seedlings are healthy
and good.
10) 2006 rains – Madaki honnhalli village :
280 Teak seedlings have been given to Srikanth B. Kubhal of Madaki honnhalli village of
have attained a height of 1.20Mtr because of irrigation facility. Farmer was happy with the
departmental seedlings. The planted seedlings are healthy and good.
11) 2005 rains – Kuruvina koppa village :
500 Teak seedlings have been given to Adavippa N. Chanddanavar of Kuruvina koppa
village of Kalghatagi taluk by recovering cost. Survival percentage is 80% . Farmer was
happy with the departmental seedlings. The planted seedlings are healthy and good.
12) 2006 rains – Misri koti village :
1000 Teak seedlings have been given to Revanappa Pakkirappa of Misri koti village of
Kalghatagi taluk by recovering cost. Survival percentage is 60% . Farmer was happy with
the departmental seedlings. The planted seedlings are healthy and good.
13) 2006 rains – Malakana koppa village :
1000 Teak seedlings have been given to Sri. Siddappa hulumani of Malakana koppa village
of Kalghatagi taluk by recovering cost. Survival percentage is 95% . Farmer was happy with
the departmental seedlings. The planted seedlings are healthy and good.
HUBLI RANGE
14) 2006 rains – Giriyal village :
300 Teak seedlings have been given to Sri. Malleshappa Narappa Tudikennavar, Sy.No.491
of Giriyal village of Hubli taluk by recovering cost. Survival percentage is 85% . and the
average height is 1.00Mtr because of irrigation facility. Farmer was happy with the
departmental seedlings. The planted seedlings are healthy and good.
15) 2006 rains – Tarihal village :
300 Teak seedlings have been given to Sri. Shekappa K. Chikkannanvar of Tarihal village of
Hubli taluk by recovering cost. Survival percentage is 82% . and the average height is
0.90Mtr because of irrigation facility. Farmer was happy with the departmental seedlings.
The planted seedlings are healthy and good.
16)_2006 rains – Sutagatti village :
300 seedlings of Basavanpad, Bangali, Neem, Baradakshi, Gulmohar, have been given to
Concord Developers of Sutagatti village of Hubli taluk by recovering cost to plant in a
housing site area. Survival percentage is 95% . and the average height is 4.00Mtrs.
259
Developer was not available for comments at the time of evaluation. The planted seedlings
are healthy and good.
The survival percentage of distributed seedlings evaluated at the farmers lands are as
shown below :
Sl Range Location Sy. No./ Name of the Name of No. of Survival
. farmer. the Species Seedl- %
N ings
o
1 2 3
DHARWAD DIVISION
1 Dharwad Mandyal 79 Teak, 500 85%
Casuarina 50 100%
Nugge, 16 --
2 Dharwad Alnavar Sri. Deepak kalal Teak 400 10%
3 Dharwad Gamanagatti Sri. Nagaraj S. Nugge 100 32%
Menasinkayi Bevu 50 10%
4 Dharwad Mansur 155/P and 154/2 Teak, Halsu 1200 90 %
Sampige 5, 2
5 Kalaghatagi Chalamatti Sri. Satiesh Vivekanand Teak 1000 80%
6 Kalaghatagi Kuruvina Sri. C.G. Uppar Teak 2000 85%
koppa
7 Kalaghatagi Hindsgeri Sri. Basappa Sangappa Teak 500 95%
Huddar
8 Kalaghatagi Dasti koppa Sri. Allabhaksh bepari Teak 950 97%
9 Kalaghatagi Sange devara Sahadevappa Ningappa Teak 100 95%
koppa Uganikeri
10 Kalaghatagi Madaki Srikanth B. Kubhal Teak 280 71%
honnhalli
11 Kalaghatagi Kuruvina Adavippa N. Teak 500 80%
koppa Chanddanavar
12 Kalaghatagi Misri koti Revanappa Pakkirappa Teak 1000 60%
13 Kalaghatagi Malakana Sri. Siddappa hulumani Teak 1000 95%
koppa
14 Hubli Giriyal Sri. Malleshappa Teak 300 85%
Narappa Tudikennavar,
15 Hubli Tarihal Sri. Shekappa K. Teak 300 82%
Chikkannanvar
16 Hubli Sutagatti Concord Developers Basavanpad
,
Bangali, 300 95%
Neem,
Baradakshi,
Gulmohar
Most of the farmers preferred Teak seedlings. In most of the lands teak has been
planted either in one row or two rows along the border / fence / inner roads. Pitting and
planting is the general practice. Teak seedlings have attained an height of 1 to 2Mtrs in a
couple of years. In majority of the places the survival percentage is above 90% and
farmers have taken lot of interest to protect the planted seedlings. In a couple of lands
Nugge (hybrid ) has also been planted and is already yielding fruits. Wherever irrigation
facility is there, irrigation has been provided.
XII. DHARWAD (SOCIAL FORESTRY) DIVISION
A. Other Plantations:
Total of TEN Block plantations and THREE roadside Plantations works were selected
chosen to cover all the ranges, all the schemes for evaluation for the period 2004-05,
2005-06 and 2006-07.
DHARWAD S.F. RANGE
1) 2004 rains Hebballi Plantation– SGRY 30% -13 Ha.
1300 pits of size 1.00 M3 have been planted with Grafted Mango, Tamarind and Nelli.
Plantation has been maintained during 2004-05. Plantation journal is posted up-to-date.
260
During the time of visit no plants were visible as the plantation has been handed over to
Hubli – Dharwad Municipal Corporation during April 2006. Hence no evaluation done.
KALAGHATGI S.F. RANGE
2) 2004 rains Kalladevara koppa Plantation –NTFP – SGRY 30 % - 25 Ha.
2500 pits of size 1.00 M3 have been excavated and planted with Halsu, Nelli, Nerale,
Hunse seedlings. Plantation has been maintained during 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-
07. The survival percentage is 40% and the average height of the plants is 0.90Mtrs.,
Plantation journal has been partially posted up-to-date.
In this plantation during 2005-06, 10 ha., of Acacia auriculiformis trench
mount plantation has been raised and Acacia auriculiformis of this T.M. Plantation has
suppressed the NTFP species. Further this 25 Ha., plantation has been handed over to
Basavana Koppa Gram Panchayat during March 2007.
3) 2006 rains Devalingana koppa Plantation – NTFP– SGRY 30% -10 Ha.
1000 pits of size 1.00 M3 have been excavated and planted with Bevu, Arali, Halsu,
Nelli, Mavu, Ala, Nerale seedlings. Plantation has been maintained during 2006-07 and
2007-08. The survival percentage is 92% and the average height of the plants is
1.50Mtrs., Plantation journal has been partially posted up-to-date. It is a good plantation.
NAVALGUND S.F. RANGE
4) 2004 rains Hal Kusugal - Tank Fore Shore Plantation– S.G.R.Y 30% - 12Ha.
1200 pits of size 1.00 M3 have been planted with Bevu Seedlings. Plants have been
given one saucer bharav and individual fencing during 2004-05, other than these
operations no other maintenance works have been carried out. The survival percentage
is 20% and the average height of the plants is 2.00Mtrs., Surviving plants are doing
well. Plantation journal has been posted up-to-date.
5) 2004 rains Javoor Plantation– S.G.R.Y 30% - 06 Ha.
600 pits of size 1.00 M3 have been excavated and planted with Bevu, Honge, Raintree,
Vilayati Hunse, Sirsal Seedlings. Plants have been given one saucer bharav and
individual fencing during 2004-05, other than these operations no other maintenance
works have been carried out. The survival percentage is 3% and the average height of
the plants is 2.00Mtrs., Plantation journal has been posted up-to-date. It is a poor
plantation.
6) 2005 rains Navalagund-Amargol Cross–Roadside Plantation–S.G.R.Y 20% 9 Kms.
1800 pits of size 1.00 M3 have been planted with Honge, Bevu, Atti, Arali and Sirsal.
Plantation has been maintained during 2005-06. The survival percentage is 57% and the
average height of the plants is 2.50Mtrs., All the species are faring well. It’s a good
plantation. Plantation journal is partially posted up-to-date.
7) 2006 rains Morab Plantation– S.G.R.Y 30% - 05 Ha.
500 pits of size 1.00 M3 have been excavated and planted with Bevu, Honge, Arali,
Raintree, Sirsal, Bangali seedlings. Plants have been given one saucer bharav, fertilizer
application and individual fencing during 2006-07, other than these operations no other
maintenance works have been carried out. The survival percentage is 17% and the
average height of the plants is 2.20Mtrs., Plantation journal has been posted up-to-date.
It is a poor plantation and causalities is due to lack of protection.
HUBLI S.F. RANGE
8) 2006 rains Nagarahalli Plantation – S.G.R.Y 30% - 6.3 Ha.
630 pits of size 1.00 M3 have been excavated and planted with Bevu, Arali, Honge,
Mavu, Raintree, Nerale seedlings. Plantation have been maintained during 2006-07. The
survival percentage is 25% and the average height of the plants is 2.50Mtrs., Plantation
journal has been partially posted up-to-date. It is an average plantation.
261
9) 2005 rains Budarsinge Plantation–Fuel wood Model - S.G.R.Y 20%-7 Ha.
3500 trenches of size 4M x 0.5M x 0.5M have been manually excavated at 5Mtrs apart
and 10500 Acacia auriculiformis (spring well variety ) and Acacia manjiyana seedlings
have been planted in Sy. No. 45A of Budarsinge. Plantation has been maintained
during 2005-06. Survival percentage is 95% and the height of the plants is 6.00M. It is a
very good plantation. Plantation journal is written up-to-date. Due to good protection
natural seedlings of teak and honge are coming up well. Illicit cuttings are noticed.
KUNDGOL S.F.RANGE
10) 2004 Rains Saunsi plantation – Hasiragram -S.G.R.Y 30% - 05 Ha.

500 pits of 1.00 M3 have been planted with Honge, Bevu, Teak, Gulmohar Plantation
has been maintained during 2004-05. The survival percentage is 74% and the average
height of the plants is 4.00Mtrs. It is a good plantation. Plantation journal is not
written.
11) 2005 rains Chaklubbi Roadside Plantation– S.G.R.Y 20% - 6 Kms.
1200 pits of size 1.00 M3 have been planted with Bevu, Nerale, Honge, Atti, etc.
Plantation has been maintained during 2005-06. Survival percentage is 33% and the
height of the plants is 1.5M. It is a below average plantation. Plantation journal is
partially written. No proper maintenance. Choice of species and protection aspects are
improper.
12) 2005rains Hiregunjal Plantation–Fuel wood Model -S.G.R.Y 30% -6 Ha.
2200 trenches of size 4M x 0.5M x 0.5M have been manually excavated at 5Mtrs apart
and 6600 Acacia seedlings have been planted. plantation has been maintained during
2005-06. Survival percentage is 65.83% and the height of the plants is 4.00M. It is a
good plantation. Plantation journal is written up-to-date.
13) 2006 Rains Saunsi Roadside plantation S.G.R.Y 30% - 11 Kms
2200 pits of 1.00 M3 have been planted with Honge, Bevu, Mahagani, Basavanapada,
Gulmohar, Nerale, and Sissoo. Plantation has been maintained during 2006-07. The
survival percentage is 85% and the average height of the plants is 2.00Mtrs. It’s an
average plantation. Plantation journal is partially posted up-to-date.
The survival percentage of the plantations evaluated is as shown below:
Sl. Survival
No. %
1 2 3 4 5 6
DHARWAD S.F. DIVISION :
1 SGRY 30 % Kalaghatgi Kalladevara koppa 25 Ha. 40 %
2 SGRY 30 % Kalaghatgi Devalingana koppa 10 Ha. 92 %
3 SGRY 30 % Dharwad Hebballi 13 Ha.
4 SGRY 30 % Navalgund Hal Kusugal - Tank Fore Shore 12 Ha. 20 %
5 SGRY 30 % Navalgund Javoor 06 Ha. 3%
6 SGRY 20 % Navalgund Navalagund - Amargol Cross 09 Kms. 57 %
7 SGRY 30 % Navalgund Morab 05 Ha. 17 %
8 SGRY 30 % Hubli Nagarahalli 6.3 Ha. 25 %
9 SGRY 20 % Hubli Budarsinge 7 Ha. 95 %
10 SGRY 30 % Kundgol Saunsi plantation – Hasiragram 5 Ha. 74 %
11 SGRY 20 % Kundgol Chaklubbi 6 Kms. 33 %
12 SGRY 30 % Kundgol Hiregunjal 6 Ha. 65.83%
13 SGRY 30 % Kundgol Saunsi Roadside 11 Kms. 85 %
Overall survival percentage in the block plantations of Dharwad social forestry division
varies from 95% to 3%. Out of 10 plantations selected, 2 plantations were found to be in
the category of 92 % to 95% survival percentage. One plantation in 74% survival
percentage category. Rest of the plantations vary from 40% to 3% and have no future.
Out of the 3 roadside plantations one plantation has 85% survival rate and the other two
have 57% & 33% respectively.
262
Performance of species :
Among the planted species, Bevu, Honge, Mahagani, Nerale, Sisso are coming up
better than others. Acacia auriculiformis (spring vale variety), also have performed well.
In most of the areas misc. species which have been planted needs protection for future
survival.
Performance of plantations :
The quality of plantations of Social forestry division is poor in comparison to
territorial division plantation. In majority of the plantations, pitting and planting has been
undertaken. Miscellaneous species have not shown higher rate of growth but are surviving.
If proper protection is given in future years, these slow growing species will grow into good
trees. A positive effect of the plantation activity is recharging the surface moisture through
pitting which has indirectly helped the existing natural vegetation. Protection of the
plantations also has enhanced the quality of the natural vegetation. The works of Social
forestry division gets affected by administrative problems, where in the maintenance works
of plantations of Social Forestry division under different schemes is not ensured during
subsequent years.
B. Distribution of Seedlings :
In Dharwad social forestry division evaluation of seedlings that were supplied to the
farmers @ rate fixed by the government, who have purchased their required species were
carried out in 16 places. These spots were evaluated which were on the way to the other
plantations and other works evaluation spots.
DHARWAD S.F. RANGE
1) 2007 rains - Belligatti village :
200 Teak seedlings have been given to Sy.No.16 of Belligatti village of Dharwad
taluk by recovering cost. Survival percentage is 89% and planted plants have
attained a height of 0.50Mtrs. Farmer was not available for comments at the time of
evaluation. The planted seedlings are healthy and good.
2) 2006 rains - Neralakatti village :
400 Teak and 10 Eucalyptus seedlings have been given to Sy.No.128 of Neralakatti
village of Dharwad taluk by recovering cost. Survival percentage is 85% and
planted plants- teak have attained a height of 1.50Mtrs. and Eucalyptus 8.00Mtrs.
Farmer was not available for comments at the time of evaluation. The planted
seedlings are healthy and good.
3) 2006 rains - Neralakatti village :
950 Teak seedlings have been given to Sy.No.245 of Neralakatti village of Dharwad
taluk by recovering cost. Survival percentage is 85% and planted plants- teak have
attained a height of 1.50Mtrs and planted along the fence. Farmer was not available
for comments at the time of evaluation. The planted seedlings are healthy and
good.
4) 2006 rains - Gamanagatti village :
800 Teak seedlings have been given to Sy.No.225 of Gamanagatti village of
Dharwad taluk by recovering cost. Survival percentage is 85% and planted plants-
teak have attained a height of 1.50Mtrs and planted along the fence. Farmer was
not available for comments at the time of evaluation. The planted seedlings are
healthy and good.
5) 2006 rains - Sattur village :
710 Teak seedlings have been given to Sy.No.64 of Sattur village of Dharwad taluk
by recovering cost. Survival percentage is 84% and planted plants- teak have
attained a height of 1.00Mtr and planted along the fence. Farmer was not available
263
for comments at the time of evaluation. The planted seedlings are healthy and
good.
6) 2005 rains - Mummigatti village :
500 Teak seedlings have been given to Sy.No.224 of Mummigatti village of
Dharwad taluk by recovering cost. Survival percentage is 70% and planted plants
have attained a height of 3.00Mtrs because of irrigation facility. Farmer was
available for comments at the time of evaluation and he was happy with the
departmental seedlings and wanted bamboo seedlings in the rainy season. The
7) 2005 rains – Madi koppa village :
50 Teak seedlings have been given to Sy.No.151 of Madi koppa village of Dharwad
taluk by recovering cost. Survival percentage is 85% and planted plants have
attained a height of 2.00Mtrs because of irrigation facility. Farmer was available for
comments at the time of evaluation and he was happy with the departmental
seedlings. The planted seedlings are healthy and good.
8) 2007 rains – Hebbali village :
560 seedlings ( Karibevu 260, Causuarina 200, Acacia 100 ) have been given to Sri.
S.S. Muddi of Hebballi village of Dharwad taluk by recovering cost. Survival
percentage of Karibevu 100%, Causuarina 100% & Acacia 79%. Irrigation facility is
availabe. Farmer was available for comments at the time of evaluation and he was
happy with the departmental seedlings. The planted seedlings are healthy and good.
9) 2006 rains - Tirlapur village :
150 Bevu, Eucalyptus, Seeme thangadi, seedlings have been given to Sri. Siddappa
sunkad of Tirlapur village of Navalgund taluk by recovering cost. The seedlings
have been damaged in the floods. Farmer was not available for comments at the time
of evaluation.
10) 2006 rains – Shirkol village :
5 Teak and 5 Eucalyptus seedlings have been given to Sri.B.K. Kadagal of Shirkol
village of Navalgund taluk by recovering cost. Survival percentage is 100% and
planted plants have attained a height of 3.00Mtrs for eucalyptus and 1.20Mtrs for
teak, because of irrigation facility. Farmer was not available for comments at the
time of evaluation. The planted seedlings of eucalyptus are affected by gall disease.
KALGHATGI S.F. RANGE
11) 2006 rains – Ramanhal village :
350 Teak, 400 Acacia, 500 Casuarina seedlings have been given to Mahadevappa
Chabbi of Ramanhal village of Kalghatagi taluk by recovering cost. Survival
percentage is 80%. Farmer was happy with the departmental seedlings. The
12) 2006 rains – Surasetti koppa village :
200 Acacia, 100 Casuarina, 100 Honge, 100 Jatropha seedlings have been given to
Mahadevappa Benni of Surasetti koppa village of Kalghatagi taluk by recovering
cost. Survival percentage is 80%. Farmer was happy with the departmental
seedlings. The planted seedlings are healthy and good.
HUBLI S.F. RANGE
13) 2004 rains – Shiraguppi village :
10 Hunse, 10 Bevu, 10 Honge, 18 Nerale, 10 Parijata, 16 Karibevu,and 20 other
species have been given to Sri.G.P. Shivanagappa of Shiraguppi village of Hubli
taluk by recovering cost. Survival percentage is 20%.
264
14) 2006 rains – Rayanal village :
3000 seedlings of different species have been given to M.H. Kappal, Sy. No. 105,
116/1 of Rayanal village of Hubli taluk by recovering cost. Out of 3000 seedlings
850 Acacia, 400 Casuarina, 100 Teak, 100 Eucalyptus, 85 Bamboo, 300 Nugge have
survived. Farmer was not available for comments at the time of evaluation. The
15) 2006 rains – Varur village :
2414 seedlings of different species have been given to S.G. Kaubali matt of Varur
village of Hubli taluk by recovering cost. Out of 2414 seedlings 400 Acacia, 100
Casuarina, 500 Teak, 1100 Eucalyptus, 150 Honge, have survived. Farmer was not
available for comments at the time of evaluation. The planted seedlings are healthy and
good.
The survival percentage at the farmers lands evaluated are as shown below :
Sl. Range Location Sy. No./ Name Name of the No. of Survival
N0 of the farmer. Species Seedl- %
ings
1 2 3
DHARWAD S.F. DIVISION
1 Dharwad Belligatti 16 Teak 200 89%
2 Dharwad Neralakatti 128 Teak 400 85%
3 Dharwad Neralakatti 245 Teak 950 85%
4 Dharwad Gamanagatti 225 Teak 800 85%
5 Dharwad Sattur 64 Teak 710 84%
6 Dharwad Mummigatti 224 Teak 500 70%
7 Dharwad Madi koppa 151 Teak 50 85%
8 Dharwad Hebbali S.S. Muddi Karibevu, 260 100%
Causuarina, Acacia 200 100%
100 79%
10 Navalgund Tirlapur Sri. Siddappa Bevu, Eucalyptus,
sunkad Seeme thangadi,
150
11 Navalgund Shirkol Sri.B.K. Teak 5 100%
Kadagal Eucalyptus 5 100%
12 Kalghatgi Ramanhal Sri. Teak, 350
Mahadevappa Acacia, 400 80%
Chabbi Casuarina 500
13 Kalghatgi Surasetti Sri. Acacia, 200
koppa Mahadevappa Casuarina, 100
Benni Honge, 100 80%
Jatropha 100
14 Hubli Shiraguppi Sri.G.P. Hunse, 10
Shivanagappa Bevu, 10
Honge, 10
Nerale, 18 20%
Parijata, 10
Karibevu, 16
Other species 20
15 Hubli Rayanal M.H. Kappal, Different species 3000
Sy. No. 105,
116/1
16 Hubli Varur S.G. Kaubali Different species 2414
matt
Most of the farmers preferred Teak seedlings. In most of the lands teak has been
planted either in one row or two rows along the border / fence / inner roads. Pitting and
planting is the general practice. Teak seedlings have attained an height of 1 to 2Mtrs in a
couple of years. In majority of the places the survival percentage is above 80% and
farmers have taken lot of interest to protect the planted seedlings. In a couple of lands
Nugge (hybrid ) has also been planted and is already yielding fruits. Causurina and
265
Eucalyptus have also been preferred by the farmers. Wherever irrigation facility is there,
irrigation has been provided. One farmer has planted karibevu seedlings in a block and is
planning to harvest the karibevu leaves for commercial purposes.
C. Other Works :
Village Forest Committees :
Three VFC’s have been selected by the team leader for evaluation. The details of
evaluated VFC’s are as below :
DHARWAD S.F. RANGE
1) Village Forest Committee (VFC) – Yare koppa
Village Forest Committee has been formed and registered on 20.03.2002 vide Reg.
No:73/01-02 by DCF. S.F. Division Dharwad. VFC has 140 members – Male 128 ;
Female 12. An amount of Rs.5,000.00 has been paid as seed money and has not been
spent. Rs.35,000.00 has been spent towards Entry Point Activity. Rs.9,500.00 has been
contributed by the VFC members and from this money utensils have been purchased.
VFC has earned income by renting out the utensils. Micro plan has not been
revalidated as required under rules.
2) Village Forest Committee (VFC) – Bada
No:73/01-02 by DCF. S.F. Division Dharwad. VFC has 140 members – Male 132 ;
Female 08. An amount of Rs.5,000.00 has been paid as seed money and has not been
spent. Rs.35,000.00 has been spent towards Entry Point Activity. Rs.9,000.00 has been
contributed by the VFC members and from this money Shamiyana have been purchased.
VFC has earned income by renting out the Shamiyana. Rs.14,000.00 has been earned as
revenue by auctioning of Firewood. Micro plan has not been revalidated as required
under rules.
3) Village Forest Committee (VFC) – Shanwad
No:75/02 by DCF. S.F. Division Dharwad. VFC has 59 members – Male 48 ;
Female 11. An amount of Rs.5,000.00 has been paid as seed money and has not
been spent. Rs.35,000.00 has been spent towards Entry Point Activity.
Rs.30,000.00 has been contributed by the VFC members and from this money a
Water tank has been purchased. Rs.10,000.00 has been earned by renting out the
Water tank. Micro plan has not been re validated.
All the three VFC’s that have been evaluated, have been registered in March-2002
and by 2007 new office bearers should have been elected along with revision of Micro
plan, MOU, etc. But the same have not been observed at the time of evaluation.
XIII. Summary of Observations and Recommendations for Dharwad district.
a) Opinion regarding plantation practices :
It is high time that we have to change the plantation practices. The
maintenance of plantations has to be taken up till the plantation is out of range from Biotic
interferences. It is necessary to be careful in selection of NTFP and miscellaneous species.
The site specific plan certified Deputy Conservator of Forests, should be made mandatory
before start of plantation activity. The plantations raised near by towns and cities needs to be
protected on long term basis. The RDPR department in Government of Karnataka needs to
be advised regarding ensuring of maintenance plantations raised under Zilla Panchayat
schemes. The ripping of area should be avoided in areas having root stock. The Eucalyptus
planting should be avoided as gall disease is prevalent throughout the country. The planting
266
of single plant in one trench will not serve any good purpose which has been noticed in FDA
work of Dharwad division.
b) Opinion regarding continuation of schemes
The team felt that, all the ongoing schemes can continue, with above recommended
plantation practices. The territorial divisions need to be given target of growing medicinal
plants in each of their nurseries and the concept of Herbal gardens needs to be given
publicity.
c) Action taken on the previous Evaluation report
A discussion was held with the Conservator of Forests, Dharwad on the issue, and the
concerned Deputy Conservator of Forests have given a report indicating that all the
observations made in the previous report has been attended to and a report submitted to
PCCF (EWPRT). A copy of the report has been enclosed to this report.
XIV. GADAG (TERRITORIAL) DIVISION.
Total of 12 FDA plantations, 6 Plantations of non plan schemes and 2 SMC forestry
works were selected chosen to cover all the ranges, all the schemes and all types of SMC
works for evaluation for the period from 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07.
A. FDA Plantations :
SHIRAHATTI RANGE
1) 2004 rains Amarapur plantation –Artificial Regeneration– 20 Ha.
seedlings of Bevu, Hunse, Anjan, Tapasi, Sirsal, Neelagiri, Honge, Sissoo, (5” X 8” -
10000 and 8”X12” – 5000) seedlings have been planted in Forest Sy.No. 65, 66, 67, 68
of Reserve Forest Lands. Plantation has been maintained during 2004-05, 2005-06 and
2006-07. The survival percentage is 91% and the average height of the plants is 5.00 to
6.00Mtrs for Neelagiri and 1.00Mtr for Tapasi and Kamara. Plantation journal is
written partially. The plantation is good. Eucalyptus clonal variety is faring well.
2) 2004 rains Ranatur plantation- Artificial Regeneration – 50 Ha.
12500 trenches of 4.00M X 0.45M X 0.45M have been manually excavated / by ripping
and 37500 seedlings of Bevu, Hunse, Anjan, Tapasi, Sirsal, Honge, Neelagiri, Balwal,
Sissoo, Soymida (5” X 8” - 25000 and 8”X12” – 12500 ) seedlings have been planted
in Forest Sy.No. 81, 82, 83, 94, 95 of Forest Lands. Plantation has been maintained
during 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07. The survival percentage is 89% and the average
height of the plants is 1.50Mtrs for other seedlings and 3.00Mtrs for Neelagiri.
Plantation journal is written partially. The plantation is good. VFC is not active.
3) 2004 rains Jalligeri plantation- Aided Natural Regeneration – 100 Ha.
6000 trenches of 4.00M X 0.45M X 0.45M and 2500 pits of 0.75M3 have been
manually excavated and 14500 seedlings of Bevu, Hunse, Anjan, Tapasi, Sirsal, Honge,
Neelagiri, Sissoo, (5” X 8” - 12000 and 8”X12” – 2500 ) seedlings have been planted in
Forest Sy. No. 45 of Forest Lands. Plantation has been maintained during 2004-05,
2005-06 and 2006-07. The survival percentage is 82% and the average height of the
plants is 1.00Mtr for Kamara and 3.00Mtrs for Neelagiri. Plantation journal is partially
written. The plantation is good. VFC is not active. The management plan has expired
in 2006 and no re validation has been done.
4) 2005 rains Kokkaragundi plantation – MFP– 20 Ha.
seedlings of Bevu, Hunse, Anjan, Tapasi, Sirsal, Honge, Neelagiri, Seetaphal, Sissoo,
Soymida (5” X 8” - 10000 and 8”X12” – 5000 ) seedlings have been planted in Forest
Sy.No. 105, 107 of Reserve Forest Lands. Plantation has been maintained during 2005-
267
06, 2006-07 and 2007-08. The survival percentage is 92% and the average height of the
plants is 1.00Mtr. Plantation journal is written up-to-date. The plantation is good.
Anjan and Honge are faring well. VFC is active / inactive. The management plan has
expired and re validation has been not done.
5) 2005 rains Budihal plantation –MFP– 30 Ha.
seedlings of Bevu, Hunse, Anjan, Tapasi, Sirsal, Neelagiri, Honge, Seetaphal, Sissoo,
Muthaga (5” X 8” - 15000 and 8”X12” – 7500 ) seedlings have been planted in Forest
Sy.No. 47, 251 of Reserve Forest Lands. Plantation has been maintained during 2005-
06, 2006-07 and 2007-08. The survival percentage is 89.5% and the average height of
the plants is 2.00Mtr for Neelagiri and 1.00Mtr for Tapasi and Honge.. Plantation
journal is written completely. The plantation is good. Eucalyptus clonal variety – C10
is faring well.
6) 2006 rains T. Bhavanur plantation- Artificial Regeneration –50 Ha.
seedlings of Bevu, Hunse, Anjan, Tapasi, Sirsal, Honge, Neelagiri, Sissoo, Soymida (5”
X 8” - 25000 and 8”X12” – 12500 ) seedlings have been planted in Forest Sy. No. 21,
86, 9, 7, 8 of Forest Lands. Plantation has been maintained during 2006-07 and 2007-08.
The survival percentage is 84% and the average height of the plants is 1.5 mts.
Plantation journal is complete. The plantation is good except for certain burnt patches.
VFC is not active. The management plan has expired in 2006 and no re validation has
been done.
GADAG RANGE
7) 2004 rains Kalliganur plantation –(National Afforestation Programme)- 40 Ha.
Area has been ripped at 7.00 Mtrs espacement and 8000 trenches of 4.00M X 0.45M X
0.45M have been formed. 8000 seedlings of eucalyptus, Anjan, Honge, Tapasi (5” X 8”
) seedlings and 24000 Agave have been planted in Kalliganur village Forest Sy. No. 34,
35 of Reserve Forest Lands. Plantation has been maintained during 2004-05, 2005-06,
and 2006-07. The survival percentage is 63% and the average height of the plants –
eucalyptus 2.50 Mtrs and Misc. is 1.00Mtr. Plantation journal is written up-to-date.
The plantation is fairly good. VFC has been active. Micro Plan has expired and no
action has been taken to revise the same which is not accordance with guidelines.
8) 2005 rains Papanashi plantation –( National Afforestation Programme)- 10 Ha.
seedlings of Anjan, Vilayathi Hunase Honge, Seetaphal, Muttal (5” X 8” - 5000 and
8”X12” – 2500 ) seedlings have been planted in Forest Sy. No. 34, 35 of Reserve Forest
Lands. Plantation has been maintained during 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08. The
survival
Percentage is 77.70% and the average height of the plants is 1.00Mtr. Plantation
journal is written up-to-date. The plantation is good. VFC has been active. Micro Plan
has expired during March 2006 and no action has been taken to revise the same.
MUNDARGI RANGE
9) 2004 rains Chikkavaddatti plantation –AR- 65 Ha.
Area has been ripped at 10.00 Mtrs apart and 16250 trenches of 4.00M X 0.45M X
0.45M have been formed. 48750 seedlings of eucalyptus, Anjan, Honge, Tapasi, Bevu,
Udaya, Bage (5” X 8”- 32500 and 8” X 12”- 16250 ) seedlings have been planted in
Chikkavaddatti village Forest Sy.No. 25, 26, 27, 28 of Reserve Forest Lands. Plantation
has been maintained during 2004-05 and 2005-06. The survival percentage is 59% and
the average height of the plants – eucalyptus 1.80 Mtrs and Misc. is 1.00Mtr. Other
than Anjan and Bevu other misc. species have failed. Plantation journal is written up-
268
to-date. It is an average plantation. VFC has been active. Micro Plan has expired
during March 2007 and no action has been taken to revise the same.
10) 2004 rains Doni plantation –Silvi- 50 Ha.
Area has been ripped at 7.00 Mtrs apart and 10000 trenches of 4.00M X 0.4M X 0.4M
have been formed. 30000 seedlings of Anjan, Bage, eucalyptus, Honge, Tapasi, Bevu, ,
Udaya, Somida, Sissoo, seedlings have been planted in Doni village Forest Sy.No.
153,163/P of Reserve Forest Lands. Plantation has been maintained during 2004-05 and
2005-06. The survival percentage is 49% and the average height of the plants 6-8 feet
Only clonal Eucalyptus is planted and has come up well. Plantation journal is written
up-to-date. It is a very good plantation.VFC has been active. Micro Plan has been
approved on 25-01-2001.
11) 2006 rains Doni plantation –AR- 50 Ha.
Area has been ripped at 10.00 Mtrs apart and 12500 trenches have been ripped 37500
seedlings of Anjan, Bage, eucalyptus, Honge, Bevu (5” X 8”- 25000 and 8” X 12”-
12500 ) seedlings have been planted in Doni village Forest Sy.No. 153,154/P of
Reserve Forest Lands. Plantation has been maintained during 2006-07 & 2007-08. The
survival percentage is 57% and the average height of the plants Eucalyptus 4-5 feet
Others 2 feet. Only clonal Eucalyptus is growing well, Others performance is average.
Miscellaneous species should have been avoided. Plantation journal is written up-to-
date. VFC has been active. Micro Plan has been approved on 25-01-2001.
12) 2005 rains Jalawadagi plantation –AR- 50 Ha.
Area has been ripped at 10.00 Mtrs apart and 12500 trenches of 4.00M X 0.45M X
0.45M have been formed. 37500 seedlings of eucalyptus, Anjan, Honge, Soymida,
Bevu, Udaya, Sissoo (5” X 8”- 25000 and 8” X 12”- 12500 ) seedlings have been
planted in Jalawadagi village Forest Sy.No. 50, 52, 53, 65, 66P of Reserve Forest Lands.
Plantation has been maintained during 2006-06 and 2006-07. The survival percentage is
89% and the average height of the plants is1.50Mtr. Other than Anjan and Bevu other
misc. species are struggling. Plantation journal is written up-to-date. It is a good
plantation. VFC has been active. Micro Plan has expired during March 2007 and no
action has been taken to revise the same.
B. Other Plantations :
SHIRAHATTI RANGE
1) 2004 rains Amarapur plantation- KFDF –OP- 20 Ha.
Sy.No. 65, 66, 69, 70, 71P of Reserve Forest Lands. Plantation has been maintained
during 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07. The survival percentage is 89% and the average
height of the plants is 1.50Mtrs. Plantation journal is incomplete. The plantation is
good. Anjan is faring well.
2) 2004 rains Ranatur plantation- KFDF-OP-30 Ha.
Sy.No. 94, 95, 83, 84, 64P of Forest Lands. Plantation has been maintained during
2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07. The survival percentage is 88% and the average height
of the plants is 1.50Mtrs for other seedlings and 3.00Mtrs for Neelagiri. Plantation
journal is incomplete. The plantation is good.
269
GADAG RANGE
3) 2005 rains Soratur – Attikatti (Mahalingapura) plantation – DDF-76 Ha.
Area has been ripped and 19000 trenches of 4.00M X 0.45M X 0.45M have been
formed at 10.00 Mtrs. espacement and 57000 seedlings of Anjan, Vilyathi Hunase
Honge, Bevu, Sirasal, (5” X 8” - 38000 and 8”X12” – 19000 ) have been planted in
Forest Sy. No. 141, 161 & 197 of Reserve Forest Lands of Soratur – Attikatti village.
Plantation has been maintained during 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08. The survival
percentage is 80% and the average height of the plants is 1.20Mtr. Plantation journal is
written up-to-date. The plantation is good.
4) 2006 rains - Gajendragad Town plantation – GUA - 5 Kms.
1000 pits of 0.75 M3 have been planted with Bevu, Bangali, Honge, and Pelto pharm.
95% and average height of plants is 2.70Mtrs. It is a good plantation. Plantation journal
is written up-to-date.
MUNDARGI RANGE
5) 2006 rains Kelur plantation- Compensatory Afforestation -20 Ha.
5000 trenches of 4.00M X 0.45M X 0.45M and 2000 pits of 0.60 M3 have been
manually excavated and 17000 seedlings of Bevu, Bage, Anjan, Tapasi, Udaya, Honge,
Neelagiri, (5” X 8” - 10000 and 8”X12” – 7000 ) seedlings have been planted in Kelur
Forest Sy.No. 39, 40, 44 of Reserve Forest Lands. Plantation has been maintained
during 2006-07 and 2007-08. The survival percentage is 55% and the average height of
the plants – eucalyptus 1.50 Mtrs. and other 1.00 Mtr. Plantation journal is written up-
to-date. The plantation is good.
6) 2006 rains Kelur plantation- Compensatory Afforestation - 30 Ha.
7500 trenches of 4.00M X 0.45M X 0.45M and 3000 pits of 0.60 M3 have been
manually excavated and 25500 seedlings of Bevu, Bage, Anjan, Tapasi, Udaya, Honge,
Neelagiri, (5” X 8” - 15000 and 8”X12” – 10500 ) seedlings have been planted in Kelur
Forest Sy.No. 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 of Reserve Forest Lands. Plantation has been
maintained during 2006-07 and 2007-08. The survival percentage is 67% and the
average height of the plants – eucalyptus 2.00 Mtrs. and other 1.20 Mtr. Plantation
journal is written up-to-date. The plantation is average but good in patches. Anjan
species has suffered wild boar damage. Espacement has not been maintained.
Sl. Survival
No. %
1 2 3 4 5 6
GADAG DIVISION :
FDA PLANTATIONS
1 FDA- AR Shirahatti Amarapur 20 Ha. 91%
2 FDA- AR Shirahatti Ranatur 50 Ha. 89 %
3 FDA- ANR Shirahatti Jalligeri 100 Ha. 82 %
4 FDA- MFP Shirahatti Kokkaragundi 20 Ha. 92 %
5 FDA- MFP Shirahatti Budihal 30 Ha. 89.50%
6 FDA- AR Shirahatti T. Bhavanur 50 Ha. 84%
7 FDA - NAP Gadag Kalliganur 40 Ha. 63 %
8 FDA - NAP Gadag Papanashi 10 Ha. 77.70%
9 FDA- AR Mundargi Chikkavaddatti 65 Ha. 59 %
10 FDA- AR Mundargi Jalawadagi 50 Ha. 89 %
11 FDA- Silvi Mundargi Doni 50 Ha. 49%
12 FDA-AR Mundargi Doni 50 Ha. 57%
OTHER PLANTATIONS
1 KFDF – OP Shirahatti Amarapur 20 Ha. 89 %
2 KFDF – OP Shirahatti Ranatur 30 Ha. 88 %
3 DDF Gadag Soratur – Attikatti (Mahalingapura) 76 Ha. 80 %
4 GUA – Gadag Gajendragad Town 5 Kms. 95 %
270
Plantation
5 Compensatory Mundargi Kelur 20 Ha. 55 %
Afforestation
6 Compensatory Mundargi Kelur 30 Ha. 67 %
Afforestation
C. Other Forestry works (Including SMC Works )
SHIRAHATTI RANGE
1) 2004 - Construction of Tank – Kadakol – FDA
A tank has been constructed in Kadakol Paramoke area of Shirahatti range, as a part of
SMC work. Selection of site is proper. The quality of the work is good. VFC has not
been active. The management plan has expired in 2002 and no re validation has been
done.
2) 2005 - Construction of Tank – Kadakol – FDA
A tank has been constructed in Kadakol Paramoke area of Shirahatti range, as a part of
SMC work. Selection of site is proper. The quality of the work is good / bad. Works
have been carried out as per sanctioned plan. VFC has not been active. The
management plan has expired in 2002 and no re validation has been done.
3) Fire lines - during 2006-07 – FOREST PROTECTION
Fire lines have been carried out in Chabbi village of Shirahatti range This work has been
carried out as an Entry Point Activity of Chabbi VFC. Amount spent is Rs.2,187.96.
General observations:
Performance of Plantations and species.
The performance of block plantations raised under FDA was good with survival
percentage ranging from 49 to 92 in FDA Model in a few plantations. Eucalyptus is coming
up well. However miscellaneous species mixed with Eucalyptus are not performing.
Amongst the miscellaneous species Anjan, Tapasi, Honge, Bevu and Tamarind and
Seemethangadi are doing better than others.
The performance of block plantations under taken under various other heads was good
with the survival percentage ranging from 55 to 95. The failure in roadside plantation is
more. It is necessary to avoid ripping work wherever the root stock is found. Hence it must
be made mandatory for Deputy Conservator of Forests, to certify in site specific plan
regarding criteria for selection of for specific model. Greening the urban area has to be given
more attention.
4) SMC works:
In most of the evaluated works construction of tank is the preferred work. This work has
been carried out satisfactorily. In many of the spots presence of water in the tanks has been
noticed at the time of evaluation. This work helps in storing the run off rain water and
percolation of the same to re charge the ground water.
5) Functioning of Village Forest Committees
No VFC was evaluated for its functioning in Gadag Territorial forest division. But
while evaluating the FDA plantations, the Micro plan of the concerned VFC’s, the Entry
Point Activities and the general active participation of the VFC members in the VFC
activities were considered. It is observed that micro-plan in most of the cases needs to be
revised. It is necessary that proper guidance has to be given for taking up of income
generating activity.
271
XV. GADAG (SOCIAL FORESTRY) DIVISION.
A. The details of the plantations evaluated is given below :
SHIRAHATTI S.F. RANGE
1) 2005 rains Bellatti – Tamgod roadside plantation – S.G.R.Y. Z P -8.5 Kms.
1700 pits of 1.00 M3 have been planted with Neem, Honge, Arali, Hunse. Plantation
has
been maintained during 2005-06 and 2006-07. The survival percentage is 40% and
average height of plants is 1.50Mtrs. Plantation journal is partially written.
GADAG S.F. RANGE
2) 2006 rains Harti Basaveswara Temple roadside plantation –S.G.R.Y.(ZP)–4.5 Kms.
900 pits of 0.75 M3 have been planted with Bevu, Honge. Plantation has been
maintained during 2006-07 and 2007-08. The survival percentage is 40% and average
height of plants is 1.5 Mtrs. Plantation journal is incomplete.
RON S.F. RANGE
3) 2005 rains Ron – Jakkahalli roadside plantation – S.G.R.Y. (ZP)– 8 Kms.
1600 pits of 1.00 M3 have been planted with Bevu, Honge, Bangali, Sirsal. Plantation
has been maintained during 2005-06 and 2006-07. The survival percentage is 26%
and average height of plants is 2.50 Mtrs. It is an average plantation and protection
aspects are improper. Cultural Operations such as weeding., hoeing and scraping has
not been carried out during 2005-06 and 2006-07
NARAGUND S.F. RANGE
4) 2005 rains Achamatti - Sankdal roadside plantation – S.G.R.Y., (ZP)– 3 Kms.
600 pits of 1.00 M3 have been planted with Bevu, Honge, Basari, Ala, Arali, etc.
Plantation has been maintained during 2005-06 and 2006-07. during 2006-07 no
cultural operations have been carried out The survival percentage is 41% and average
height of plants is 1.50 Mtrs. It is an average plantation and protection aspects are
improper. Plantation journal is written up-to-date. The plantation has been damaged
due to laying of water pipe lines and re planting was done in the next year.
The survival percentage of the road side plantations is as shown below :
Sl. Scheme Range Location Extent Survival
No.
1 2 3 4 5 6
GADAG S.F. DIVISION :
1 SGRY – ZP Shirahatti Bellatti – Tamgod 8.5 Kms. 40 %
2 SGRY(ZP) Gadag. Harti Basaveswara Temple road 4.5 Kms. 40%
3 SGRY(ZP) Rona S.F. Ron – Jakkahalli 8 Kms. 26 %
4 SGRY(ZP) Naragund Achamatti - Sankdal 3 Kms. 41 %
Performance of plantations and species:
The plantations have not been maintained properly due to paucity of funds from Zilla
Panchayath. The present set of officers seems to be not interested in work. The forestry
work taken up at gram Panchayath level is not known to district level officers of Zilla
Panchayath. This will result in improper work consequently bad name to department.
With a average survival percentage of 40% it is concluded that the plantations are not
successful in Gadag (Social Forestry) Division.
B. Distribution of Seedlings.
272
XVI. Summary of Observations and Recommendations for Gadag district.
The plantation practices needs to be changed. Most of the areas of Gadag district are
highly refracting in nature. The selection of species should be done carefully depending
upon locality factors. The Naragund, Ron and Gadag areas needs treatment different from
that o Shirahatti and Mundargi taluks. The maintenance needed is also for longer period
than what has been given so for. Hence there is necessity for change. The Eucalyptus
planting should be avoided as gall disease is prevalent throughout the country.
b)Opinion regarding continuation of schemes
The team felt that, all the ongoing schemes can continue. No modifications are
required and no new schemes are suggested.
Action taken on the previous Evaluation report
observations made in the previous report has been attended to and a report submitted to
PCCF (EWPRT). A copy of the report has been enclosed to this report.
XVII. HAVERI (TERRITORIAL) DIVISION.
Total of TWELVE FDA plantations, SEVEN Plantations of other schemes and SEVEN
SMC works were selected to cover all the ranges, all the schemes and all types of SMC
works for evaluation for the period from 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07.
A. FDA Plantation :
RANIBENNUR RANGE
1) 2004 rains Asundi plantation – (Artificial Regeneration ) – 50 Ha.
Area has been ripped at 6.5Mtrs. apart and 18300 trenches of 4.00Mtr. length has been
formed in Sy.No. 19, 31 of reserve forest. 54900 plants of Bage, Honge, Acacia and
Eucalyptus (40000 Acacia) have been planted. Plantation has been maintained during
2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07. It is a poor plantation and survival percentage is 35%.
Acacia has attained an average height of 2.5mtrs. and Eucalyptus 1.5mtrs. The
protection aspects are not satisfactory and lot of illicit fellings have been observed at the
time of evaluation. Plantation journal is partially written. The elected body of the VFC
has expired in 2003. Afterwards no fresh Office bearers have been installed. It is a
Social Forestry VFC and no action has been taken to change secretary of social forestry
division. Some cultural operation and providing some nourishment to the existing
plants may help in improving the existing growth.
2) 2005 rains Kakol plantation – (Artificial Regeneration ) – 50 Ha.
Area has been ripped at 6.5Mtrs. apart and 18300 trenches of 4.00 Mtr., length has been
formed. 54900 (5”x8”) plants of Acacia, Cassia, Sirsal, Hunase, Honge, Eucalyptus and
other species have been planted. Plantation has been maintained during 2005-06 and
2006-07. It is a poor plantation and survival percentage is 32.5%. The plantation has
been raised in a older Eucalyptus plantation, the fresh ripping lines done between the
older eucalyptus stumps have made the older eucalyptus stumps to coppice and the
coppice shoots have suppressed the freshly planted species. Because of the older
eucalyptus stumps espacement has not been maintained. Plantation journal is partially
written. The elected body of the VFC has expired in 2007. Afterwards no fresh Office
bearers have been installed. It is a Social Forestry VFC and no action has been taken to
change secretary of social forestry division.
273
BYADAGI RANGE
3) 2006 rains Kadarmandalgi - FDA- Silvi-pasture Plantation–40 Ha.
16000 pits of 0.50 M3 have been planted with Sissu, Bage, Tamarind, Honne, Bevu,
Tapasi, Subabul, Arabevu have been planted. in Sy.No. 327 of Gomal Lands. Plantation
has been maintained during 2006-07. The survival percentage is 54% and average
height of plants is 0.50 Mtrs., The general condition of the plantation is not satisfactory.
The reason being Silvi-pasture model has been implemented in a spot where soil depth
is very poor, has rocky out crops and an area of poor rainfall. No maintenance during
second year. It is a poor plantation. Plantation Journal is partially written. It is a 2003
Social Forestry VFC and no action has been taken to change secretary of social forestry
division as on the day of evaluation.
HIREKERUR RANGE
4) 2004 rains Yettinalli–ANR- Plantation -25 Ha.
5000 pits of 0.60 M3 have been planted with Atti, Anjan, Basari, Honge, Ala, Tapasi,
Neem, Hunse, Bamboo, in Forest Sy. No. 146, 147, 148 of Reserve Forest Lands.
30% and average height of plants is 0.45 Mtrs. Maintenance operations have not been
carried out and the general condition of the plantation is not satisfactory. The reason
being plantation area is a degraded forest area and highly susceptible for encroachment.
FDA funds are insufficient to carry out CPT works and intensive soil working as a part
of land management. Plantation Journal is partialy written. People are trying to
encroach the plantation area which must be stopped on top priority. VFC has been
active.
5) 2004 rains Kanavi Siddageri–SP- Plantation -50 Ha.
20000 pits of 0.60 M3 have been planted with Anjan, Arali, Basari, Honge, Tapasi,
Neem, Bamboo, in Forest Sy. No. 52 of Reserve Forest Lands. Plantation has been
maintained during 2004-05. The survival percentage is 75% and average height of
plants is 0.90Mtrs. No maintenance after planting year. The general condition of the
plantation is moderate but the species planted being indigenous which has suited the
locality, has helped the wild sheep in the area. The creation of this plantation has helped
in the protection of the natural growth. Plantation Journal is written up-to-date. VFC
has been active. Micro plan has not been implemented. Micro plan has expired in 2005
and no action has been taken to revise the same.
6) 2005 rains Guddadamadapura–ANR- Plantation -50 Ha.
10000 pits of 0.60 M3 have been planted with Honge, Tapasi, Bevu, in Forest Sy.No.
236, 201 of Block-XIV Reserve Forest Lands. Plantation has been maintained during
2005-06 and 2006-07. The survival percentage is 60% and average height of plants is
0.60Mtrs. The overall condition of the plantation is up to the mark. Plantation area is an
old eucalyptus plantation and the trenching has helped in producing good coppice
density, which has suppressed the planted seedlings. The old hacked stumps may be
removed and distributed to the VFC members. The selection of the site and the
protection aspects are not proper. Plantation Journal is partially written. VFC has been
active. Micro plan has not been implemented. Micro plan has expired in 2004 and has
not been revised.
7) 2006 rains Chikkabbar–AR- Plantation -40 Ha.
Area has been ripped at 8.00Mtrs. apart and 12500 trenches of 4.00 M length have been
created. 37500 eucalyptus seedlings have been planted in Forest Sy. No. 47, 48, 51, 52
of Reserve Forest Lands. Plantation has been maintained during 2006-07 and 2007-08.
The survival percentage is 87% The plantation is good and average height is 2.00Mtrs.
plantation journal is written up-to-date. VFC is not active. Micro plan has not been
274
implemented. Micro plan has expired in 2004 and has not been revised. The micro-plan
has to be revised for management aspects to have compatibility at this stage. The native
species are coming up well after the ripping. Focus may be given to introduce local
species.
8) 2006 rains Nagavand–ANR- Plantation -40 Ha.
8000 pits of 0.60 M3 have been planted with Honge, Bevu, Tapasi, Nelli, Shivani, in
Forest Sy. No. 174 of Reserve Forest Lands. Plantation has been maintained during
2006-07. The survival percentage is 77% and average height of plants is 0.80Mtrs. The
general condition of the plantation is satisfactory. Honge is exclusively doing good.
Plantation journal is written up-to-date. No maintenance after planting year. Fire
hazard has been observed in the plantation. VFC is not active. Micro plan has expired
in 2004 and has not been revised.
HANAGAL RANGE
9) 2004 rains Kerekyathanahalli plantation–(Artificial Regeneration )–30 Ha.
Area has been ripped at 4.00M apart and 11000 trenches of 4.00 M length. 13000
eucalyptus and 20000 acacia auriculiformis have been planted in Sy.No. 35 to 38 of
Reserve Forest Lands. The plantation has been maintained during 2004-05 and 2005-06.
The survival percentage is 76.8% It is good plantation. The plantation has been raised in
old eucalyptus plantation. Ripping has activated the old eucalyptus stumps and
suppressed the freshly planted seedlings. In places where the coppice shoots from the
old stumps have come the plantation has attained an average height of 4.00Mtrs. in
places where the suppression is not there the height is 7.00Mtrs. Management plan is in
currency and MOU may be improved upon.
10) 2005 rains Hasanabadi plantation –Silvi-pasture Plantation–25 Ha.
10000 pits of 0.50 M3 have been planted with Honge, Bevu, Tapasi, Nerale, Basari,
Arali, Anjan, Aala, Sirsal etc., have been planted. in Sy.No. 4 of Reserve Forest Lands.
Plantation has been maintained during 2005-06 and 2006-07. The survival percentage
is 82% and average height is 0.50Mtrs. The general condition of the plantation is not
satisfactory, because of the overhead canopy of the natural forest and the eucalyptus
plantation. A part of the plantation has been created in a natural medri bamboo area and
rest in eucalyptus plantation. VFC has been active, the term of the elected body expired
in March 2007 and new body has not been elected. Even though the plantation is not
satisfactory the efforts have resulted in providing protection to the bamboo forest and
the old KFDC eucalyptus plantation.
HAVERI RANGE
11) 2004 rains Katenahalli plantation–(Artificial Natural Regeneration)–60 Ha.
12000 plants of Honge, Tapasi, Bevu, Kamara, Bamboo, Hunase have been planted in
12000 pits of 0.60 M3 in Sy.No. 59 of Katenahalli Reserve Forest. Planting and other
cultural operations have been carried out during 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07.
Performance of all species are average and survival percentage is 73.7%. It’s an average
plantation. Plantation journal is partially written. VFC has been active. Micro plan has
been approved on 27-03-2002 and same has not been revised from 2007 onwards. New
Office bearers have not been installed. The plantation has been created in an old T.M.
Plantation. The area has got good growth of natural acacia shrubs and these acacia
shrubs have suppressed the planted species. Even though the status of the plantation is
satisfactorily, the future is bleak.
12) 2004 rains Somanakatti plantation – (Artificial Regeneration ) – 20 Ha.
Area has been ripped at 5.00Mtrs. apart and 7525 trenches of 4.00Mtr. length has been
formed in Sy.No.34, 35, 44, 45 of reserve forest. 24832 plants of Eucalyptus have
been planted. Plantation has been maintained during 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07.
275
It is a very good plantation and well protected after 3 years and survival percentage is
85.15%. Eucalyptus has attained an average height of 5-6mtrs. It’s a very good
plantation. Bhadrachalam – Clonal Eucalyptus variety has been planted along with
seed origin. Well protected after 3 years. Plantation journal is partially written. VFC
has been active. Micro plan has expired during 2006 and same has not been revised
from 2006 onwards.
B. Other Plantations :
HIREKERUR RANGE
1) 2006 rains Warah Block-I plantation – Cultural Operations- 38 Ha.
Area has been ripped at 8.00Mtrs apart and 11400 trenches of 4.00 M length have been
created. 34200 eucalyptus seedlings have been planted in forest Sy. No. 33, 34, 35, 36 of
Reserve Forest area. Plantation has been maintained during 2006-07. The plantation is
good and average height is 1.00Mtr. The survival percentage is 90%. The selection of
the site and the protection aspects are improper. Sowing of native species in ripped area
would have improved the plantation. Plantation journal is written up-to-date.
2) 2006 rains Warah - Block-II plantation – Cultural Operations -32 Ha.
created. 28800 eucalyptus seedlings have been planted in village Government Land.
Plantation has been maintained during 2006-07. The plantation is up to the mark. The
average height is 1.30Mtr. and the survival percentage is 81%. Plantation journal is
written up-to-date. The selection of site, plantation model, choice of species and
protection aspects of the plantation are improper. Ripping has accelerated the stunted
natural regeneration of Anogiesis and Terminalia and has helped in creating this patch
as a good natural forest sheltering wild animals like Sloth bear, Python, Leopard etc.
HANAGAL RANGE
3) 2005 rains Muthalli plantation – KFDF- OP - 35 Ha.
Area has been ripped at 4.00M apart and 14000 trenches of 4.00 M length have been
created and 20000 eucalyptus seedlings and 22000 acacia seedlings have been planted in
Sy.No. 32 to 39 of Reserve Forest Lands. Plantation has been maintained during 2005-
06 and 2006-07. The survival percentage is 65%. The plantation is good and average
height is 3.00Mtrs. plantation journal is written up-to-date. The plantation has been
raised in an old failed eucalyptus plantation and in patches the coppice shoots from the
old regenerated stumps have suppressed the freshly planted species.
4) 2005 rains Masanakatte plantation –Cultural Operations - 20 Ha.
created and 23000 eucalyptus, 4000 acacia seedlings have been planted in Sy. No. 56,
57 of old Masanakatte KFDC area. Plantation has been maintained during 2005-06,
2006-07 and 2007-08. The plantation is good and average height is 4.00Mtrs., and the
survival percentage is 52%. Plantation journal is written up-to-date. The plantation has
been raised in two patches. Masanakatte 12 Ha., and Baiyapura 08 Ha., The plantation
has been raised in old KFDC plantation. In Masanakatte area the planted seedlings and
the coppice shoots from the old stumps are of the same height and in future years the
coppice shoots may suppress the planted ones. In Baiyapura patch the survival of the
planted species is poor and gall disease has been observed. The coppice shoots are
suppressing the planted species.
HAVERI RANGE
5) 2005 rains Negalur plantation –KFDF-OP PLANTATION - 40 Ha
Area has been ripped and 17500 trenches of 4.00 M length have been created and 52500
eucalyptus seedlings have been planted in Sy.No. 559 of Reserve Forest Lands.
276
Plantation has been maintained during 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08. The survival
percentage is 84%. The plantation is good and average height of plants is 5.00Mtrs.,
plantation journal is written up-to-date. Eucalyptus (Bhadrachalam) Clonal plants have
been planted and have attained good growth of 6 to 8mtrs. Eucalyptus seedlings of seeds
origin have also been planted and have attained an height of 3.00Mtrs. The plantation
has been raised in an old eucalyptus plantation and protection is good. VFC has been
active.
6) 2006 rains Haveri town plantation–GUA PLANTATION - 3 Kms.
600 pits of 0.75 M3 have been planted with Honge, Tapasi, Bage, Gulmohar, have been
planted along the Roads in Haveri Town. Plantation has been maintained during 2006-
07 and 2007-08. The survival percentage is 95% and average height of plants is
2.00Mtrs. The plantation is well protected. Plantation journal is written up-to-date.
Honge species is doing very well.
7) 2006rains Melmuri plantation–12th FINANCE COMMISSION –30 Ha.
Area has been ripped and 9000 trenches of 4.00 M length have been created and 27000
eucalyptus seedlings have been planted in trenches and 3000 Tapasi, Honge, Hunase
and Vilyathi Hunase seedlings have been planted in 3000 pits. In Sy.No. 41, 44, 45, 46,
47 of Reserve Forest Lands. Plantation has been maintained during 2006-07 and 2007-
08. The survival percentage is 93.85%. The plantation is very good and average height
is 3.50Mtrs. Plantation has been well protected and in between trench lines Tapasi,
Honge, Hunase have been planted in pits. The height of plants that have been planted in
the pits is about 1.2mtrs. and are surviving well. These plants may be suppressed in
future years when the eucalyptus planted in trenches growth well. Plantation journal is
written up-to-date. It would have been advisable if honge, hunase, tapasi, would have
been planted separately rather than planting in between the eucalyptus plants.
Sl. Scheme Range Location Extent Survival %
No.
1 2 3 4 5 6
HAVERI DIVISION :
FDA PLANTATIONS
1 FDA- AR Ranibennur Asundi 50 Ha. 35%
2 FDA- AR Ranibennur Kakol 50 Ha. 32.50%
3 FDA- SP Byadagi Kadarmandalgi 40 Ha. 54 %
4 FDA- ANR Hirekerur Yattinahalli 25 Ha. 30 %
5 FDA- SP Hirekerur Kanavi Siddageri 50 Ha. 75 %
6 FDA- ANR Hirekerur Guddadamadapura 50 Ha. 60 %
7 FDA- AR Hirekerur Chikkabbar 40 Ha. 87 %
8 FDA- ANR Hirekerur Nagavand 40 Ha. 77 %
9 FDA- AR Hanagal Kerekyathanahalli 30 Ha. 76.80 %
10 FDA- SP Hanagal Hasanabad 25 Ha. 82 %
11 FDA- ANR Haveri Katenahalli 60 Ha. 73.70 %
12 FDA- AR Haveri Somanakatti 20 Ha. 85.15 %
2 3 4 5 6
OTHER PLANTATIONS
1 C. O. Hirekerur Warah Block-I 38 Ha. 90 %
2 C. O. Hirekerur Warah Block-II 32 Ha. 81 %
3 KFDF- OP Hanagal Muthalli 35 Ha. 65 %
4 C. O. Hanagal Masanakatte 20 Ha. 52 %
5 KFDF- OP Haveri Negalur 40 Ha. 84 %
6 GUA – Haveri Haveri town 3 Kms. 95 %
Plantation
7 12th Finance Haveri Melmuri 30 Ha. 93.85 %
277
C. Other Forestry Works (Including SMC Works )
RANIBENNUR RANGE
1) 2005-06 – Construction of Nala bund– Gudagur – KSFMBC – MODEL 04

A new tank has been excavated and a nala bund has been constructed from the
excavated soil in Gudapur area of the reserve forest in Ranebennur range at an estimated
cost of Rs.1,60,450.00 Rs. In the proforma provided by DCF. Haveri the work has been
mentioned has de silting of tank. But verification of the estimates and the FNB reveal
that the work sanctioned and carried out is construction of nala bund. Nala bund have
been constructed at two spots. The nala bunds are very strong but have not
relevance as an SMC work for the reason that the waste weir are at the bottom of
bunds. The money that has been spent is towards the excavation of foundation of
nala bund, construction of nala bund and stone revetting. There is no scope for
storing of water at both the spots. Not much thought has been applied in carrying
out this work.
HIREKERUR RANGE
2) 2005-06 De-silting of Tank – Angargatti - KSFMBC- Model 04
A tank at Angaragatti reserve forest area in Tadakanahalli beat, Rattihalli section of
Hirekerur Range has been de-silted as part of SMC work at an estimated cost of
Rs.1,39,600.00. Rs.1,39,522.00 has been spent. Selection of site is proper. The quality
of the work is good and works have been carried out as per sanction. Work has been
carried out as an Entry Point Activity of the VFC.
3) 2005-06 - Construction of Gully Checks–Galaginakatti – 12th Finance
Gully checks as a part of SMC works have been constructed in Galaginakatti reserve
forest area of Thadanakanahalli beat Rattihalli section of Hirekerur range, during 2005-
06 at an estimated cost of Rs.52,100.00. Rs.52,100.00 has been spent. Selection of site
is proper. The quality of the work is good and works have been carried out as per
sanction.
HANGAL RANGE
4) 2004-05 De-silting of Tank – Mava koppa - KSFMBC- Model 02
A tank at Mava koppa 2001 model-06 plantation in Mava koppa beat, Makaravalli
section of Hanagal Range has been de-silted as part of SMC work at an estimated cost
of Rs.13,500.00. Rs.13,303.00 has been spent. Selection of site is proper. The quality
of the work is good and works have been carried out as per sanction. About 1.5ft of
water was standing in the tank at the time of evaluation. Work helps in re-charging
ground water and also provides water to wild animals.
5) 2006-07 De-silting of Tank – Aadur - 12th Finance Commission
A tank at Aadur in Aadur beat, Makaravalli section of Hanagal Range has been de-silted
as part of SMC work at an estimated cost of Rs.28,900.00. Rs.28,820.00 has been
spent. Selection of site is proper. The quality of the work is good and works have been
carried out as per sanction. Plenty of water was standing in the tank at the time of
evaluation. Work helps in re-charging ground water and also provides water to wild
animals.
HAVERI RANGE
6) 2006-07 – Excavation of pond at Melmuri – Cultural Operations
A Pond has been excavated at Melmani Reserve Forest Sy. No. 37, 40, 41, 47, 48 in
Hosarithi beat, Nagalur section of Haveri Range at an estimated cost of Rs.25,800.00.
Rs.28,800.00 has been spent. Selection of site is proper. The quality of the work is
278
good and works have been carried out as per sanction. Work has been carried out in a
plantation which helps in re-charging ground water.
7) 2006-07 – Excavation of pond at Ganajur– KSFMBC – Model 05
A Pond has been excavated at Ganajur Reserve Forest Sy. No. 75 in Karjagi beat,
Haveri section of Haveri Range at an estimated cost of Rs.37,139.00. Rs.37,139.00 has
been spent. Selection of site is proper. The quality of the work is good and works have
been carried out as per sanction. Work helps in re-charging ground water.
General observations :
a) Performance of Plantations and species:
The performance of block plantations raised under FDA were good with survival
percentage ranging from 85% to 73% in AR Model in a few plantations. In a couple of
plantations of AR Model in Ranebennur Range is pathetically low around 35%. By and large
Acacia auriculiformis - spring well variety and Clonal Eucalyptus -Bhadrachalam Variety
have performed well. In FDA plantations of AR Model ripping work has been under taken
and this has contributed to a large extent for the good performance of the plantations. But, on
the other hand, the ripping by the sides of the old hacked eucalyptus stumps has activated
these old stumps and the coppice shoots from these stumps have grown vigorously and have
started suppressing the planted seedlings in the ripped lines. In the MI Model pitting works
have been taken in natural forest areas, where the natural growth, which has rejuvenated itself
because of protection, has suppressed the planted species. In SP Model the selection of the
site, choice of species and the protection aspects are all improper, including raising this
model in non adequate rain fall areas. These factors are responsible for the non success of the
model.
The performances of block plantations under taken under various other heads were
good with the survival percentage ranging from 95% to 52%. By and large Acacia
auriculiformis - spring vale variety and Clonal Eucalyptus -Bhadrachalam Variety have
performed well. Ripping work has been under taken and this has contributed to a large extent
for the good performance of the plantations. But, on the other hand, the ripping by the sides
of the old hacked eucalyptus stumps has activated these old stumps and the coppice shoots
from these stumps have grown vigorously and have started suppressing the planted seedlings
in the ripped lines.
The performance of town plantation was good with a survival of 95%. Pongamia has
performed well.
b) SMC works:
In most of the evaluated works de silting of tanks is the preferred work. This work has
been carried out satisfactorily. In many of the spots presence of water in the tanks has been
noticed at the time of evaluation. This work helps in storing the run off rain water and
percolation of the same to re charge the ground water. But, at Gudugul in Ranebennur Range,
maximum amount has been spent in creating a nala bund. In an area where the rain fall is
meager, money is not spent on excavation of a pit to store water but spent on creating a nala
bund to stop over flow of rain water. Adoption of minor irrigation tank construction works in
forestry SMC works may be avoided in future.
C). Functioning of Village Forest Committees:
No VFC was evaluated for its functioning in Haveri Territorial forest division. But
while evaluating the FDA plantations, the Micro plan of the concerned VFC’s, the Entry
Point Activities and the general active participation of the VFC members in the VFC
activities were considered.
Almost all except for one or two VFC’s, the period (Currency) of the Micro plan had
expired and efforts made to prepare the fresh Micro plan were not visible. In MOU area
assigned for the VFC were not indicated. The works undertaken in FDA programme for the
period from 2003-04 to 2006-07 including plantation work, EPA activities, SMC works were
279
not visible in Micro plan document. In Ranibennur range the VFC’s of Social Forestry
Division were included in the FDA implementation, but no efforts were made to change the
Secretary of social forestry division. The FDA programme for Haveri division was
sanctioned for the period from 2003-04 to 2006-07. Even though the programme has ceased
at the end of March-2007 and even though there is a provision of Rs.2.171 lakhs for
preparation of Micro plans including revision of the old Micro plans, no revised Micro plans
were presented to the evaluation team at the time of evaluation. The funds provided for FDA
has not been properly utilized.
Very few samples for distribution of seedlings have been checked as they were not
able to produce the list of seedlings distributed. Hence it can be considered as evaluation not
done for distribution of seedlings.
XVIII. HAVERI (SOCIAL FORESTRY) DIVISION
A. Evaluation of Plantations
Of the 7 plantations evaluated that have been raised during the period 2004-05, 2005-06
and 2006-07 four roadside plantations and three block plantations were chosen to cover all
the ranges and the schemes.
The details of the plantations evaluated is given below :
RANIBENNUR S.F. RANGE
1) 2005 rains Dhulikoppa plantation – S.G.R.Y. 20% - 4.5 Ha.
2250 trenches of 4.00 M length have been manually excavated and 6750 eucalyptus
seedlings have been planted in Sy. No. 86 of Gomal Lands. Plantation has been a
complete failure and no seedlings could be seen at the time of evaluation. Plantation
journal is written up-to-date. The plantation site is a waterlogged area and this could be
one of the reasons for failure.
2) 2005 rains Halageri -Tumminakatti roadside plantation – S.G.R.Y.20% -6 Kms.
1200 pits of 0.75 M3 have been planted with Bevu, Honge, Arali, Basari, Tapasi, Ala.
less than 5%. Plantation is a complete failure. The plantation was not given maintenance
work after planting. The reasons for failure is official negligence.
HIREKERUR S.F. RANGE
3) 2005 rains Batti koppa Cross To Kod roadside plantation S.G.R.Y.20% –6 Kms.
1200 pits of 0.75 M3 have been planted with Honge, Neem, Hunse, Vilyathi Hunase,
Raintree, Bangali. Plantation has been maintained during 2005-06 and 2006-07. The
survival percentage is 70% and average height of plants is 3.5 Mtrs. It is a good
plantation. Plantation journal is written up to date .
HANAGAL S.F. RANGE
4) 2005 rains Shyadaguppi plantation – S.G.R.Y.20% -10.5 Ha.
seedlings have been planted in Sy.No. 109,110, 111 of Gomal Lands. Plantation has
been maintained during 2005-06 and 2006-07. The survival percentage is 68%. The
plantation is satisfactory and the average height is 1.5Mtrs. plantation journal is written
up-to-date. The plantation is in an isolated patch with private lands all round the
plantation. Plantation has no future.
HAVERI S.F. RANGE
5) 2005 rains Gudisalukoppa plantation –S.G.R.Y. 20% - 10 Ha.
seedlings have been planted in Sy.No. 10 of C & D Lands. Plantation has been
280
maintained up to 2007-08. The plantation is satisfactory. The survival percentage is
75%. Plantation journal is written up-to-date. The plantation area is rocky and rainfall
is very low. The growth of seedlings is not encouraging. CPT has not been excavated
due to lack of funds and maintenance discontinued after 2006-07 onwards due to
discontinuance of SGRY scheme. VFC has been active and has realized revenue
Rs.1,900.00 by renting utensils.
6) 2005 rains Ichchangi-Kaliwal roadside plantation – S.G.R.Y. 20% -6 Kms.
1200 pits of 1.00 M3 have been planted with Neem, Honge, Gulmohar, Raintree,
Peltophoram Plantation has been maintained during 2005-06 and 2006-07. The
survival percentage is 24% and average height of plants is 2.00Mtrs. It is a Poor
plantation. Plantation journal is written up-to-date. Plantation for the initial stages was
not successful. But from second year onwards the surviving and existing plants have
been protected. Plantation has no future.
SHIGGAON S.F. RANGE
7) 2005 rains Chakapur-Chiknellur roadside plantation –S.G.R.Y.20%-5 Kms.
1000 pits of 0.75 M3 have been planted with Hulugal, Neem, Basari, Chery, Gulmohar.
44% and average height of plants is 1.00Mtrs. It is a Poor plantation. Plantation journal
is partially written. Plantation had no protection at the time of evaluation and during
2007-08. Plantation has no future.
The survival percentage of the plantations is as shown below :
Sl. Scheme Range Location Extent Survival
No. %
1 2 3 4 5 6
HAVERI S.F. DIVISION :
1 S.G.R.Y. 20% Ranibennur Dhulikoppa 4.5 Ha. 0%
2 S.G.R.Y. 20% Ranibennur Halageri -Tumminakatti 6 Kms. <5%
3 S.G.R.Y. 20% Hirekerur Batti koppa 6 Kms.
4 S.G.R.Y. 20% Hanagal Shyadaguppi 10 Ha. 68 %
5 S.G.R.Y. 20% Haveri Gudisalukoppa 10 Ha. 75 %
6 S.G.R.Y. 20% Haveri Ichchangi-Kaliwal 6 Kms. 24 %
7 S.G.R.Y. 20% Shiggaon Chakapur-Chiknellur 5 Kms. 44 %
Performance of plantations and species
The performances of the block plantations are not satisfactory. One of the reasons
that could be arrived at is non continuance of maintenance due to paucity of funds from Zilla
Panchayat. Raising of plantations in small extents and not providing sufficient protection
measures are also responsible. It is the same case in respect of roadside plantations. Survival
percentage is not encouraging. The roadside plantations of Social Forestry division will bring
bad name to Forest department. It is in case not possible to improve package of practices,
taking up of such type work should be stopped.
B. Distribution of Seedlings.
XIX. RANEBENNUR (WL) SUB-DIVISION
The Ranebennur (Wild Life) sub division has five sanctuaries under its control, out of
which Ranebennur Wild-buck sanctuary in Haveri district, Attiveri Bird sanctuary in Uttara
kannada district and Daroji Sloth-bear sanctuary in Bellary district were taken up for
evaluation. Different kinds of works were carried out during 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07
in all these three sanctuaries. No plantation works except raising fodder plots were taken up.
The main types of works carried out are as follows:
(i) Soil and Moisture conservation works.
(ii) Formation of salt licks.
(iii) Raising of fodder plots.
281
(iv) Construction of new tanks/percolation tanks.
(v) Stone pitching works/ improvement of percolation tanks.
(vi) Improvement of existing roads/ asphalting
(vii) Construction of Stone walls
(viii) De silting of tanks.
(ix) Excavation of CPT
(x) Drilling of bore wells.
(xi) Construction of plot farms
(xii) Construction of Cause way
(xiii) Erection of solar lamps
(xiv) Providing Chain link mesh
(xv) And Other works.
The team leader has selected 23 number of works for evaluation so as to cover all the
three sanctuaries, schemes and types of works that were carried out during the year 2004-05,
2005-06 and 2006-07.
As the nature of works are the same in all the three years, observations are recorded
for individual locations.
A. RANIBENNUR WILD BUCK SANCTUARY :
2406-02-110-0-47 - CSS Ranebennur (Central):
1) 2004-05 - Construction of Culvert - Near Hunasikatti Watch Tower :
Culvert has been constructed near Hunasikatti Watch Tower in Ranebennur Wild life
Sanctuary at an estimated cost of Rs.25,000.00. Rs.24,934.00 has been spent on the
work. Selection of site is proper . The quality of the work is good and works have been
carried out as per sanction.
2) 2004-05 Construction of Rivetment to side slopes Near Hunasikatti Pickup Dam:
Rivetment has been done to side slopes near Hunasikatti Pickup Dam in Ranebennur
Wild life Sanctuary at an estimated cost of Rs.8,600.00. Rs.8,600.00 has been spent on
the work. Selection of site is proper. The quality of the work is good and works have
been carried out as per sanction.
3) 2004-05 – Excavation Cattle Proof Boundary Trench in Alalageri Block:
Cattle proof boundary trench of size top width 1.5 Mtrs. bottom width 1.0 Mtrs. depth
1.0 mtrs, has been excavated in Alalageri block of Hanumapura beat Alalageri section
in Kurugunda Reserve Forest in Ranebennur Wild life Range at an estimated cost of
Rs.1,38,000.00 Rs.1,37,695.00 has been spent on the work. Selection of site is proper .
The quality of the work is good. The measurement have been checked at two spots with
GPS readings.
4) 2004-05 - Construction of Rubble checks – Kallukunisara:
Rubble checks have been constructed across Kallukunisara at Medleri thanda in Hullatti
Block of Medleri Beat in Ranebennur Wild life Sanctuary at an estimated cost of
Rs.1,24,600.00. Rs.1,24,510.00 has been spent on the work. Selection of site is proper.
The quality of the work is good and works have been carried out as per sanction.
5) 2005-06 - Construction of Cause way - Near Hullatti Dam :
Cause way has been constructed near Hullatti Dam from Hullatti entrance ( Phase- II )
of Hullatti Beat in Ranebennur Wild life Sanctuary at an estimated cost of Rs.25,000.00.
Rs.25,000.00 has been spent on the work. Selection of site is proper. The quality of the
work is good and works have been carried out as per sanction.
6) 2005-06 - Construction of New tank – Across Devanagundisara :
A new tank (Small earth fill dam ) has been constructed across Devanagundisara in
Hullatti Block of Hullatti Beat in Ranebennur Wild life Sanctuary at an estimated cost
282
of Rs.2,00,000.00. Rs.1,98,882.00 has been spent on the work. Selection of site is
proper. The quality of the work is good and works have been carried out as per
sanction. Deepening of tank is required.
7) 2006-07 – Providing Salt licks - Hunasikatti & Hullatti Blocks :
Salt licks have been provided to wild animals in Hunasikatti & Hullatti Blcoks in
Ranebennur Wild life Sanctuary at an estimated cost of Rs.20,000.00. Rs.20,000.00 has
been spent on the work. Selection of site is proper. The quality of the work could not be
checked at the stage of evaluation.
8) 2006-07 - Construction of Cause way - Near Devanagundi Tank :
Cause way has been constructed near Devanagundi Tank of Hullatti Block in
Ranebennur Wild life Sanctuary at an estimated cost of Rs.38,000.00. Rs.36,604.00 has
been spent on the work. Selection of site is proper / Improper. The quality of the work
is good / bad and works have been carried out as per sanction or not.
9) 2006-07 - Construction of Rubble checks – Mallajiguddanala :
Rubble checks have been constructed across Mallajiguddanala in Hullatti Block of
Hullaitti Beat in Ranebennur Wild life Sanctuary at an estimated cost of Rs.97,000.00.
work is good and works have been carried out as per sanction. A tank may be
constructed at the exist point of the rubble checks.
10) 2006-07 – Repair works to staff quarters– Gangajal Nature Camp:
Five numbers of staff quarters have been repaired at Gangajal nature camp campus in
Hunasikatti Beat in Ranebennur Wild life Sanctuary at an estimated cost of Rs.7,800.00.
work is good and works have been carried out as per sanction.
2406-02-110-0-47 - CSS Ranebennur (State):
11) 2004-05 - De-silting of Tank – Gangajal Nature Camp:
A tank at Gangajal area in Hunasikatti Beat in Ranebennur Wild life Sanctuary at an
estimated cost of Rs.24,900.00. Rs.24,813.00 has been spent on the work. Selection of
site is proper. The quality of the work is good and works have been carried out as per
sanction.
2406-02-110-0-47 – PADF :
12) 2005-06 -Construction of Tent plot farms– Gangajal Nature Camp :
Four numbers of tent plot farms have been constructed at Gangajal nature camp in
Hunasikatti Beat in Ranebennur Wild life Sanctuary at an estimated cost of
Rs.15,000.00. Rs.15,000.00 has been spent on the work. Selection of site is proper.
The quality of the work is good and works have been carried out as per sanction.
B. ATTIVERI BIRD SANCTUARY :
2406-02-110-0-47 - CSS Attiveri (Central):
1) 2005-06 –Providing Chain link mesh fencing– Attiveri Bird Sanctuary :
Chain link mesh has been provided in Attiveri Bird Sanctuary in Ranebennur Wild life
Range at an estimated cost of Rs.2,57,500.00 Rs.2,27,020.00 has been spent on the
work. Selection of site is proper / Improper. The quality of the work is good except for
works that have not been carried out as per sanction. Instead of 80 rectangular MS poles
only 72 is seen. Painting of poles and mesh has not been done as per estimate . The
ACF subsequently informed me over phone that he has completed painting works.
283
2) 2004-05 – Stabilizing the Reservoir Shore and Formation of Ramp including
pitching – Attiveri Bird Sanctuary:
Stabilizing of the Reservoir Shore and Formation of Ramp including pitching has been
carried out in Attiveri Bird Sanctuary in Ranebennur Wild life Range at an estimated
cost of Rs.2,30,500.00 Rs.2,30,133.00 has been spent on the work. Selection of site is
proper . The quality of the work is good.
Length of the Ramp is more than what is required.
3) 2004-05 – Erection of Solar lamp – Attiveri Bird Sanctuary:
One solar lamp has been erected in Attiveri Bird Sanctuary in Ranebennur Wild life
Range at an estimated cost of Rs.32,500.00 Rs.32,500.00 has been spent on the work.
The solar lamp was told to have been shifted to staff quarters at Ranebennur. Hence
could not be checked.
C. DAROJI SLOTH BEAR SANCTUARY :
2406-02-110-0-47 – CSS Daroji (Central)
1) 2004-05 - Construction of Rubble checks – Jalligudda nala :
17 Nos. of Rubble checks have been constructed across Jalligudda nala in Daroji Block of
Daroji Wild life Sanctuary at an estimated cost of Rs.97,438.00. Rs.97,436.00 has been spent
on the work. Selection of site is not proper. The quality of the work is not satisfactory and
works have been carried out as per sanction. The rubble checks have been constructed
across a steep inclination. Water flowing along this inclination during rainy season has
damaged most of the rubble checks. There is no scope for soil conservation at this works
spot. Hence, in future construction of rubble checks across steep inclination may be avoided.
2) 2005-06 – Construction of Cause way– near Hiregundi road :
A cause way has been constructed near Hiregundi road of Kamalapura Block in Daroji Wild
life sanctuary of Ranebennur Wild life sub division at an estimated cost of Rs.25,000.00.
Rs.25,000.00 has been spent on the work. Selection of site is not proper. The quality of the
work is good and works have been carried out as per sanction. Daroji sanctuary do not
receive much rain fall. Because of this reason there will not be over flowing of nullah /
streams. Hence, in the absence of over flowing streams/ nullahs over a period of couple of
weeks / months cause ways are not necessary. Hence, it is advisable to discontinue this kind
of work in future.
3) 2006-07 – Drilling of bore well – Hallikeri village :
A bore well has been drilled in Hallikeri village grama thana near Kamalapura Nature Camp
area in Daroji Wild life sanctuary of Ranebennur Wild life sub division at an estimated cost
of Rs.49,000.00. Rs.49,000.00 has been spent on the work. Selection of site is proper. The
quality of the work is good and works have been carried out as per sanction. Water from this
bore well is being used by the villagers of Hallikeri village. An Eco-development exercise.
4) 2006-07 – Construction of Stone wall – Bailuvaddigere :
Stone wall has been constructed over a length of 700.00Rmtr. in Sy.No. 1495 of Kamalapura
to Sy. No. 04 of Bailuvaddigere in Daroji Wild life sanctuary of Ranebennur Wild life sub
division at an estimated cost of Rs.99,809.00. Rs.99,803.00 has been spent on the work. The
stone wall has a width of 1.25mtrs. at bottom, 0.75mtrs. at top and a height of 1.00mtr. and
has been constructed along one side of the road passing through the sanctuary which has
helped to prevent cattle from entering into the sanctuary and also to act as a boundary
demarcation. Selection of site is proper. The quality of the work is good and works have
been carried out as per sanction.
284
5)2006-07 – Construction of Nala bund (New tank)– near Chigaripalya Watch Tower :
A new tank has been excavated and a nala bund has been constructed from the excavated soil
in Daroji Wild life sanctuary of Ranebennur Wild life sub division at an estimated cost of
Rs.2,00,000.00. Rs.1,98,251.00 has been spent on the work. The tank had water at the time
of evaluation. The nala bund is strong enough to with stand water force and it is advisable to
increase the height of waste weir height by at least 2ft as this exercise will help in storing
much more water and also full utilization of the money that has been spent on this work.
Selection of site is proper. The quality of the work is good and works have been carried out
as per sanction.
2406-02-110-0-47 – CSS Daroji (State)
6) 2004-05 – Raising of Fodder Farm – Hirehulikere area :
Raising of fodder farm during rainy season in hirehulikere area of Daroji Wild life Sanctuary
has been taken up in an area of 17.5 Ha. In Bilikal reserve forest area at an estimated cost of
Rs.95,474.00 for 30 Ha. Rs.23,858.00 has been spent for 17.5Ha. on the work. Selection of
site is do not look proper. The quality of the work could not be assessed at the time of
evaluation as the area looked like the same adjacent reserve forest lands. There was no
indication as to the presence of any water bodies. Enquiries with the staff revealed that the
lands were tilled and fodder seeds were sown. There are no records available which may
throw a light as to the quantity of seeds sown, the quantity of fodder grown, fodder harvested
and utilization of the harvested fodder. Hence, no evaluation could be carried out.
7)2004-05 – Drilling of bore well – Kamalapura Nature Camp:
A bore well has been drilled in Sy. No. 1080 (in government land under control of Hampi
University) at Kamalapura Nature Camp area in Daroji Wild life sanctuary of Ranebennur
Wild life sub division at an estimated cost of Rs.55,012.00. Rs.55,012.00 has been spent on
the work. Selection of site is proper. The quality of the work is good and works have been
carried out as per sanction. This bore well is supplying sufficient water to Kamalapura
Nature Camp.
8)2004-05 - De-silting of Pickup Dam – Kamalapura Block Watch Tower :
A tank at Kamalapura Block Watch Tower in Daroji Wild life Sanctuary has been de silted at
an estimated cost of Rs.51,407.00. Rs.50,217.00 has been spent on the work. Selection of
site is proper. The quality of the work is good and works have been carried out as per
sanction. Plenty of water received from the rains prior to the date of evaluation was there in
the pickup dam. Construction of a check dam like this is for the purpose of retention of water
which will be useful for the drinking purpose of the wild animals of the sanctuary. De silting
of such water holes will accelerate the percolation of water into the ground. Presence of silt
at the bottom will help in storing the water received during the rains. This observation may
be given a thought in the coming years especially in the water holes of sanctuaries which
receive less rain fall .
General Observations :
i) De silting of tanks have been under taken in sanctuaries. Generally in sanctuaries
tanks are constructed as a moisture conservation work by storing the run off rain water to
provide water to the Wild animals. Generally for the water to be stored in a tank a thick layer
of silt is necessary to prevent water from percolating into the ground. Hence de silting
accelerates percolation of water into the ground rather than storing. Hence this factor may be
looked into in future years.
ii) Construction of Cause ways are not necessary in low rainfall areas due to the
absence of all seasonal water flowing nullahs and streams.
iii) Rubble checks are a soil conservation measure. Construction of rubble checks
along steep nullahs will not help in conserving any soil. Hence more planning is
necessary while executing the works.
285
XX. Summary of Observations and Recommendations for Haveri district.
The plantation practices needs to be changed. The mixture of Eucalyptus plantation
with miscellaneous species has to be changed, The locality factors needs to be considered for
selection of species. The site specific plan should be asked to be certified by the Deputy
conservator of forests before start of work. The Eucalyptus planting should be avoided as gall
disease is prevalent throughout the country.
b) Opinion regarding continuation of schemes
The team felt that, all the ongoing schemes can continue. No modifications are
required and no new schemes are suggested.
c) Action taken on the previous Evaluation report
observations made in the previous report has been attended to and a report submitted to CCF
(Evaluation). A copy of the report has been enclosed to this report.
d) Acknowledgements
The team would like to thank to Sri. B.K. Singh, IFS, Addl. Principal Chief
Conservator of Forests(EWPRT) Bangalore for his valuable guidance as the Over Seeing
Officer of the evaluation team. The team would also like to thank the Conservator of Forests,
Dharwad Circle and all the unit officers and staff of Dharwad territorial division, Dharwad
Social Forestry division, Gadag territorial division, Gadag Social forestry division, Haveri
territorial division, Haveri Social forestry division and Wild life sub division for their
valuable co-operation.
286
Annexure-VII-Detailed Cirlce Reports
8.7 GULBARGA CIRCLE

1.0. Introduction:
1.1. Location and physical Aspects:
Gulbarga district is a situated in the north eastern part of Karnataka between
longitudes 76° 04´ and 77° 42´ east of Greenwich latitudes 16° 12´ and 17° 46´ north of the
equator. The geographical area of district is 16224 sq km. which makes 8.46% of the state.
The Geographical area of Forest Division is 15885.99 sq km. major portion of the district
comprises of Deccan traps and sedimentary rock formation. Black cotton soil is most
common soil found through out the district. To a lesser extent, the area is occupied by
granites, the soils vary from loamy to sandy.
The Krishna and the Bhima are the main rivers of the district.
1.2. Climatic Condition:
Gulbarga district is situated in a dry climatic belt and is extremely hot especially in the
summer when the temperature is considerably higher than most other districts of Karnataka.
During May and June the temperature reaches 40° Celsius and above. The South–West
monsoon sets in during June and continues till the end of September. The rainfall is moderate
to low. The average of rainfall is 715 mm. with an average of 47 rainy days spread over six
months. South-West monsoons account for about 80% of the annual precipitation.
September is the month with the heaviest rainfall.
Talukwise analysis of annual rainfall during 2002 to 2006.

GULBARGA DISTRICT
2002. 2003. 2004. 2005. 2006.
District/ Nor
% % % % %
Taluk. mal Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual
Dep. Dep. Dep. Dep. Dep.
GULBARGA 778 556 -29 549 -29 621 -20 880 13 595 -23
Afzalpur 708 589 -17 472 -33 609 -14 661 -7 621 -12
Aland 836 594 -29 581 -31 737 -12 683 -18 641 -23
Chincholi 881 607 -31 622 -29 595 -32 757 -14 631 -28
Chittapur 795 520 -35 715 -10 646 -19 1090 37 723 -9
Gulbarga 767 648 -16 563 -27 727 -5 678 -12 558 -27
Jevargi 698 551 -21 366 -48 602 -14 859 23 460 -34
Sedam 922 635 -31 685 -26 557 -40 1251 36 634 -31
Shahapur 726 445 -39 447 -38 665 -8 1052 45 536 -26
Shorapur 711 443 -38 430 -40 540 -24 754 6 425 -40
Yadgir 734 525 -28 606 -17 528 -28 1012 38 729 -1
1.3. Forest Types and Vegetation:

The forests of Gulbarga division are classified according to the classification of
Champion and Seth as follows:
Sub-group 5A: Southern tropical dry deciduous forests.
(i) (a) Type 5A/C3: Southern dry mixed deciduous forest.
Floristic composition: The most characteristic tree is Anogeissus latifolia with Terminalia
tomentosa as its typical associates. Chloroxylon swietenia, Hardwikia binata, Boswellia
serrata and Soymida febrifuga are vide spread. Other species to be found are Tectona
grandis, Terminelia chebula, Dalbergia paniculata, Wrightia tinctoria, Diospyros
melenoxylon, Premna tomentosa, Phyllanthus emlica, Acacia catechu, Butea monosperma,
Madhuca indica, Gardenia gumniferra, Zizyphus mauritiana, Azadrachta indica,
Pterocarpus marsupium etc.,
287
(i) (b) Type 5/DSI Dry deciduous scrub.
Floristic Composition: Albizzia amara, Acacia chundra,
Azadirachta indica, Albizzia lebbek, Annona sqamosa Zizyphus mauritiana, Zizyphus
oenoplia, Dichrostachys cinerea, Pterolobium indicum, Butea monosperma etc.
(ii) Sub-group 6A-Southern Tropical Thorn Forests.
(ii) (a) Type – 6A- Southern Thorn Forests.
Floristic Composition: Acacia catechu, Acacia leucophloea, Acacia nilotica, Aegle
marmelos, Chloraxylon swietenia, Flacourtia indica, Strychnos potatorum, Zizyphus spp. etc.
(ii) (b) Type 6A/DSI-Southern Thorn Scrub.
Floristic Composition: Albizzia amara, Azhadirachta indica, Chloraxylon swietenia,
Zizyphus xylopyrus, Dichrostachys cinerea, Randia dumetorum, Flacourtia indica etc.
1.4 Forest Administration:
Gulbarga district has one Territorial Division and one Social Forestry Division
each headed by the Deputy Conservator of Forests. Gulbarga Territorial Division has two
sub-divisions each with headquarters at Gulbarga and Yadgir. It has 6 territorial ranges
namely, Aland, Chincholi, Gulbarga, Chittapur,
Shorapur and Yadgir.
The Social Forestry Division has 11 ranges namely, Afzalpur, Aland, Chincholi,
Gulbarga, Gulbarga University Unit, Chittapur, Jewargi, Sedam, Shahapur, Shorapur and
Yadgir.
2.0. Method of selection of spots for evaluation:
The evaluation team was found vide OM No. APCCF (EWPRT)-32.Eval/07-08, dated
08.10.2007 of Additional; Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (EWPRT), Bangalore, with
a direction to undertake evaluation of all forestry works in Gulbarga Circle. The committee
consists of Chief Conservator of Forests (Head Quarters) as team leader, Conservator of
Forests, (Research), Bellary, Conservator of Forests, Belguam and Deputy Conservator of
Forests, Bijapur as the team members. The committees’ tasks and method to be followed for
evaluation are given in the above said OM issued by the APCCF (EWPRT, Bangalore.
The Evaluation Team
Dr. Ravi Ralph IFS, Chief Conservator of Forests, Head Quarters, Bangalore
Team Leader
Shri Prem Kumar IFS, Conservator of Forests, Research, Bellary
Shri A.K. Keshavamurthy IFS, Conservator of Forests, Belgaum
Shri A.B. Baserkod IFS, Deputy Conservator of Forests, Bijapur
Assistance was enlisted from,
Shri V.G. Kulkarni, Deputy Conservator of Forests, Social Forestry, Belgaum
Shri A.B. Morappanavar, Asst. Conservator of Forests, Chikodi
Shri P.A. Ambekar, Asst. Conservator of Forests, Nagargali
To initiate the evaluation, the details of all the plantation, works other than plantations
and distribution of seedlings to farmers were obtain in the prescribed formats ‘A’, ‘D’
and ‘G’ from the Deputy Conservator of Forests for the years 2004-05, 2005-06 and
2006-07.
• The method of works for evaluation was based on number of spots.
• The committee adopted a minimum of 10 percent sampling intensity for
selection of plantations and works other than plantations sites for evaluation.
Random sampling was adopted for selection of sites for evaluation.
Accordingly, the team leader selected the plantations for evaluation, List of such
selected plantations and other than plantations is given bellow in the Table-3 (a)
and Table -3 (b).
288
• Spots were selected in such a way that at least one least one work spot was
selected in each range. And also care has been taken that in the process of
random selection, spots have been selected in all schemes and in all models.
• Fore assessment of survival percentage in each plantation spot, 2 percent
sampling intensity was adopted for laying out sample spots. While laying out
the sample plots instructions were given to the field staff to follow the
instructions given by the APCCF (EWPRT). The sample plots should be of size
31.62 m X 31.62 m on the base line drawn across the plantation starting from the
NE corner of the plantation. Such laid plots are to be marked on the ground by
lime so that team can easily locate the sample plot.
• As prescribed in the evaluation guidelines, GPS instrument is used to record
latitude and longitude of individual sample plots in the plantation before
recording the survival of the seedlings planted.
• The basic details such as expenditure, species planted number of pits/trenches,
size of pit/trench, protection measures provided and other details as per forms
‘C’, ‘E’, ‘H’ and ‘I” were collected from the division office records.
• The field work was taken up from 25.02.2008 to 27.02.2008 and 25.11.2008 to
28.11.2008.
Bidar District.
3.0. Introduction:
3.1. Location and physical Aspects:
Bidar district It is situated between latitudes 17° 35´ and 18° 25´ North and Longitudes
76° 42´ and 77° 39´ East of Greenwich. The geographical area of district is 5448 sq km.
which makes 8.46% of the state.
The Geographical area of the Forest Division is 435.58 sq km. which makes 6.6% of the
gross area of the district. The entire division forms a part of the Deccan plateau. The two
types of soils found in the district are lateritic red soil and black cotton soil. Alluvial deposits
are normally found along the banks of Manjra river and its tributaries.The main river of the
district is the Manjra river which is the tributary of Godavari river.
3.2. Climatic Condition:
The climate of the district is milder than the neighbouring districts through out the year.
It is quite dry generally, except the during the south west monsoon. May is the hottest month
with a mean maximum temperature of 38.8º C. The average rain fall is 907.5 mm. Maximum
rainfall is in month of September.
Talukwise annual rainfall during 2002 to 2006:
Bidar District
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
District/ Nor
% % % % %
Taluk mal. Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual
Dep. Dep. Dep. Dep. Dep.
BIDAR 848 769 -9 868 2 761 -10 982 16 886 5
Aurad 840 767 -9 1058 26 711 -15 1210 44 1024 22
Bidar 942 838 -11 1059 12 717 -24 1089 16 880 -7
Bhalki 940 710 -24 803 -15 720 -23 927 -1 986 5
Basava 676 706 4 756 12 804 19 770 14 644 -5
Kalyan
Humnabad 842 824 -2 663 -21 855 2 913 8 900 7
1.3. Forest Types and Vegetation:
The forests of Bidar division can be classified as two sub groups namely 5A –
Southern tropical dry deciduous forests and 6A Southern tropical thorn forests as per the
classification of Champion and Seth. Accordingly, the following forests types are formed.
(i)Sub-group 5A- Southern tropical dry deciduous forests
289
(a) Type 5A/C1-Dry teak bearing forest
(b)Sub type 5A/C1a-very dry teak forest
Floristic composition: Tectona grandis, Chloroxylon swietenia, Buchnania lanzan,
Terminalia tomentosa, Anogeissus latifolia, Albizzia amara etc.
c) Type 5A/C3-Southern tropical dry mixed deciduous forest
Floristic composition: The most characteristic tree is Anogeissus latifolia, with
Terminalia tomentosa as a very typical associate.
Other species are Chloroxylon swietenia,Hardwickia binata, Boswellia
serrata, Soymida febrifuga, Buchnania lanzan, Madhuca india, Butea monosperma,
Albezzia glomerata, Semecarpus anacardium, Pongamia pinnata, Pterocarpus
ssantalinus, Cassia fistula, Azadirachta india,Tectona grandis etc.
(d)Type 5/DS1-Southern tropical dry deciduous scrub.
Floristic composition: Acacia catechu, Acacia leucophloea, Wrightia tincitoria,
Zizyphus xylocarpa, Cassia fistula, Annona sqamosa, Azadirachta india, Butea
monosperma, Chloroxylon swietenia, Albizzia amara etc.
(ii) Sub-Group 6A- Southern tropical thorn forests.
(a) Type 6A/C1-Southern tropical thorn forest.
Acacia catechu is the pre dominant species, with it are associated several other
Acacias and allied thorny mimosas and usually Zizyphus. Stunted specimen of trees
of the dry deciduous forests are scattered throughout. Notable among these are
Anogeissus latifolia and Soymida febrifuga.
1.5 Forest Administration:
Bidar district has one Territorial Division and one Social Forestry Division each
headed by the Deputy Conservator of Forests. Bidar Territorial Division has two sub-
divisions each with headquarters at Bidar and Basavakalyan. It has 5 territorial ranges
namely, Bidar, Humnabad, Basavakalyan, Aurad, Bhalki.
The Social Forestry Division has 5 ranges namely Bidar, Humnabad, Basavakalyan,
Aurad, Bhalki.
4.0. Method of selection of spots for evaluation:
The evaluation team was found vide OM No. APCCF (EWPRT)-32.Eval/07-08, dated
08.10.2007 of Additional; Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (EWPRT), Bangalore, with
a direction to undertake evaluation of all forestry works in Bidar Circle. The committee
Forests, (Research), Bellary, Conservator of Forests, Belguam and Deputy Conservator of
Forests, Bijapur as the team members. The committees’ tasks and method to be followed for
evaluation are given in the above said OM issued by the APCCF (EWPRT), Bangalore.
The Evaluation Team:
Dr. Ravi Ralph IFS, Chief Conservator of Forests, Head Quarters, Bangalore
Team Leader
Shri Prem Kumar IFS, Conservator of Forests, Research, Bellary
Shri A.K. Keshavamurthy IFS, Conservator of Forests, Belgaum
Shri A.B. Baserkod IFS, Deputy Conservator of Forests, Bijapur
[
Assistance was enlisted from,

Shri V.G. Kulkarni, Deputy Conservator of Forests, Social Forestry, Belgaum
Shri A.B. Morappanavar, Asst. Conservator of Forests, Chikodi
Shri P.A. Ambekar, Asst. Conservator of Forests, Nagargali
To initiate the evaluation, the details of all the plantation, works other than plantations
and distribution of seedlings to farmers were obtain in the prescribed formats ‘A’, ‘D’ and
‘G’ from the Deputy Conservator of Forests for the years 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07.
• The method of works for evaluation was based on number of spots.
290
• The committee adopted a minimum of 10 percent sampling intensity for
selection of plantations and works other than plantations sites for evaluation.
Random sampling was adopted for selection of sites for evaluation.
Accordingly, the team leader selected the plantations for evaluation, List of such
selected plantations and other than plantations is given bellow in the Table-3 (a)
and Table -3 (b).
• Spots were selected in such a way that at least one least one work spot was
selected in each range. And also care has been taken that in the process of
random selection, spots have been selected in all schemes and in all models.
• Fore assessment of survival percentage in each plantation spot, 2 percent
sampling intensity was adopted for laying out sample spots. While laying out
the sample plots instructions were given to the field staff to follow the
instructions given by the APCCF (EWPRT). The sample plots should be of size
31.62 m X 31.62 m on the base line drawn across the plantation starting from the
NE corner of the plantation. Such laid plots are to be marked on the ground by
lime so that team can easily locate the sample plot.
• As prescribed in the evaluation guidelines, GPS instrument is used to record
latitude and longitude of individual sample plots in the plantation before
recording the survival of the seedlings planted.
• The basic details such as expenditure, species planted number of pits/trenches,
size of pit/trench, protection measures provided and other details as per forms
‘C’, ‘E’, ‘H’ and ‘I” were collected from the division office records.
• The field work was taken up from 12.02.2008 to 14.02.2008.
Table no. 1(a): Details of Plantation area, total number of spots and
number of randomly selected spots for Bidar Forest division.
Bidar Territorial Division:
No. of spots
selected at Total no. of
Sl. Year of Area
Random @ sampling Remarks
No. planting (ha)
10% for spots
evaluation
1 2004 – 05 138.58 7 20 In 7 plantations 20 spots were selected under

FDA, FDF, KSFMBC, C.A.
2 2005 -06 404.5 8 26 In 8 plantations 26 spots were selected under
KSFMBC, DDF, FDA (op), SGRY etc.
3 2006 – 07 111 6 19 In 6 plantations 19 spots were selected under
KSFMBC, SGRY, 12th finance.
Table no. 1(b): Details of Plantation area, total number of spots and
number of randomly selected spots for Bidar Social Forestry division.
Bidar Social Forestry Division:
No. of spots selected at
Sl. Year of Area Total no. of
Random @ 10% for Remarks
No. planting (ha) spots
evaluation
1 2004 –05 21 7 9 In 7 plantations 9 spots were
selected under FDA, SGRY,
NREGS, etc.
2 2005 -05 99.9 23 28 In 23 plantations 28 spots were
selected under NREGS, SGRY,
KREGS, etc.
3 2006 –07 43.59 19 21 In 19 plantations 21 spots were
selected under NREGS, SGRY,
NREGP etc.
291
3.0 Field work:
The evaluation team inspected totally 70 plantations (in which 21 plantations were of
territorial division and 49 plantations were of Social forestry division). Both the divisions
were taken up simultaneously. The committee has spent 3 days in the district starting from
12.02.2008 to 14.02.2008. In each spot the committee members assessed performance of
different species, quality of works carried out and general condition of the plantation. In the
laid out sample plots the details on number of plants planted, number of surviving plants and
growth details of the different species were collected. Apart from taking GPS reading of the
sample plot, the plantation wise GPS readings are given in Annexure. 1. The committee filled
up the forms prescribed for the evaluation in the field after assessing above said parameters.
4.0 Results of Evaluation:
4.1 Evaluation of plantations:
4.1.1 Survival percentage: Bidar Forest Division:
Survival percentage was worked out based on number of plants counted in sample
plots laid out in the plantations as per the sampling procedure described above. The survival
percentage of plantations in Bidar forest division (Territorial) was calculated. While
assessing the overall survival percentage, area has been taken as weight and based on this the
weighted overall survival percentage for Bidar division (Territorial) is found to be 42.00 per
cent. The details are given in table 2(a).
Seedli- Weig-
Name of Location Year of Weig -
Budget Planting Exten ng hted
Sl. the of the Planta- Model hted
Head Method t in ha Surviv Avera
Range Plantation tion Product
al % ge
NAP
1 Bidar Shahpur 2004-05 AR Trench 25 50.10 1252.50
FDA
NAP
2 Bidar Vilasapur 2006-07 AR Trench 21 86.76 1821.96
FDA
Alur-SCP
3 Aurad 2004-05 SCP SCP Pits 4 0.00 0
plots
KSFM
4 Aurad Belur 2006-07 M-04 Trench 15 72.32 1084.80
BC
Dhanura NAP
5 Bhalki 2006-07 AR Trench 25 57.70 1442.50
thanda FDA
NAP
6 Bhalki Kosam 2004-05 AR Trench 15 45.56 683.40
FDA
7 Bidar Hannikeri 2006-07 DDF Block Trench 20 56.44 1128.80
KSFM
8 Bidar Vilashapur 2006-07 M-04 Trench 20 53.33 1066.60
BC
Zianstampu
9 Bidar 2005-06 FDA Block Trench 35 85.41 2989.35
r
Basavak KSFM
10 Ekloor 2005-06 M-01 Thalies 50
alyana BC
Seedli- Weig-
Name of Location of Year of Weig -
Budget Planting Extent ng hted
Sl. the the Planta- Model hted
Head Method in ha Surviva Avera
l% ge
Basavak NAP-
11 Kitta 2005-06 AR Trench 25 46.73 1168.25
alyana FDA
Seedli- Weig-
Name of Location of Year of Weig -
Budget Planting Extent ng hted
Sl. the the Planta- Model hted
Head Method in ha Surviva Avera
l% ge
Basavak Neelakanth
12 2004-05 FDA Block Trench 22 60.83 1338.26
alyana awali
Basavak NAP-
13 Lingadalli 2004-05 AR Trench 27.58 59.84 1650.39
alyana FDA
Humnab NAP-
14 Karkanalli 2004-05 AR Trench 30 74.19 2225.70
ad FDA
15 Humnab Eithabapur 2005-06 FDF Forest Trench 36 54.47 1960.92
292
ad
Humnab KSFM
16 Eithabapur 2005-06 M-01 Thallies 186
ad BC
Humnab Vadhamnal NAP-
17 2005-06 ANR Pits 50 73.86 3693.00
ad li FDA
Humnab KSFM
18 Madargi 2006-07 M-04 Trench 10 69.40 694.00
ad BC
19 Bidar Hokrana 2004-05 C.A C&D Trench 15 93.38 1400.70
Zamistanap
20 Bidar 2005-06 FDF Forest Trench 7.5 77.11 578.33
ur SP-1
NOVO
21 Bidar Chitta 2005-06 Forest Trench 15 85.98 1289.70
DA
Total 654.08 50.14 27469.2 42.00
4.1.2 Survival percentage: Bidar Social Forestry Division:

percentage of plantations in Bidar Social Forestry division calculated. While assessing the
overall survival percentage, area has been taken as weight and based on this the weighted
survival percentage for Bidar Social Forests Division is found to be 48.90 per cent.
Table: 2(b) :Bidar Social Forestry Division:
Statement Showing location wise survival , percentage and weighted survival
percentage for plantations.
Seedli Weigh
Sl. Location Year of
Name of Budget Planting Ext. ng Weighted ted
no of the Plantatio Model
the Range Head Method in ha Survi Product Avera
Plantation n
val % ge
SGRY/
Othagi Private
1 Humnabad 2004-05 SCP/TS Pits 1 82.00 82.00
SCP- plots land
P
Nandagoun
(Demonstra KSFM
2 Humnabad 2005-06 M-08 Pits 1 55.00 55.00
- tion BC
plots – 1
Nandagoun
(Demonstra KSFM
3 Humnabad 2005-06 M-08 Pits 1 12.00 12.00
tion plots – BC
2
Karakanaha Demon
SGRY/
4 Humnabad lli (SCP- 2005-06 stration Pits 1 44.40 44.40
SCP
plots) plot
Pit
Chinkera
5 Humnabad 2005-06 RSVY plantati Pits 5 98.00 490.00
T.F.S
on
Pit
Changler NFFW
6 Humnabad 2005-06 plantati Pits 10 72.50 725.00
TFS,SP-1 P-MLA
on
Monsoon
various
school
forestry School
7 Humnabad (Basavathe 2006-07 RSVY Forestr Pits 6 28.18 169.08
ertha vidya y
peetha,
Hallikhed
(B)).
Sulthanaba
Demon
d SGRY/
8 Humnabad 2006-07 stration Pits 1 16.00 16.00
Chandanhal SCP
plot
li
293
Dubalagun
di to
Varvatti, Road
9 Humnabad 2006-07 KREGS Pits 5 36.00 180.00
Sedam side
cross road
side
SGRY(
Sevanagar Private
10 Bhalki 2006-07 SCP/TS Pits 1 100.00 100.00
SCP – plot land
P)
GHPS
11 Bhalki Dhannur 2006-07 RSVY School Pits 1 53.33 53.33
School
Kardiyal
12 Bhalki Gurukul 2006-07 RSVY School Pits 1.5 72.30 108.45
School
Valsang to
Road
13 Bhalki Ganeshpur 2004-05 RSVY Pits 6 49.91 299.46
side
wadi
Bus-depot Govt
14 Bhalki 2005-06 RSVY Pits 2 77.78 155.56
– Bhalki Land
SGRY/ Private
15 Bhalki Bhatandra 2004-05 Pits 1 50.40 50.40
SCP land
GHS School
16 Bhalki 2005-06 RSVY Pits 1.4 0.00 0.00
Bhatambur forestry
Atterga
KSFM
17 Bhalki Demonstrat 2005-06 M-08 Pits 1 0.00 0.00
BC
ion plot
SGRY/
Private
18 Bhalki Mehkar 2006-07 SCP/TS Pits 1 0.00 0.00
land
P
19 Bhalki Balegaon 2005-06 RSVY Forest Trench 20 45.86 917.20
Madakati
Road
20 Bhalki to approach 2006-07 NREGS Pits 1.75 11.14 19.50
side
road
Road
21 Aurad Chintaki 2005-06 SGRY Pits 10 6.00 60.00
side
SGRY/
Karangi Private
22 Aurad 2006-07 SCP/TS Pits 2.5 79.20 198.00
(B) land
P
G.H.School School
23 Aurad 2006-07 School Pits 1.84 48.37 89.00
Yangunda forestry
Private
24 Aurad Korayal 2005-07 SGRY Pits 2.5 76.00 190.00
land
Kamalanag
Road
25 Aurad ar to murki 2005-06 RSVY Pits 7 39.00 273.00
side
road side
G.H.School School
26 Aurad 2005-06 RSVY Pits 1 78.00 78.00
Khatgaon forestry
Sawargaon
Road
27 Aurad to Bhanthi 2006-07 NREGS Pits 5 30.10 150.50
side
road side
KSFM
Lingiwadi-
28 Aurad 2005-06 BC/SC M-08 Pits 1 38.00 38.00
Demo plot
P
SGRY/
Ladha SCP Private
29 Aurad 2004-05 SCP/TS Pits 1 36.00 36.00
plot land
P
Basavakaly SGRY/ Private
30 Kodyal 2006-07 Pits 1 0.00 0.00
ana SCP land
Manthal-
Basavakaly School
31 school 2006-07 RSVY Pits 1 31.50 31.50
ana forestry
forestry
Basavakaly SGRY- Private
32 Kondihal 2006-07 Pits 1 32.80 32.80
ana SCP land
294
Chickanaga
Basavakaly NREG Road
33 on to 2006-07 Pits 5 49.04 245.20
ana A side
Kalkhora
Govt. High
Basavakaly School
34 school, 2005-06 RSVY Pits 1 81.67 81.67
ana forestry
Mudbi
Basavakaly Toglur- NFFW Road
35 2005-06 Pits 5 0.00 0.00
ana Goruta P side
Basavakaly KSFM
36 Rajeshwar 2005-06 M-08 Pits 1 80.00 80.00
ana BC
Basavakaly Chukinala Govt
37 2004-05 SGRY Pits 11 75.37 829.07
ana damsite Land
Basavakaly Narayanap KSFM
38 2005-06 M-08 Pits 1 58.00 58.00
ana ur BC
Basavakaly Murkundi Govt
39 2005-06 SGRY Pits 17.5 60.36 1056.30
ana TFS Land
Gadagi to Road
40 Bidar 2006-07 NREGP Pits 5 55.00 275.00
Nandagaon side
Bidar
college
Norma Private
41 Bidar 2006-07 RSVY Pits 1 30.00 30.00
Findrock land
High
School
KSFM
42 Bidar Kanthana 2005-06 M-08 Pits 1 56.67 56.67
BC
KSFM
43 Bidar Kanthana 2005-06 M-08 Pits 1 33.33 33.33
BC
Tadlapur-
gumma Road
44 Bidar 2005-06 RSVY Pits 7.5 58.58 439.35
Malegaon side
road
Malegaon Private
45 Bidar 2005-06 RSVY Pits 1 29.09 29.09
School land
Nadagaon Private
46 Bidar 2006-07 SGRY Pits 1 60.00 60.00
patta land land
Seedli Weig-
Location of
Name of Year of Budget Plant ing Ext. ng Weight-ed hted
Slno the Model
the Range Plantation Head Met hod in ha Surviv Prod uct Avera
Plantation
al % ge
Khayapur SGRY Private
47 Bidar 2004-05 Pits 0.5 60.00 30.00
patta land SCP land
Hokrana SGRY Private
48 Bidar 2004-05 Pits 0.5 50.00 25.00
Patta land SCP land
Morarji
Desai
49 Bidar 2006-07 RSVY School Pits 1 60.00 60.00
School,
Bagdal
Total 164.5 46.88 8042.86 48.90
The overall survival percentage of seedlings planted for the entire district is over 45
per cent. The details of individual plantation survival percentage are given in the table- 2(b)
4.1.3 . Plantation Model-wise performance:
As indicated in the guidelines for evaluation, survival percentages of different types
of planting models were also compiled so as to assess the feasibility of continuation of the
said models in the district. For this purpose, plantation models are broadly classified based on
the land preparation and the protection etc in the block planting, natural regeneration and
roadside planting. Planting model wise survival percentage of both Territorial and Social
Forestry Divisions are given in the following Table- 3(a) and Table- 3(b).
295
Table 3(a) : Details of planting model wise survival percentage for Bidar Forest
Division (Territorial).
No. of
Method of Land Seedling bag Extent Survival
Sl no Planting model Plantations
Preparation size (Ha) percentage
evaluated
1 Block Plantation Pits Small/ Big 2 54 36.93

2 Block Plantation Trench Small 17 364.08 66.44
3 Natural Regeneration Only protection Seed sowing 2 236 -
Table 3(b) : Details of planting model wise survival percentage for Bidar Social Forest
Division.
No. of
Method of Land Seedling bag Extent
Sl no Planting model Plantation Survival percentage
Preparation size (Ha)
s evaluated
1 Block Plantation Pits Small/big 29 71.5 50.44
2 Block Plantation Trench Small 1 20 45.86

3 Road side Pits Big 10 57.25 33.48
4 School Plantations Pits Big 9 15.74 50.37
From the above tables, it is evident that survival percentage of plantations raised by
using tall seedlings grown in bigger size bags are higher than the plantations raised by using
small seedling. School plantations have over 50 percent survival percentage. Road side
plantation although show 33.48 percent survival, the component of protection has played an
important part in their survival. Among the block plantations raised with trenches formed
either manually or by machines have slightly better survival than the pit plantations.
By looking at the above tables, it would be advisable to use tall seedling grown in
larger bags for raising block plantations also depending upon the cost norms of the given
schemes. Possibly, these roadside and town plantations might have got better care than the
block plantations by way of watering, protection due to the fact being near to urban area.
4.1.4 Qualitative aspects of plantations:
In order to assess the success and failure of plantations, it is necessary to ascertain the
suitability of site along with giving proper protection to the plantation. In this direction, all
plantations evaluated are classified in to very good, good, poor / failed based on survival
percentage. Reasons for the failure broadly fall into inappropriate site selection, species
selection, protection and model selection which should be thoroughly ascertained by the
division before contemplating the plantation. Apart from these, some adverse climatic,
edaphic and biotic factors, which are sometimes beyond human control. Based on the above
criteria, plantations evaluated are grouped and are given in table 4.
Table 4(a): Bidar Division:
Failed Poor Satisfactory Good

Very Good
(Survival (Survival (Survival (Survival
Sl no. Name of the Range (Survival percent
percent percent percent percent
80-100)
0-19) 20-39) 40-59) 60-79)
1 Aurad 1 1
2 Basavakalyana 2 1
3 Bhalki 2
4 Bidar 3 1 4
5 Humnabad 1 3
296
Table 4(b): Bidar Social Forestry Division:
Failed Poor Satisfactory Good
Name of the Range (Survival (Survival (Survival (Survival Very Good
Sl no
percent percent percent percent (Survival percent
0-19) 20-39) 40-59) 60-79) 80-100)
1 Aurad 1 4 1 3
2 Basavakalyana 2 2 2 2 2
3 Bhalki 4 4 2 1
4 Bidar 3 4 2
5 Humnabad 2 2 2 1 2
4.1.5. Performance of species:

Of the species used in Bidar, Hardwickia binata, Pongamia pinnata and Holoptelia
integrifolia, have shown comparatively better results. Although there seems to be mixed
response of the species in various ranges.
These species have come up luxuriantly, wherever initial protection has been
accorded. The performance of the species in Bidar division is given in Table no. (5) which is
only indicative and limited to the plantations which were visited. The table for performance
of species in plantations of Bidar Social Forestry division has not been tabulated here ,
however, the choice of the species planted in the Bidar Social Forestry Division is by and
large the same as that of Bidar division. In the social forestry division, in the government
land, Azadiractha indica and Pongamia pinnata and Syzigium cuminii have been generally
used along with other species. In the farmers’ land the choice of species is to a large extent
teak and mango. The performance these latter species is directly related to availability of
water. In the case where irrigation facility is provided, the seedlings planted in farmers’ land
have shown good growth.
It was observed by the Evaluation Team that Eucalyptus is suffering from a leaf
curling disease which is quite widespread. The afflicted seedlings in the nursery and also well
established trees of Eucalyptus have shown debilitating condition of the growth of the plant.
It could therefore, be considered to delete Eucalyptus from the planting stock of the
plantation till the disease is checked.
Table 5: Performance of different species in plantation of Bidar Division
Sl. Year of Location Scheme Model Method Area in Seedling Species General
Plantation of the ha Survival Planted condition of
Plantation % Plantaions
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 13
Eucalyptus Satisfactory
1 2004-05 Shahpur NAP FDA AR Trench 25 50.10 Cashew
Agave
Eucalyptus
Good
Jatropha
2 2006-07 Vilasapur NAP FDA AR Trench 21 86.76 Cassia
siamia
Cashew
Mango Poor
3 2004-05 Alur-SCP plots SCP SCP Pits 4 0.00
Teak
Eucalyptus Good
Jatropha
Glyricedia
Babul
4 2006-07 Belur KSFMBC M-04 Trench/pit 15 72.32 Cassia
siamia
Pongamia
pinnata
Azadirachta
297
indica
Cashew
Satisfactory
Jatropha
Seethapal
5 2006-07 Dhanura thanda NAP FDA AR Trench 25 57.70
Pongamia
pinnata
Glyricedia
6 2004-05 Kosam NAP FDA AR Trench 15 45.56 Eucalyptus Poor
Eucalyptus
Satisfactory
Glyricedia
7 2006-07 Hannikeri DDF Block Trench 20 56.44
Cassia
siamia
Eucalyptus Poor
Agave
Glyricedia
8 2006-07 Vilashapur KSFMBC M-04 Trench 20 53.33
Bare
Khair
Sirsal
9 2005-06 Zianstampur FDA Block Trench 35 85.41 Cashew Good
Regeneration
10 2005-06 Ekloor KSFMBC M-01 Thalies 50 0
improved
Cashew
Eucalyptus
Poor
Phyllanthus
emblica
Jatropha
NAP-
11 2005-06 Kitta AR Trench 25 46.73 Glyricedia
FDA
Cassia
siamia
Pongamia
pinnata
Seethapal
Eucalyptus
Good
Hardwickia
12 2004-05 Neelakanthawali FDA Block Trench 22 60.83
binata
Cashew
Eucalyptus
Hardwickia Poor
NAP-
13 2004-05 Lingadalli AR Trench 27.6 59.84 binata
FDA
Pongamia
pinnata
Pongamia
Good
NAP- pinnata
14 2004-05 Karkanalli AR Trench 30 74.19
FDA Cashew
Eucalyptus
Eucalyptus
Cashew
Satisfactory
Pongamia
pinnata
15 2005-06 Eithabapur FDF Forest Trench 36 54.47 Hardwickia
binata
Holoptelia
integrifolia
Glyricedia
Regeneration
16 2005-06 Eithabapur KSFMBC M-01 Thallies 186 0
is improved
298
Pongamia
pinnata
Good
Cashew
NAP- Terminalia
17 2005-06 Vadhamnalli ANR Pits 50 73.86
FDA tomentosa
Bamboo
Azadirachta
indica
18 2006-07 Madargi KSFMBC M-04 Trench/pit 10 69.40 Pongamia Good
pinnata
Glyricedia
Cassia
siamia
Jatropha
Pongamia
pinnata
Hardwickia
Good
binata
Phyllanthus
emblica
19 2004-05 Hokrana C.A C&D Trench 15 93.38 Holoptelia
integrifolia
Pterocarpus
marsupium
Cashew
Eucalyptus
Kadugeru
Pongamia
Zamistanapur pinnata Good
20 2005-06 FDF Forest Trench 7.5 77.11
SP-1 Hardwickia
binata
Simaruba
glauca Good
21 2005-06 Chitta NOVODA Forest Trench 15 85.98
Pongamia
pinnata
5.0 Site Selection vis-à-vis Choice of Species:
Bidar division offers dry and hot areas for raising plantations. The climatic and
edaphic factors are not entirely favourable. Under the circumstances therefore, only such
species should be used which have proved to be successful in specific conditions offered by
the district.
6.0. Formation of Village Forest Committees (VFC):
In Bidar Forest Division, out of 21 plantations inspected, 14 VFCs are formed. Micro
plans are also written for 14 VFC. In all VFCs entry point activities are carried out in the
FDA scheme. The summary of Range wise details of VFCs formed for the plantations
evaluated are given in Table-6
Table -6: The Range wise details of VFCs formed plantations evaluated in Bidar
division:
No. of spots for which
Micro plans Entry point activities
Sl. VFC
No. Range Not
Not Carried
Formed Not formed Written Carried
written out
out
2
01 Bidar 2 2
02 Bhalki 2 2 2
03 Basavakalyan 4 4 4
04 Aurad 1 1 1
05 Humanabad 5 5 5
299
7.0. Record maintenance (Plantation Journal, FNB, Estimate etc;)
Plantation Journals are maintained however, entries of inspecting officers need to be
updated. Copies of estimates and FNB were collected and are verified vis-à-vis field
operations, after visiting the plantations selected for evaluation. It was found that all the
FNBs were updated with relevant information. The plantation journals have been maintained.
The details such as model of plantation spacing, species planted and maintenance operations
etc. are recorded in the plantation journal.
8.0. Evaluation of other works:
The details of works other than plantation like construction of boulder checks,
construction of Samudhaya bhavans, check dams, water tanks etc. have been given in detail
in Form ‘I‘-Individual other works.
There is considerable progress in IGA activities in VFC. The IGA amount released to
VFC, has been issued through loan to SHGs. Repayment of by installments is satisfactory.
The majority of VFC members has asked for loan for starting animal husbandry and poultry
units , a few have invested the loan in petty shops and PCOs. More of training to SHGs with
regards to income generating activates which is more viable and economically sustainable is
needed.
8.1. Soil & moisture conservation measures:
Efforts made in Bidar division towards moisture and soil conservation are seem to be quite
successful. Percolation ponds and boulder checks have been taken up in suitable locations.
More number of percolation ponds should be taken up.
8.2. Distribution of seedlings to individual farmers:
The evaluation team visited 4 farmers’ field to assess the success of seedlings planted
in farmers’ land through distribution of seedlings. The performance of the seedlings planted
in farmers’ land is above 75% on an average in the two talukas visited. The success of
seedlings is good. The details of survival of seedlings distributed to farmers taluka wise is
given in the following Table7
Table (7): Survival of seedlings planted in Farmers’ land (Seedling distribution).
No. of Survival (Average)
Sl no Taluka
farmers %
1 Aurad 3 78.33
2 Bidar 1 85
The choice of the species was to large extent Teak throughout the district. Silver oak
was another species which was observed to be planted to some extent.
Bidar does not have the required climate and edaphic condition for teak however, the
farmers have by and large demanded these two species.
8.3. Building maintenance:
No building maintenance work spot has been selected for evaluation in the district.
8.4. Logging works:
No logging work spot has been selected for evaluation in the district.
9.0. Action taken report on the recommendations of evaluation team for the works
carriedout during the year 2002-03 to 2003-04 in Bidar forest division:
The recommendations of the Evaluation Team for the year 2004-05 was general in
nature and addressed policy issues. Therefore the DCF , Bidar has not given any action taken
report on the recommendations.
10.0. Recommendations of the Evaluation Team:
1. Bidar being a primarily agro-based district with little forest area, private farm land can
be considered on priority for agro-forestry. This is also true on account of a
comparatively harsh climate for successful rain-fed agricultural crop. Therefore, it is
recommended to increase agro-forestry activity in Bidar.
300
2. The species like Wrightia tinctoria, Holoptelia integrifolia, Emblica officialis,
Boswelia serrata, Anogeissus latifolia and Grewia tiliaefolia should be primarily
selected and propagated. The choice of species should be based on suitable area and
the recorded successful performance of the species in a particular area.
3. Bidar district has a good potential to develop medicinal plants. Communities, public
and students can be largely involved in developing and propagating medicinal plants.
4. Vegetative resource mapping and wildlife resource mapping must be taken up on
priority. Several species of wild animals like the Indian fox, the jackal, the hyena,
wolf and the raptors found in north Karnataka must be mapped on priority.
5. Bidar forest division would do well to include tree pattas to ensure necessary
protection to roadside plantation. Generally protection efforts need to be strengthened.
6. Treatment maps should be made according to a well thought plan before every
plantation. This culture was found to be missing in Bidar division and needs to be
7. A plantation journal without timely entry by the inspecting officers makes an
unacceptable document. It must be ensured that all plantation journals have entries of
inspecting officers.
Sd/-
Head Quarters &Team Leader
Conservator of Forests, Research, Bellary
Conservator of Forests, Belgaum
Appendix
Table details of sample plots and their GPS Co-ordinates in Bidar division:
Bidar Territorial Division:
No. of GPS Co-ordinates
Sl. Survey Area
Range Location Sample Lat. Long. remarks
No. No. (ha.)
plots North East
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 Bidar Shahpur 40, 43 25 15o 51’ 06” 77o 34’ 04”
2 Bidar Vilasapur 108 21 17o 59’ 09” 77o 23’ 13”
3 Alur-SCP 26 8 18o 05’ 23.4” 77o 29’ 22.3”
Aurad 4
plots
4 Aurad Belur 2/1,3 15 18o 05’ 52.4” 77o 29’ 11.2”
18o 06’ 5.30” 77o 38’ 58”
18o 05’ 48.3” 77o 29’ 07.6”
5 Bhalki Dhanura 103 25 5 17o 37’ 17.4” 77o 22’ 4.6”
thanda 17o 57’ 23.3” 77o 22’ 11.6”
17o 57’ 13.9” 77o 21’ 56.1”
17o 57’ 9.9” 17o 21’ 54.8”
17o 57’ 8.5” 17o 21’ 47.5”
6 Bhalki Kosam 78 15 3 17o 59’ 2.6” 77o 22’ 45.1”
17o 59’ 2.4” 77o 22’ 36.4”
17o 59’ 11.3” 77o 22’ 35.8”
7 Bidar Hannikeri 20 4 17o 54’ 08” 77o 24’ 10”

17o 58’ 16” 77o 24’ 15”
17o 58’ 24” 77o 24’ 02”
17o 58’ 24” 17o 23’ 53”
8 Bidar Vilashapur 20 4 17o 58’ 43” 77o 23’ 45”
17o 58’ 40” 77o 23’ 42”
301
17o 58’ 37” 77o 23’ 33”
17o 58’ 29” 17o 23’ 32”
9 Bidar Zianstampu 35 4 17o 52’ 49.3” 77o 28’ 53.1”
r
10 Basavakaly 17o 40’ 25.3” 76o 54’ 12.1”
Ekloor 50
ana
11 Basavakaly 118 17o 52’ 49.3” 77o 28’ 53.1”
Kitta 25
ana
12 Basavakaly Neelakanth 31 17o 42’ 40.6” 77o 01’ 01.1”
22
ana awali
13 Basavakaly 17o 44’ 34.6” 77o 01’ 01.1”
Lingadalli 27.58
ana
14 Humnabad Karkanalli 30 17o 38’ 54” 77o 28’ 19”
15 Humnabad Eithabapur 31 36 17o 34’ 56.5” 77o 19’ 44.9”
16 Humnabad Eithabapur 81 186 17o 35’ 12.9” 77o 18’ 42.4”
17 Vadhamnal 17o 39’ 0.9” 77o 24’ 39.2”
Humnabad 50
li
18 Humnabad Madargi 74 10 17o 37’ 31.5” 77o 18’ 15”
19 Bidar Hokrana 15 17o 44’ 17.5” 77o 29’ 7”
20 Bidar Zamistanap 28,36 7.5 2 17o 52’ 28.6” 77o 28’ 31.9”
ur SP-1
21 Bidar Chitta 154,155 15 17o 50’ 44.3” 77o 29’ 11.2”
, 156
Table details of sample plots and their GPS Co-ordinates in Bidar Division:
Bidar Social Forestry Division:
Are No. of GPS Co-ordinates
Sl. Surve Rem-
Range Location a Sample Lat. Long.
No. y No. arks
(ha.) plots North East
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 Humnabad Othagi SCP- 2 1 17o 52’ 5.8” 77o 29’
1
plots 11.2”
2 Humnabad Nandagoun 1 17o 47’ 57.1” 77o 11’
(Demonstrati 1 14.4”
on plots – 1
3 Humnabad Nandagoun 1 17o 47’ 5.8” 77o 11’
(Demonstrati 1 12.6”
on plots – 2
4 Humnabad Karakanahalli 8 1 17o 36’ 21.4” 77o 26’
1
(SCP-plots) 46.2”
5 Humnabad Chinkera 1 17o 49’ 27.8” 77o 8’
5
T.F.S 21.9”
6 Humnabad Changler 2 17o 38’ 28.7” 77o 21’
TFS,SP-1 17o 38’ 26.9” 58.2”
10
77o 21’
53.9”
7 Humnabad Monsoon 1 17o 51’ 19.9” 77o 16’
various 47.2”
school
forestry
(Basavatheert 6
ha vidya
peetha,
Hallikhed
(B).
8 Humnabad Sulthanabad 4 1 17o 54’ 0.51” 77o 10’
(Chandanhalli 1 1.4”
)
9 Humnabad Dubalagundi 2 17o 51’ 11.3” 77o 11’
to Varvatti, 5 17o 50’ 12.5” 09.3”
Sedam cross 77o 09’
302
road side 1.4”
10 Bhalki Sevanagar 1 17o 58’ 20.4” 77o 22’
1
SCP – plot 3.4”
11 Bhalki GHPS 1 17o 57’ 19.4” 77o 20’
Dhannur 1 44.4”
School
12 Bhalki Kardiyal 1 18o 01’ 13.7” 77o 15’
Gurukul 1.5 33.6”
School
13 Bhalki Valsang to 1 18o 03’ 19.7” 77o 14’
Ganeshpur 6 26.2”
wadi
14 Bhalki Bus-depot – 1 18o 03’ 4.8” 77o 12’
2
Bhalki 50.4”
15 Bhalki 1 18o 03’ 27.7” 77o 10’
Bhatandra 1
37.7”
16 Bhalki GHS 1 18o 03’ 55.2” 77o 9’
1.4
Bhatambur 42.4”
17 Bhalki Atterga 1 18o 8’ 27.6” 77o 0’
Demonstratio 1 36.1”
n plot
18 Bhalki 1 18o 6’ 34.2” 77o 02’
Mehkar 1
5.4”
19 Bhalki Balegaon 20 4 18o 6’ 25.9” 77o 2’ 9.9”
18o 6’20.7” 77o 2’
18o 6’ 12.4” 11.3”
18o 6’ 27.2” 77o 2’ 9.7”
77o 2’
14.6”
20 Bhalki Madakati to 1 17o 58’ 48.4” 77o 9’ 5.4”
approach 1.75
road
21 Aurad 1 18o 12’ 59.8” 77o 32’
Chintaki 10
16.9”
22 Aurad 1 18o 16’ 10.6” 77o 32’
Karangi (B) 2.5
49.5”
23 Aurad G.H.School 1 18o 14’ 38” 77o 28’
1.84
Yangunda 35.7”
24 Aurad 1 18o 12’ 7.8” 77o 16’
Korayal 2.5
12.2”
25 Aurad Kamalanagar 1 18o 14’ 10.5” 77o 11’
to murki road 7 28.2”
side
26 Aurad G.H.School 1 18o 15’ 51.02” 77o 12’
1
Khatgaon 37.2”
27 Aurad Sawargaon to 1 18o 22’ 27.1” 77o 20’
Bhanthi road 5 39.9”
side
28 Aurad Lingiwadi- 1 18o 21’ 13.4” 77o 21’
1
Demo plot 25.5”
29 Aurad Ladha SCP 1 18o 06’ 16.3” 77o 26’
1
plot 52.6”
30 Basavakaly 1 17o 45’ 50.7” 76o 52’
Kodyal 1
ana 44.9”
31 Basavakaly Manthal- 1 17o 49’ 15.8” 76o 52’
ana school 1 28.0”
forestry
32 Basavakaly 1 17o 50’ 12” 75o 51’ 13”
Kondihal 1
ana
303
33 Basavakaly Chickanagao 1 17o 40’ 41.7” 76o 56’
5
ana n to Kalkhora 52.8”
34 Basavakaly Govt. High 1 17o 43’ 30.7” 76o 56’
ana school, 1 40.3”
Mudbi
35 Basavakaly Toglur- 1 17o 50’ 04” 75o 12’ 05”
5
ana Goruta
36 Basavakaly 1 17o 51’ 23” 76o 53’ 54”
Rajeshwar 1
ana
37 Basavakaly 2 17o 56’ 58.7” 77o 00’
ana Chukinala 17o 56’ 54.9” 40.2”
11
damsite 77o 00’
44.8”
38 Basavakaly 1 17o 52’ 12.9” 76o 58’
Narayanapur 1
ana 57.4”
39 Basavakaly Murkundi 1 17o 52’ 34” 77o 32’ 08”
17.5
ana TFS
40 Bidar Gadagi to 0 -- --
5
Nandagaon
41 Bidar Bidar college 0 -- --
Norma
1
Findrock
High School
42 Bidar Kanthana 1 1 17o 50’ 26” 77o 22’ 54”
43 Bidar Kanthana 1 1 17o 50’ 27” 77o 22’ 58”
44 Bidar Tadlapur- 0 -- --
gumma
7.5
Malegaon
road
45 Bidar Malegaon 0 -- --
1
School
46 Bidar Nadagaon 0 -- --
1
patta land
47 Bidar Khayapur 0 -- --
0.5
patta land
48 Bidar Hokrana 0 -- --
0.5
Patta land
49 Bidar Morarji Desai 0 -- --
School, 1
Bagdal
Table no. 1(a): Details of Plantation area, total number of spots and number of
randomly selected spots for Gulbarga Forest division.
Gulbarga Territorial Division
No. of spots selected Total no. of
Year of Area
Sl.No. at Random @ 10% sampling Remarks
planting (ha)
for evaluation spots
1 2004 – 05 122.00 7 13 In 7 plantations 13 spots were selected
under FDA, SGRY, KSHIP, KRDCL.
2 2005 -05 185.50 9 32 In 9 plantations 32 spots were selected
under KSFMBC, DDF, FDA (op),
SGRY etc.
3 2006 – 07 277.75 11 42 In 11 plantations 42 spots were selected
under KSFMBC, SGRY, 12th finance.
304
Table no. 1(b): Details of Plantation area, total number of spots and number of
randomly selected spots for Gulbarga Social Forestry division.
Gulbarga Social Forestry Division.
No. of spots selected Total
Sl. Year of Area
at Random @ 10% no. of Remarks
No. planting (ha)
for evaluation spots
1 2004 – 05 168.70 14 24 In 14 plantations 24 spots were selected under
FDA, SGRY, NREGS, etc.
2 2005 -05 92.50 12 14 In 12 plantations 14 spots were selected under
NREGS, SGRY, KREGS, etc.
3 2006 –07 102.40 13 14 In 13 plantations 14 spots were selected under
NREGS, SGRY, NREGP etc.
3.0 Field work:

• The evaluation team inspected totally 66 plantations (in which 27 plantations
were of territorial division and 39 plantations were of Social forestry division).
Both the divisions were taken up simultaneously. The committee has spent 7
days in the district starting from 25.02.2008 to 27.02.2008 and 25.11.2008 to
28.11.2008. In each spot the committee members assessed performance of
different species, quality of works carried out and general condition of the
plantation. In the laid out sample plots the details on number of plants planted ,
number of surviving plants and growth details of the different species were
collected. Apart from taking GPS reading of the sample plot, the plantation wise
GPS readings are given in Annexure. 1. The committee filled up the forms
prescribed for the evaluation in the field after assessing above said parameters.
4.0 Results of Evaluation:
4.1 Evaluation of plantations
4.1.1 Survival percentage: Gulbarga Forest Division:
percentage of plantations in Gulburga forest divisions (Territorial) was calculated. While
weighted overall survival percentage for Gulbarga divisions (Territorial) is found to be 48.65
per cent. The details are given in table 2(a).
Table 2(a)
Statement Showing location wise survival , percentage and weighted survival percentage for
plantations
No. of
Plants Survi Seedli Weight Weight
Name of Exte
Location of Budget Planting planted val ng ed ed
Sl. the Model nt in
the Plantation Head Method in numb Survi Produc Averag
Range ha
Sample er val % t e
plot\
Compt,
Trench/
1 Chincholi Venkatapura REFL & M -04 30 1238 712 57.51 1725.30
pit
KSFMBC
Compt,
2 Chincholi Bairampalli REFL & M-1 Thallies 25
KSFMBC
NAP – Medic
3 Chincholi Chikkalingdalli Trench 20 40800 36720 90.00 1800.00
FDA inal
4 Aland Tallur DDF Forest Trench 13 120 82 68.33 888.29
5 Aland Dangapur DDF Forest Trench 7 76 55 72.37 506.59
6 Aland Dangapur FDF Forest Trench 10 117 64 54.70 547.00
305
Trench/p
7 Aland Bhoosanur KSFMBC M-04 50 824 609 73.91 3695.50
it
8 Gulbarga Gulbarga GUA Road Pit 15 3000 2940 98.00 1470.00
Sonna cross to
9 Gulbarga KRDCL Road Pit 6 1200 360 30.00 180.00
Nelogi road
10 Shorapur Tumkur Block SGRY Pit 10 45 34 75.56 755.60
Konali Block –
11 Shorapur SGRY Trench 8.75 240 178 74.17 648.99
1
12 Shorapur Konali Block SGRY Pit 30 90 56 62.22 1866.60
Konali Block –
13 Shorapur SGRY Pit 20 60 33 55.00 1100.00
2
Konali Block –
14 Shorapur SGRY Pit 20 60 34 56.67 1133.40
1
Kudi to
15 Jevergi SGRY Road Pit 6 1200 310 25.83 154.98
Rasanagi road
Gudur to
16 Jevergi SGRY Road Pit 7.5 1500 118 7.87 59.03
Madari road
Trench/P
17 Shorapur Gundoli Block KSFMBC M-04 29 1002 504 50.30 1458.70
it
Rayanagol
18 Shorapur KSFMBC M-01 Thallies 86
Block
B.Gudi to
19 Shorapur Hatikuguduri KSHIP Road Pits 15 2600 1560 60.00 900.00
road
20 Shorapur Dornalli SGRY Pits 25 75 49 65.33 1633.25
Sonna cross to
21 Gulbarga KRDCL Road Pits 9 1800 1134 63.00 567.00
Madewali road
22 Yadgir Hattikuni FDA AR Trench 20 446 194 43.50 870.00
23 Yadgir Tatalgera REFL R.F Pit 10 2000 0 0.00 0.00
Trench/P
24 Yadgir K.Shahapur KSFMBC M-04 25 879 516 58.70 1467.50
it
Grants by
Enc. Trench/P
25 Yadgir S.Hosalli 12th 15 418 326 77.99 1169.85
Evi it
Finance
26 Chittapur Belgera KSFMBC M-01 Thallies 20
Belgera- Block Trench/P
27 Chittapur KSFMBC M-04 50 1199 894 74.56 3728.00
I & II it
Total 582.3 60989 47482 77.85 28325.6 48.65
4.1.2 Survival percentage: Gulbarga Social Forestry Division

percentage of plantations in Gulburga Social Forest division calculated. While assessing the
survival percentage for Gulburga Social Forests Division is found to be 60.31 per cent. The
details of individual plantation survival percentage are given in the Table- 2(b)
Table 2(b)
Gulbarga Social Forestry Division
Statement Showing location wise survival , percentage and weighted survival percentage
for plantations
No. of
Pla Seedl
Plants Surv Weig
Location of ntin Exte ing Weighte
Name of Budget planted ival hted
Sl. the Model g nt in Surv d
the Range Head in num Aver
Plantation Met ha ival Product
Sample ber age
hod %
plot\
Korvi-
S.F.Chinch
1 Kuddalli NREGS Road Pits 3 400 383 95.75 287.25
oli
road
S.F.Chinch Kuddalli
2 NREGS Road Pits 3 200 190 95.00 285.00
oli Nawadgi
306
S.F.
3 Neelur SGRY Road Pits 7 1400 800 57.14 399.98
Afzalpur
S.F.Afzalp
4 Ganagpur SGRY Road Pits 15 1500 755 50.33 754.95
ur
S.F.
5 Kallur SGRY Road Pits 10 1000 680 68.00 680.00
Afzalpur
S.F. Village
6 NREGP Block Pits 10 1000 800 80.00 800.00
Afzalpur Gaonthana
S.F.
7 Antoor NREGP Road Pits 10 1000 900 90.00 900.00
Afzalpur
Tellur to
S.F.Afzalp
8 Batagere NREGP Road Pits 3 600 480 80.00 240.00
ur
road
S.F.Afzalp
9 Mannur SGRY Road Pits 9 3500 2500 71.43 642.87
ur
Kinisulthan- SGRY/N
10 S.F. Aland Road Pits 5 1000 612 61.20 306.00
Janasagar REGP
Kadaganchi SGRY/N
11 S.F. Aland Road Pits 5 1000 0.00 0.00
to wadi REGP
Block &
12 S.F. Aland Khajokri SGRY Pits 6.75 675 512 75.85 511.99
strip
Mandewali
Canal
13 S.F. Jevargi to Kurnalli NREGS Pits 3 600 570 95.00 285.00
side
cananl
Bilwara
14 S.F.Jevergi NREGS Gomal Pits 16 1610 1368 84.97 1359.52
Block
Sonna canal Canal
15 S.F.Jevergi SGRY Pits 6 1200 660 55.00 330.00
to Nelogi side
Ankalaga
16 S.F.Jevergi SGRY Gomal Pits 15 1500 855 57.00 855.00
Block
S.F.Shorap Mangalore Road
17 KREGS Pits 6 1200 800 66.67 400.02
ur to Kanalli side
S.F.Shorap
18 Kavadimatti KREGS C& D Pits 10 20 13 65.00 650.00
ur
S.F.Shorap Hunasagi to Road
19 KREGS Pits 7.5 1500 750 50.00 375.00
ur Malnoor side
S.F.Shorap Hunasagi Road
20 KREGS Pits 4.7 470 306 65.11 306.02
ur town side
S.F.Shorap Kembavi
21 SGRY Village Pits 10 1000 0 0.00 0.00
ur Town
S.F.Shorap Kanagonda
22 SGRY C&D Pits 7.55 750 450 60.00 453.00
ur Block
S.F.Shorap Fathepur
23 SGRY Forest Pits 20 40 26 65.00 1300.00
ur Block
Ningammap
24 S.F. Sadam NREGA C&D Pits 4.4 500 385 77.00 338.80
alli Block
NREGA/S
25 S.F. Sadam Kodla C&D Pits 30 59 32 54.24 1627.20
GRY
Kolkunda
26 S.F. Sadam NREGA C&D Pits 5 450 2 0.44 2.20
Block
Dugnoor
27 S.F.Sadam KREGS C&D Pits 7.2 7500 1650 22.00 158.40
Block
Gounhalli
28 S.F. Sadam NREGA C&D Pits 11 1100 314 28.55 314.05
Block
S.F. Bennur
29 SGRY C&D Pits 7 700 595 85.00 595.00
Chitapur Block-II
S.F. Kondhur
30 SGRY C&D Pits 30 3000 2010 67.00 2010.00
Chitapur Block I & II
S.F. Kalagi to
31 SGRY Road Pits 5 1000 600 60.00 300.00
Chitapur Sugur Road
S.F. Bennur
32 SGRY C&D Pits 12 1200 1122 93.50 1122.00
Chitapur Block-I
PetSirur -
S.F.
33 Sanghvi KREGS Road Pits 6 1200 613 51.08 306.48
Chitapur
Road
307
Kundloor
34 S.F.Yadgir Village & SGRY Road Pits 5 1000 395 39.50 197.50
Road side
Toranatippa
35 S.F.Yadgir SGRY C&D Pits 10 1000 650 65.00 650.00
Block
36 S.F.Yadgir Mudnal SGRY Gomal Pits 20 2000 1542 77.10 1542.00
Rampur
37 S.F.Yadgir SGRY C&D Pits 10 1000 100 10.00 100.00
Block
Mylapur to SGRY/K
38 S.F.Yadgir Road Pits 4 800 595 74.38 297.52
Halagera REGS
Neelahalli
39 S.F.Yadgir Cross to SGRY Road Pits 4.5 900 490 54.44 244.98
Rachanahalli
Tot 2550
363.6 46574 60.20 21927.72 60.31
al 5
The overall survival percentage of seedlings planted for the entire district is over 50
per cent..
4.1.3 . Plantation Model-wise performance:
of planting models were also compiled so as to assess the feasibility of continuation of the
said models in the district. For this purpose, plantation models are broadly classified based on
the land preparation and the protection etc in the block planting, natural regeneration and
roadside planting. Planting model wise survival percentage of both Territorial and Social
Forestry Divisions are given in the following Table- 3(a) and Table- 3(b).
Table 3(a) : Details of planting model wise survival percentage for
Gulbarga Forest Division (Territorial).
No. of
Method of Land Seedling bag Survival
Sl no Planting model Plantations Extent (ha)
Preparation size percentage
evaluated
1 Block Plantation Pits Small/ Big 7 123.75 55.56
2 Block Plantation Trench Small 11 269 60.16
3 Natural Regeneration Only protection Seed sowing 3 131

5 Town planting Pits Big 1 15 98.00
Table 3(b) : Details of planting model wise survival percentage for

Gulbarga Social Forest Division.
No. of
Method of Land Seedling bag Extent Survival
Sl no Planting model Plantations
Preparation size (ha) percentage
evaluated
1 Block Plantation Pits Small/ Big 19 241.9 56.19
2 Canal side Pits Big 2 9 75.00

small seedling with the exception of demonstration plots raised in farmers’ land. Roadside,
and town plantations have more than 50 percent survival percentage, in fact town planting
using larger bags has shown a survival percentage of 98%. Among the block plantations
raised with trenches formed either manually or by machines have slightly better survival than
the pit plantations.
308
By looking at the above tables, it is necessary to use tall seedling grown in larger bags
for raising block plantations also depending upon the cost norms of the given schemes.
Possibly, these roadside and town plantations might have got better care than the block
plantations by way of watering, protection due to the fact being near to urban area.
4.14 Qualitative aspects of plantations.
suitability of site along with giving proper protection to the plantation. In this direction, all
plantations evaluated are classified in to very good, good, poor / failed based on survival
percentage. Reasons for the failure broadly fall into inappropriate site selection, species
selection, protection and model selection which should be thoroughly ascertained by the
division before contemplating the plantation. Apart from these, some adverse climatic,
edaphic and biotic factors, which are sometimes beyond human control. Based on the above
criteria, plantations evaluated are grouped and are given in table 4.
Table 4(a): Gulbarga Division
Satisfactory Good
Failed Poor (Survival Very Good
Name of the (Survival (Survival
Sl. (Survival percent percent (Survival percent
Range percent percent
0-19) 20-39) 80-100)
40-59) 60-79)
1 Chincholi 1 1 1
2 Aland 1 3
3 Gulbarga 1 2
4 Shorapur 5 1
5 Jevergi 1 1 1
6 Yadgir 1 4 1
7 Chittapur 1 1
Table 4(b): Gulbarga Social Forestry Division

Failed Satisfactory Good
Poor (Survival Very Good
Name of the (Survival (Survival (Survival
Sl. percent (Survival percent
Range percent percent percent
20-39) 80-100)
0-19) 40-59) 60-79)
1 S.F.Chincholi 2
2 S.F. Afzalpur 0 0 2 2 3
3 S.F. Aland 0 0 3
4 S.F. Jevargi 0 0 2 2
5 S.F.Shorapur 1 0 1 5 0
6 S.F. Sadam 1 2 1 1
6 S.F. Chitapur 0 0 1 2 2
7 S.F.Yadgir 1 0 2 3
4.1.5. Performance of species

Of the species used in Gulbarga namely, Azadiractha indica, Cassia siamea, Melia
composita, Pongamia pinnata, Jatropha, Simaruba glauca, Ficus religiosa, Ficus
bengalensis, Dalbergia sissoo, Eucalyptus and some medicinal plant species like Rauwolfia
serpentine, Withania somnifera, and Aloe vera etc., Azadiractha indica, Melia composita
Glyrecedia and Albezzia lebbec and several others, have proven to be the best suited in most
talukas of Gulbarga. These species have come up luxuriantly, wherever initial protection has
been accorded. The performance of the species in Gulbarga division is given in Table no. (5)
which is only indicative and limited to the plantations which were visited. The table for
performance of species in plantations of Gulbarga Social Forestry division has not been
tabulated here , however, the choice of the species planted in the Gulbarga Social Forestry
Division is by and large the same as that of Gulbarga division. In the social forestry division
Melia composita, Azadiractha indica and Pongamia pinnata have been more widely used.
309
It was observed by the Evaluation Team that Eucalyptus is suffering from a leaf curling
disease which is quite widespread. The afflicted seedlings and also well established trees of
Eucalyptus have shown debilitating condition of the growth of the plant. It could therefore, be
considered to delete Eucalyptus from the planting stock of the plantation till the disease is
checked.
Location Seedli General
Year of
of the Area Meth- Mod- -ng Condition
Sl. Plantati Scheme Species Planted
Plantatio in ha od el Survi of
on
n val % Plantation
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 13
Jatropha Good
Simaruba glauca
Glyricedia
Compt,
Venkatap Trenc Eucalyptus
1 2006-07 REFL & 30 M -04 57.51
ura h/pit Cassia siamia
KSFMBC
Sissoo
Honge
Albezzia lebbec
Honge Regenerati
on
Seethapal improved
Cassia siamia
Compt,
Bairampal Thalli Madhuca indica
2 2006-07 REFL & 25 M-01
li es
KSFMBC
Glyricedia
Masawala
Anaogeissus
latifolia
Sarpagandha Good
Withania
somnifera
Chikkalin Medici Trenc
3 2004-05 NAP – FDA 20 90.00 Aloe vera
gdalli nal h
Lakki
Jatropha
Honge
Jatropha
Honge
Trenc
4 2005-06 Tallur DDF 13 Forest 68.33
h Accacia chundra
Eucalyptus
Eucalyptus Good
Trenc Glyricedia
5 2005-06 Dangapur DDF 7 Forest 72.37
h Simaruba glauca
Cassia siamia
Honge
Trenc
6 2005-06 Dangapur FDF 10 Forest 54.70 Jatropha
h
Cassia siamia
Eucalyptus Good
Bhoosanu Trenc Jatropha
7 2006-07 KSFMBC 50 M-04 73.91
r h/pit Cassia siamia
Glyricedia
Bevu Good
Honge
Pheltaforum
8 2006-07 Gulbarga GUA 15 Road Pit 98.00
Arali
Ala
Dalbegia Sissoo
Sonna Bevu Poor
cross to Honge
9 2005-06 KRDCL 6 Road Pit 30.00
Nelogi
road Dalbegia Sissoo
310
Tumkur
10 2006-07 SGRY 10 Pit 75.56 Bevu Good
Block
Konali
11 2006-07 SGRY 8.75 Pit 74.17 Jatropha Good
Block – 1
Konali
12 2005-06 SGRY 30 Pit 62.22 Bevu Good
Block
Bevu Good
Konali
13 2004-05 SGRY 20 Pit 55.00 Honge
Block – 2
Arali
Satisfactor
Bevu
Konali y
14 2004-05 SGRY 20 Pits 56.67
Block – 1 Honge
Arali
Kudi to
15 2005-06 Rasanagi SGRY 6 Road Pit 25.83 Bevu Poor
road
Gudur to
Failed
16 2005-06 Madari SGRY 7.5 Road Pit 7.87 Bevu
plantation
road
Honge
Gundoli Trenc
17 2006-07 KSFMBC 29 M-04 50.30 Eucalyptus Poor
Block h/Pit
Karijali
Parkinsonia
Cassia siamia
Honge
Rayanagol Thalli
18 2005-06 KSFMBC 86 M-01 0 Poor
Block es
Satisfactor
B.Gudi to Bevu
y
19 2004-05 Hatikugud KSHIP 15 Road Pits 60.00
Arali
uri road
Rain tree
Bevu Good
20 2004-05 Dornalli SGRY 25 Pits 65.33 Honge
Hunase
Sonna Satisfactor
Bevu
cross to y
21 2004-05 KRDCL 9 Road Pits 63.00
Madewali Honge
road Arali
Poor
Simaruba
Trenc plantation
22 2004-05 Hattikuni FDA 20 AR 43.50 Vitex nigundu
h
Honge
23
2005-06 Tatalgera REFL 10 R.F Pit 0.00 Honge Poor
Satisfactor
Jatropha
y
Glyricedia
K.Shahap Trenc Cassia siamia
24 2006-07 KSFMBC 25 M-04 58.70
ur h/Pit
Honge
Eucalyptus
Tapasi
Jatropha Good
Honge
Kakke
Grants by Enc. Trenc Tapasi
25 2006-07 S.Hosalli 15 77.99
12th Finance Evi h/Pit Glyricedia
Cassia siamia
311
Thalli
26 2006-07 Belgera KSFMBC 20 M-01 0 Poor
es
Cassia siamia Good
Belgera- Glyricedia
Trenc
27 2006-07 Block I & KSFMBC 50 M-04 74.56 Jatropha
h/Pit
II Honge
Kakke
5.0 Site Selection vis-à-vis Choice of Species:

Gulbarga division offers very dry and hot areas for raising plantations. The climatic
and edaphic factors are generally hostile. Under the circumstances therefore, only such
species should be used which have proved to be successful in specific conditions offered by
the district. In certain areas even modifying the given model of plantation slightly to
accommodate better planting success can be considered.
For example, in the Bairampalli plantation in Chincholi range. This is a very dry area
at the border of Andhra Pradesh. Scrub forest with a variety of trees and thorns, typical of the
area eg. Anogeissus, Madhuca latifolia, Diospiros melaxylon, Carrea arborea, Chloroxylon,
Semecarpus anacardium, Butea monosperma and a host of other plants. The sowings have by
and large failed, however, where ever natural regeneration, which is quite sparse, is given
individual protection, it has shown more promise. In fact, in such dry areas sowing of seeds
should not have been included in the policy, instead, individual regeneration should have
been supported.
6.0. Formation of Village Forest Committees (VFC):
In Gulbarga Forest Division, out of 27 plantations inspected, 11 VFCs are formed.
Micro plans are also written for 11 VFC. In all VFCs entry point activities are carried out in
the FDA scheme. The summary of Range wise details of VFCs formed for the plantations
evaluated are given in Table-6
Table -6: The Range wise details of VFCs formed plantations evaluated in Gulbarga
division.
Sl. No. VFC
Range
Not Not Not Carried
Formed Written Carried out
formed written out
01 Gulbarga -- -- -- -- --- --
02 Chincholi 3 -- 3 -- 3 --
03 Aland 1 -- 1 -- 1 --
04 Surpur -- -- --
05 Yadgir 2 -- 2 -- 2 --
06 Chittapur 1 -- 1 --- 1 --
07 Shahpur 2 2 2
08 Shorapur 1 1 1
09 Humanabad 1 1 1
Total 11 -- 11 -- 11 --
7.0. Record maintenance (Plantation Journal, FNB, Estimate etc.)

Plantation Journals are maintained however, entries of inspecting officers need to be
updated. Copies of estimates and FNB were collected and are verified vis-à-vis field
operations, after visiting the plantations selected for evaluation. It was found that all the
FNBs were updated with relevant information. The plantation journals have been maintained.
The details such as model of plantation spacing, species planted and maintenance operations
etc. are recorded in the plantation journal.
312
8.0. Evaluation of other works.
The details of works other than plantation like construction of boulder checks,
excavation of percolation tanks and construction of Samudhaya bhavans and Shaadi bhavans
have been given in detail in Form ‘I‘-Individual other works.
There is considerable progress in IGA activities in VFC. The IGA amount released to
VFC, has been issued through loan to SHGs. Repayment of by installments is satisfactory.
More of training to SHGs with regards to income generating activates which is more viable
and economically sustainable is needed.
8.1. Soil & moisture conservation measures.
Efforts made in Gulbarga division towards moisture and soil conservation are seem to
be quite successful. Percolation ponds and boulder checks have been taken up in suitable
locations. The boulder checks are found to be effective and soil trapped in these boulder
checks confirms their effectiveness.
8.2. Distribution of seedlings to individual farmers .
The evaluation team visited 47 farmers’ field to assess the success of seedlings
planted in farmers’ land through distribution of seedlings. The performance of the seedlings
planted in farmers’ land is above 50% on an average in all the talukas visited. The survival
percent in individual farmers’ land varies from 0 to 100. The success of seedlings is more or
less good. The growth of seedlings is generally lanky but this is due to the hot and dry
climate and in adequate nutrition in the soil. The details of survival of seedlings distributed
to farmers taluka wise is given in the following Table7
Table (7): Survival of seedlings planted in Farmers’ land (Seedling
distribution).
Survival
Sl no Taluka No. of farmers
(Average) %
1 Chincholi 15 58.73
2 Afzalpur 1 95
3 Sedam 3 82
4 Chitapur 10 52.8
5 Yadgir 10 73.1
6 Jeevargi 5 76
7 Shahapur 2 79
The choice of the species was to large extent Teak throughout the district. Mango was
another species which was observed to be planted to a large extent.
Other species which were found to be raised in farmers’ field under this programme
are Pongamia pinnata, Jatropha, Neem, Ala, Nerale and Bamboo.
Gulbarga does not have the required climate and edaphic condition to teak however,
the demand of farmers has been by and large for these two species.
The Evaluation Team could observe enthusiasm in the farmers even where the
seedlings raised in their farm land had by and large failed. Such farmers were in anticipation
of getting a new batch of seedlings and replanting their field areas.
8.3. Building maintenance:
8.4. Logging works:
9.0. Action taken report on the recommendations of Evaluation team for the works
carriedout during the year 2002-03 to 2003-04 in gulbarga forest division.
In Gulbarga Forest Division, the Evaluation team has randomly selected 13 plantations for
performance assessment of overall survival percentage. The overall survival percentage that
313
found by the Evaluation team is 67.60 percent. The damages in the fresh plantations have
been made good with by replacement of causalities during following monsoon. As regards
the older plantations raised under C.A., as per the letter number CCF(Dev)/B1/NAP-
FDA/CR-21/2002-06 dated 21.11.2006 of Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Bangalore,
the suggested survival percentage after 5 years is 55% and the overall survival percentage in
the Division is 67.60%, which shows that the plantations are well protected and the overall
survival percentage is as per the norms of the Department.
Sl. Recommendations of the Evaluation

Action taken by the Division
No. Team
1 The species, which are found performing a) The species performing better in the District are Neem in
better in the plantations of the District as Roadside and Glyricidia, Tapasi, Honge, Casia fistula in
given in this report should form the core the block plantations. So in most of the Afforestation
species in, the afforestation, works in the schemes all the Roadside and Urban plantations, Neem
District. seedlings have been planted as per Recommendations of
the Evaluation Team.
b) In block plantations, as per the recommendations of
Evaluation team, the Glyricidia, Tapasi, Honge, Casia
fisture is performing better than the other species. Hence
in most of the Block plantations raised under different
schemes i.e., FDA, JBIC, CA, ripping has been done and
Glyricidia and Neem seedlings have been planted in more
number to get the better growth and returns to Village
Forest Committees.
2 Tree patta scheme was implemented for the Roadside

Tree patta scheme implementation for
plantations during the year 1998 to 2000. Later on, it was
roadside plantations should be implemented
discontinued due to some technical problems. Now the same
vigorously to ensure effective protection of
schemes have been revived and measures have been taken to
roadside plantations.
implement the scheme.
3 Due care has been taken for the protection measures as per the
guidelines of the various schemes. Mainly, Cattle proof
Though protections measures are taken in
trench, Barbed wire fencing and Cattle proof stone wall has
varying degrees in the plantations, but the
been constructed to protect the plantation in perfect manner.
same are not found effective in some of the
Together, fast growing species like Glyricidia, Cassia siamea
plantations. Hence it is felt that protection
and Jatropha seeds have been sown on the mounds of Cattle
measures should be strengthened to make
proof trench to consolidate the C.P.T. which will work as
these really effective irrespective of the
Live hedge to the plantation. Efforts are to plant non-
schemes.
browsable species in blocks in 5x8 & 8x12 pbs browsable
species are planted in 13x19 tall plants.
4 The areas, which are brought afresh under Due care has been taken to avoid the duplication in figures of
afforestation, and the areas, which are the areas brought under afforestation. As the selection of area
reboised, should be reported separately to for fresh Afforestation is being taken up in fresh areas which
avoid the duplication in figures of the areas are not planted during the previous years. Efforts are being
brought under afforestation in the Division. made to tackle & afforest the encroached areas.
5 Afforestation programme should be strictly Afforestation programmes have been undertaken based on the
undertaken based on the carrying capacity carrying capacity of the land and for each plantation, Site
of the land to ensure best land use. Detailed specific plan, Survey maps have been prepared and kept in
site specific plans should be prepared for Division/Range offices. The guidelines of different schemes
each site and got approved from the are being followed.
competent authority before taking up the
work.
6 More emphasis should be given to soil and In all most all the plantations raised under different schemes,
water conservation works in this District. the Soil and Moisture conservation works have been taken up
The watershed should be carefully invariably as per the guidelines and cost norms of the scheme.
delineated and treated in an integrated The Watershed concept is also being followed while taking up
manner from ridge to the valley. of Soil and Moisture conservation works like Construction of
Gully checks, Percolation Tanks, Continuous Contour
trenches etc., to enrich the plantation for good growth.
314
7 Formation of the VFC should always It has been ensured that the Formation of Village Forest
precede the raising of plantation to ensure Committees should precede the raising of Plantation under the
good participation of local communities and schemes like NAP-FDA and KSFMBC (JBIC-II) resulting in
the programme of entry point activities community participation in implementation of afforestation
should be mandatorily undertaken in the programme. In all the FDA Village Forest committees, the
concerned villages. Entry point activites has been taken up such as Construction
of Community hall, Supply of mike sets & drinking water
facilities to schools, drinking water facility for cattle, etc.,
depend upon the community requirement. Also Rs. 1.00 lakh
per VFC has been earmarked for the VFCs formed under
KSFMBC towards Income Generation Activities, out of
which the loan is being extended to the SHGs. The activities
taken up in IGA amount are; Milk dairy farm, Tailoring, coin
box phone, Vegetable business, poultry farm, Sheep business.
Care has been taken to implement the recommendations of the
Evaluation team.
8 It is observed in all the cases visited by the Care has been taken to survey the plantation sites of all the
committee, the extent of plantation area is schemes before taking up of Advance works. The survey has
reported on the basis of number of been done with G.P.S. by the Surveyor of this Division. As
trenches/pits, but as espacement of such the area of the plantation is being taken into account as
pits/trenches varies from place to place, it is per the Surveyed sketch and not based on the number of
essential to survey the area before reporting trench/pit.
the extent of plantation.
9 In case of fast growing species like The Eucalyptus seedlings are suffering from Gall formation
Eucalyptus improved planting stock in disease. Hence, the Eucalyptus is not being planted
consultation with the Silviculture Division extensively.
should be used for uniform higher growth of
the plantation in turn to get the higher
productivity.
10 Selection of species and number of The seedlings for distribution under RSPD are being raised as
seedlings to be raised for distribution of per the Demand survey. The main species demanded by the
seedlings should be strictly on the basis of public are Neelgiri, Teak and Jatropha, Neem tall seedlings of
demand survey. 13x19 are required in Urban areas.
11 C.A.: The site selections are not as per the Under the Compensatory Afforestation, mainly C&D and
guidelines of the Government since those degraded areas have been selected for plantation in the current
have been raised in tank foreshores etc., year. The site selection is being done as per the guidelines of
proper site selection for compensatory the Government. Due care has been taken not to raise C.A.
plantations as per guidelines of the plantation in Tank foreshore or Reserve Forest areas.
Government may be insisted.
11 Amount has been spent for roadside also, The Fire tracing work is being taken up in R.F. area by
which in our view is not correct where as it forming Fire lines and engaging firewatchers. Working plan
could have been used for reserve forests prescriptions are being followed. The sufficient funds are not
where fire danger is there. If such areas are being received for Fire tracing work as prescribed in the
not available, it may be diverted to needy Working Plan.
areas.
12 Range level APOs (Planning) is not being The Range level APOs are being prepared under NAP-FDA
done as per the working plants, the same and KSFMBC schemes in ranges, also VFCs have their own
may be insisted. micro-plans for 5 years and strictly these areas have been
taken up every year.
10.0. Recommendations of the Evaluation Team:
1. In the plantations visited and also through observations of older plantations, it is
evident that the performance of Azadrachta indica has been extremely good. In
several other places Melia composita has done very well. These are the species which
should make the bulk of planting stock especially where they have been recorded to
perform well.
2. Gulbarga forest division would do well to include tree pattas to ensure necessary
protection to roadside plantation. Generally protection efforts need to be strengthened.
3. In extremely harsh conditions, seed sowings in Thalies should not be encouraged.
Instead, natural regeneration should be provided for required protection.
315
4. Treatment maps should be made according to a well thought plan before every
plantation. This culture was found to be missing in Gulbarga division and needs to be
5. A plantation journal without timely entry by the inspecting officers makes an
unacceptable document. It must be ensured that all plantation journals have entries of
inspecting officers.
6. Vegetative resource mapping and wildlife resource mapping must be taken up on
priority. Several species of wild animals like the Indian fox, the jackal, the hyena,
wolf and the raptors found in north Karnataka must be mapped on priority.
Sd/-
Chief Conservator of Forests, Head Quarters &Team
Leader
Conservator of Forests, Belgaum
Appendix
Gulbarga Territorial Division.
Table Details of sample plots laid and their GPS Co-ordinates in Gulbarga District.
Sl. Survey Area
Range Location Sample Lat. Long. Remarks
No. No. (ha.)
plots North East
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Chincholi Venkatapur. 124 30 5 N 170 31’ 38.6” E 770 33’ 41.6”
. N 170 31’ 53.4” E 770 33’ 46.8”
0
N 17 31’ 45.2” E 770 34’ 51.1”
N 170 31’ 48.9” E 770 34’ 16.8”
0
N 17 32’ 16.4” E 770 34’ 49.8”
2. Chincholi Bairampalli. 13. 25 4 N 170 24’ 50.6” E 770 30’ 51.1”
0
. N 17 24’ 46.5” E 770 31’ 2.20”
0
N 17 24’ 42.7” E 770 31’ 11.8”
N 170 24’ 38.0” E 770 31’ 20.4”
0
3. Chincholi Chikkalingdalli. -- 20 1 N 17 26’ 25.9” E 770 28’ 32.5”
0
4. Aland Tallur. 36 13 2 N 17 28’ 06” E 760 41’ 14.3’
N 170 28’ 02” E 760 41’ 08”
5. Aland Dangapur. 7 - 1 N 170 26’ 42.7” E 760 32’ 56”
0
6. Aland Dangapur. 10 - 1 N 17 26’ 49.9” E 760 32’ 45.1”
0
8. Gulbarga Gulbarga. -- 15 1 N 17 17’ 44.2” E 760 48’ 50.5”
9. Gulbarga Sonna cross to -- 6 Km. -- -- --
Nelogi road..
10. Shahpur Tumkur Block. -- 10 Ha. 2 N 160 33’ 6.8” E 770 04’ 52.6”
N 160 33’ 9.8” E 770 04’ 46.2”
11. Shahpur Konalli Block I -- 8.75 2 N 160 34’ 18.7” E 770 08’ 23’
(Trench). Ha. N 160 34’ 15.2” E 770 08’ 27.2”
12. Shahpur Konalli Block. -- 30 Ha. 6 N160 34’ 33.3’ E 770 06’ 3.5”
N 160 34’ 21.5’ E 770 06’ 6.5”
N 160 34’ 23.9” E 770 06’ 10.8”
N160 34’ 3.5” E 770 06’ 5.3”
N 160 34’ 4.7” E 770 08’ 0.6”
N 160 34’ 8” E 770 06’ 52.6”
13. Shahpur Konalli Block -- 20 Ha. 4 N 160 34’ 16.1” E 770 07’ 46.6”
II. N 160 34’ 17.9” E 770 07’ 39.0”
N160 34’ 23.00” E 770 7’ 33.4”
N 160 34’ 27.8” E 770 07’ 37.9”
316
14. Shahpur. Konhalli Block -- 20 Ha. 4. N 160 34’ 22,4” E 770 07’ 45.6”
I (Pits). N 160 34’ 16.4” E 770 07’ 42.7”
N 160 34’ 12.4” E 770 07’ 41.0”
N 160 34’ 12.3” E 770 07’ 51”
15. Jewargi. Kudi to -- 6 Km. 2 N 170 06’ 38.1” E 760 44’ 55.5”
Rasanagi Road. N 170 44’ 55.5” E 760 46’ 0.6”
16. Jewargi. Gudur to -- 7.5 2 N 160 59’ 39.6” E 760 50’ 14.4’
Madari Road. N 170 02’ 22.9” E 760 51’ 59.7”
17. Shorapur. Gundolli Block. 121 29 ha. 6. N 160 43.3’ 0” E 760 58.7’ 3”
N 160 42.89’ 6” E 760 58.7’ 0”
N 160 42’ 57.8” E 760 58’ 02.4”
N 160 42’ 58.4” E 760 57’ 50.3”
N 160 42’ 56.96” E 760 58’ 15.1”
N 160 42’ 55,4” E 760 58’ 27.5”
18. Shorapur. Rayangol. 5/1. 86 Ha. 17 N 160 17’ 50.3” E 760 22’ 38.3”
N 160 17’ 48.0” E 760 22’ 39”
N 160 17’ 45.0” E 760 22’ 40.5”
N 160 17’ 41.8” E 760 22’ 41.5”
N 160 17’ 39.5” E 760 22’ 43.2”
N 160 17’ 36” E 760 22’ 44.2”
N 160 17’ 30.7” E 760 22’ 47.3”
N 160 17’ 27.5” E 760 22’ 48.9”
N 160 17’ 24.6” E 760 22’ 50.6”
N 160 17’ 20.9” E 760 22’ 52.4”
N 160 17’ 18.2” E 760 22’ 54.4”
N 160 17’ 14.7” E 760 22’ 56.1”
N 160 17’ 12.5” E 760 22’ 57.4”
N 160 17’ 8.7” E 760 22’ 59.9”
N 160 17’ 49.1” E 760 22’ 49.5”
N 160 17’ 47.0” E 760 22’ 52.2”
N 160 17’ 44.9” E 760 22’ 55.6”
19. Shorapura B. Gudi to -- 15 N 160 43’ 49.4” E 760 48’ 0.9”
. Hatigudi Road. Km. N 160 36.6’ 6.3” E 760 52’ 54”
20. Ahorapur. Dornalli. -- 25 Ha. -- -- --
21. Gulbarga. Sonna Cross to -- 9 Km. -- N 170 00’ 62” E 760 38’ 77”
Madewali
Road.
22. Yadgir Hattikuni. 58 20 Ha. 4 N 160 24’ 00” E 770 15’ 10.7”
N 160 55’ 55.9” E 770 11’ 14”
N 160 53’ 55.8” E 770 11’ 15,6”
N 160 52’ 02” E 770 11’ 12.9”
23. Yadgir Tatalgera. -- 10 Ha. 1 N 150 43’ 36.8” E 740 24’ 57.5”
24. Yadgir. K.Shahpur. 26 25 Ha. 5 N 160 51’ 57.6” E 770 13’ 30.6”
N 160 52’ 1.3” E 770 13’ 29.0”
N 160 52’ 6.5” E 770 13’ 43.2’
N 160 52’ 10.6” E 770 13’ 39.8”
N 160 51’ 59.8” E 770 13’ 10.9”
25. Yadgir. S.Hosalli. 22 15 Ha. 3 N 160 51’ 23.3” E 770 14’ 48.8”
N 160 51’ 24.2” E 770 14’ 57.5”
N 160 51’ 23.2” E 770 15’ 03.7”
26. Chittapur. Belgera. 109 & 20 Ha. 4 N 160 56’ 30.6” E 770 10’ 23.7”
110. N 160 56’ 39.4” E 770 10’ 24.6”
N 160 56’ 27.5 E 770 10’ 20.3”
N 160 56’ 26.3” E 770 00’ 17.2”
27. Chittapur. Belgera Block 109 & 50 Ha. 10 N 160 56’ 0.52” E 770 10’ 02.6
I & II. 110. N 160 55’ 46.2” E 770 09’ 47.8”
N 160 55’ 41.5 E 770 09’ 46.4”
N 160 55’ 38.2” E 770 09’ 45.4”
N 160 55’ 31.9” E 770 09’ 43.9”
N 160 56’ 40.4” E 770 10’ 40.6”
N 150 43’ 36.8” E 740 24’ 57.5”
N 160 56’ 28.3” E 770 10’ 37.4”
N 160 56’ 25.2” E 770 10’ 33.1”
N 160 56’ 23.1” E 770 10’27.4”
317
Table details of sample plots and their GPS Co-ordinates in Gulbarga Division:
Gulbarga Social Forestry Division:
Sl. Survey Area
Range Location Sample Lat. Long. Remarks
No. No. (ha.)
plots North East
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 S.F. Korvi- 3 1 17o 22’ 56.9” 77o 15’ 44.9”
Chincholi Kuddalli road
2 S.F. Kuddalli 3 1 17o 23’ 10.1” 77o 14’ 05.4”
Chincholi Nawadgi
3 S.F. Neelur 7 1 17o 31’ 09” 77o 42’ 41”
Afzalpur
4 S.F. Ganagpur 15 1 17o 20’ 12” 76o 31’ 50.7”
Afzalpur
5 S.F. Kallur 10 1 17o 14’ 36” 77o 29’ 04”
Afzalpur
6 S.F. Village 10 1 17o 08’ 50.1” 76o 26’ 24.1”
Afzalpur Gaonthana
7 S.F. Antoor 10 1 17o 14’ 42.2” 76o 31’ 11.9”
Afzalpur
8 S.F. Tellur to 3 1 17o 10’ 47” 76o 29’ 40”
Afzalpur Batagere road
9 S.F. Mannur 9 1 17o 36’ 01” 77o 40’ 01”
Afzalpur
10 S.F. Kinisulthan- 5 1 17o 37’ 20.9” 76o 36’ 56.6”
Aland Janasagar
11 S.F. Kadaganchi to 5 1 17o 26’ 17” 76o 37’ 23.4”
Aland wadi
12 S.F. Khajokri 6.75 1 17o 14’ 24.2” 76o 34’ 29.4”
Aland
13 S.F. Mandewali to 3 1 17o 00’ 27.1” 76o 31’ 47.9”
Jevargi Kurnalli cananl
14 S.F. Bilwara Block 16 -- --
Jevergi
15 S.F. Sonna canal to 6 -- --
Jevergi Nelogi
16 S.F. Ankalaga 15 1 17o 06’ 94.9” 76o 29’ 27.3”
Jevergi Block
17 S.F. Mangalore to 6 1 16o 32’ 4.4” 76o 40’ 11.3”
Shorapur Kanalli
18 S.F. Kavadimatti 10 2 16o 28’ 54” 76o 46’ 14.5”
Shorapur 16o 28’ 54.8” 76o 46’ 10.2”
19 S.F. Hunasagi to 7.5 1 16o 27’ 25.6” 76o 30’ 44.3”
Shorapur Malnoor
20 S.F. 4.7 1 16o 27’ 19.8” 76o 31’ 30.0”
Hunasagi town
Shorapur
21 S.F. Kembavi 10 1 16o 38’ 38.2” 76o 31’ 35.7”
Shorapur Town
22 S.F. Kanagonda 7.55 1 16o 25’ 33.7” 76o 32’ 3.9”
Shorapur Block
23 S.F. Fathepur Block 20 4 16o 38’ 35.9” 76o 31’ 5”
Shorapur 16o 38’ 35” 76o 31’ 2.7”
16o 38’ 33.9” 76o 30’ 59.7”
16o 38’ 32.4” 76o 30’ 55.4”
24 S.F. Ningammapalli 4.4 17o 5’ 10.1” 77o 25’ 51.6”
Sadam Block
25 S.F. Kodla 30 4 17o 01’ 39.8” 77o 55’ 56.4”
Sadam 17o 01’ 28.4” 77o 15’ 46.9”
318
17o 01’ 22.4” 77o 15’ 26.1”
17o 01’ 22.2” 77o 15’ 26.7”
26 S.F. Kolkunda 5 1 16o 59’ 5.5” 77o 19’ 34.5”
Sadam Block
27 S.F. 7.2 1 16o 56’ 23.6” 77o 18’ 32.2”
Dugnoor Block
Sadam
28 S.F. Gounhalli 11 2 16o 59’ 21.4” 77o 15’ 13.9”
Sadam Block 16o 59’ 21.9” 77o 15’ 16.4”
29 S.F. Bennur Block- 7 1 17o 14’ 9” 77o 00’ 45.6”
Chitapur II
30 S.F. Kondhur Block 30 6 16o 29’ 6.2” 77o 00’ 10.2”
Chitapur I & II 16o 59’ 08.9” 77o 00’ 06.2”
16o 59’ 09.1” 77o 00’ 01.1”
16o 59’ 10.8” 76o 59’ 10.8”
16o 59’ 13.6” 76o 59’ 55.8”
16o 59’ 16.5” 76o 59’ 88.5”
31 S.F. Kalagi to 5 -- --
Chitapur Sugur Road
32 S.F. Bennur Block- 12 2 17o 14’ 51.5” 77o 01’ 1.4”
Chitapur I 17o 14’ 49.6” 77o 05’ 04.0”
33 S.F. PetSirur - 6 1 17o 14’ 42.1” 77o 00’ 4.5”
Chitapur Sanghvi Road
34 S.F. Kundloor 5 16o 34’ 97.4” 77o 15’ 35.3”
Yadgir Village &
Road side
35 S.F. Toranatippa 10 2 16o 39’ 23.9” 77o 22’ 59.3”
Yadgir Block 16o 39’ 29.9” 77o 22’ 58.3”
36 S.F. 20 1 16o 47’ 42.9” 77o 25’ 51.6”
Mudnal
Yadgir
37 S.F. Rampur Block 10 4 16o 47’ 40.3” 77o 05’ 40.5”
Yadgir 16o 47’ 46.9” 77o 05’ 43.7”
16o 47’ 42.9” 77o 05’ 46.6”
16o 47’ 93.1” 77o 05’ 50.0”
38 S.F. Mylapur to 4 1 16o 44’ 38.0” 77o 14’ 24.6”
Yadgir Halagera
39 S.F. Neelahalli 4.5 1 16o 35’ 59.7” 77o 16’ 33.2”
Yadgir Cross to
Rachanahalli
Raichur
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Location and Physical Aspects:
The Raichur District has two forest divisions, namely Raichur Territorial Division, and
Social forestry Division. Raichur District lies between 150 30' and 160 34' North Latitude and
between 760 30' and 770 30' East Longitude. The district is located in the northern part of the
Karnataka state, covering geographical area of 8, 38,600.00 Ha.
The present Raichur forest division comprises of 5 Talukas i.e. Raichur, Manvi,
Deodurga, Lingasugur and Sindhanoor taluka. The Division is surrounded by Gulbarga
District in North, Mahaboobnagar District of Andhra Pradesh in East, Bellary District in
South and Koppal and Bagalkot District in West.
The major portion of the division consists of the catchment area of the Krishna River
and its main tributary, the Tungabhadra River. The elevation varies from 500 m to 700 m
above Mean Sea Level (MSL).
The advent of South West monsoon in June marks the commencement of the rainy
season. The average rainfall is 500 mm. The Taluka wise rainfall data for 10 years from 1990
to 2000 is given in Table 1
319
Table 1. Taluka wise rainfall data of different talukas in Raichur Dist for 10
years from 1990 to 2000
SL Taluka
Year Average
No Raichur Manvi Deodurga Lingasugur Sindhanoor
1 1991 622.00 719.10 709.20 737.00 519.80 661.42
2 1992 428.60 609.40 779.00 556.10 828.90 640.40
3 1993 800.80 739.40 632.60 780.70 1046.30 799.96
4 1994 687.60 640.20 631.80 564.00 581.70 621.06
5 1995 663.20 533.10 622.30 563.55 488.20 574.07
6 1996 734.40 571.10 892.50 676.60 600.60 695.04
7 1997 342.50 335.70 429.50 446.70 248.90 360.66
8 1998 906.40 706.60 993.00 951.00 744.40 860.28
9 1999 659.00 456.20 620.10 472.00 446.60 530.78
10 2000 607.30 532.80 709.90 612.70 437.50 580.04
1.2 Climatic conditions
The climate of the district is generally dry and healthy. The main seasons
follow the pattern for the Deccan; the hot or summer begins in mid February and extends
upto early June, the wet or rainy season starts in June with the onset of South-West monsoon
and extends upto the end of September when the weather is cool and damp; the Northeast
monsoon season covers the months of October and November and the cold and dry season
lasts from December to the middle of February. Even during the monsoon months the
average humidity is much below the saturation level. Most parts of the district are exposed to
strong winds almost throughout the year.
1.3 Forest Types and Vegetation.
The forests of Raichur division consist of the following types of forests as per the
classification of Sir Hary G. Champion and S.K.Seth in “A revised survey of the Forest of
India”
i) 5A/C3- Southern tropical dry mixed deciduous Forest.
ii) 5DS- Southern tropical dry deciduous scrub.
iii) 6A/C1- Southern tropical thorn forests.
iv) 6A/DS2- Southern Euphorbia scrub.
Floristic Composition:
1) Anogeissus latifolia (Dindal)
2) Chloroxylon swietenia(Mashiwal)
3) Hardwickia binata (Kamara)
4) Bosewellia serrata (Salai)
5) Soymida febrifuga (Somi)
6) Acacia Catachu (Kachu)
7) Darbergia paniculata (Pachali)
8) Mitragyna parviflora (Kalam)
9) Cassia fistuna (Kakke)
10) Diospyros melanoxylon(Thupra)
11) Albezzia amara (Tugli)
12) Sterculia urens (Balnor)
13) Moringa tinctoria (Kadukumbala)
The vegetation in the forests of the district consists of mainly Chloroxylon
swietenia, Albizzia amara, Cassia fistula, Diospyros melanoxylan, Wrightia tinctoria,
Azadirachta indica, Acacia catechu, Acacia leucophloea and Santalum albam. The tree
growth comprising in these forests are generally stunted and often bushy.
In agricultural fields, the farmers generally grow Azadirachta indica,
Pongamia pinata, Zizyphus jujuba, Mangifera indica, Eucalyptus spp, Tamarindus indica and
320
Acacia arabica. The farmers in this region also started planting Tectona grandis, Eucalyptus
spp and fruit crops like Mango, Sapota, Lime and improved Zizyphus jujuba. Bund planting
of Azadirachta indica (Neem) is very common in black cotton soil areas as well as in red
sandy loam soil areas of the district.
1.4 Forest area and Forest Administration:
The district has 80806.30 ha of forest area, which amounts to roughly 12.14 per cent
of geographical area. In this district one territorial and one Social forestry division are there,
each headed by an officer of Deputy Conservator of Forests rank. Taluka/ range wise forest
area is given in Table-1.
Table-1. Range/Taluka wise forest area in Raichur District
Sl. Range/Taluk Geographical Forest area (ha) No. of Percent forest
No. area (ha) villages area
1 Raichur
151415.00 4248.85 160 2.81
(Raichur taluka)
2 Deodurga
150979.00 12745.92 188 8.44
(Deodurga taluk)
3 Lingasugur (Lingasugur taluk) 194010.00 12438.01 191 6.41
4 Manvi
339439.00 5020.78 344 1.48
(Manvi and Sindhanur taluk)
TOTAL 835843.00 34453.56 883 4.12
Total 653339.25 80806.34 605 12.14
The forest administration in the district is given bellow in Table-2.

Table-2 Organizational set-up of Forest Department in Raichur District.
Name of the division Name of the sub-division Name of the ranges
Raichur Territorial division Raichur 1. Raichur
2. Deodurga
3. Lingasugur
4. Manvi.
Raichur Social Forestry Division Raichur 1. Raichur
2. Deodurga
3. Lingasugur
4. Manvi
5. Sindhanur
Source: Working plan of Raichur for the years 2003-2013
2.0 Method of selection of spots for evaluation:
The evaluation team was formed vide OM No. APCCF (EWPRT)/1-32/Eval/07-08 dated
08-10-2007 of Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (EWPRT), Bangalore, with
a direction to undertake evaluation of all forestry works in Gulbarga Circle. The committee
Forests, (Research), Bellary, Conservator of Forests, Belgaum, Deputy Conservator of
Forests SF Division, Belgaum and Deputy Conservator of Forests, Bijapur as the team
members. The committees’ tasks and method to be followed for evaluation are given in the
above said OM issued by the APCCF (EWPRT), Bangalore.
To begin with list of all works carried out in all plan and non-plan schemes including
plantations, works other than plantations and list of seedlings distribution. etc., were obtained
in the format-“A”, “D” and “G” from the concerned Deputy Conservator of Forests for the
period 2004-05 to 2006-2007 financial years by the team leader.
The method adopted for selection of spots is as follows:
• The selection of works for evaluation was based on number of spots.
• The committee adopted a minimum of 10 per cent sampling intensity for selection of
plantations and works other than plantations sites for evaluation. Random sampling
was adopted for selection of sites for evaluation. Accordingly, the team leader
321
selected the plantations for evaluation. List of such selected plantations and other than
plantations is given bellow in the Table 3(a) and Table 3 (b).
• Spots were selected in such a way that at least one work spot was selected in each
range. And also care has been taken that in the process of random selection, spots
have been selected in all schemes and in all models.
• For assessment of survival percentage in each plantation spot, 2 per cent sampling
intensity was adopted for laying out sample spots. While laying out the sample plots
instructions were given to the field staff to follow the instructions given by the
APCCF (EWPRT). The sample plots should be of size 31.62 m X 31.62 m on the base
line drawn across the plantation starting from the NE corner of the plantation. Such
laid plots are to be marked on the ground by lime so that team can easily locate the
sample plot.
• As prescribed in the evaluation guidelines, GPS instrument is used to record latitude
and longitude of individual sample plots in the plantation before recording the
survival of the seedlings planted.
• The basic details such as expenditure, species planted, number of pits/trenches, size of
pit/trench, protection measures provided, and other details as per the formats “C”,
“E”, “F”, “H” and “I” were collected from the division office records.
• Then the field work was under taken from 24-11-2008 to 27-11-2008.
• The following officers’ assistance was requisitioned to assist in evaluation of Raichur
District plantations.
Sl
Name of the Officer Designation of the officer
No
1 Mr.Manikantan, IFS Deputy Conservator of Forests, Bagalkot
Division, Bagalkot
2 Mr. Srinivas Rao.S Assistant Conservator of Forests Raibag Sub

Division, Raibag
3 Mr. S. Kallolikar Assistant Conservator of Forests & TA to Conservator of

Forests, Belgaum Circle.
Table 3(a): Details of plantation area, total number of spots and number of
randomly selected spots for Raichur Forest Division.
No. of spots selected
Sl. Year of Total no.
Area (ha) at. random @ 10% for Remarks
No planting of spots
evaluation
1 2004-05 806.00 28 9 Out of 28 spots 9 spots were selected under FDA,
GUA, CO(KSHIP), KFDF, etc., list.
2 2005-06 688.50 24 3 Out of 24 spots 3 were of FDA, KSFMBC, GUA,
CO, DDF, etc., scheme.
3 2006-07 430.00 24 5 Out of 24 spots 5 were of FDA, KSFMBC, GUA,
CO, KSHIP, 12th Finance, etc., Scheme.
Total 1924.50 76 17
Table 3(b): Details of year-wise plantation area, total number of spots and number of
randomly selected spots for Social Forestry Division, Raichur.
No. of spots
Sl. Year of Total no. selected at. random
Area (ha) Remarks
No planting of spots @ 10% for
evaluation
1 2004-05 56.00 5 5 spots from SGRY (ZP/TP) Scarcity relief
works, JBIC schemes are selected
2 2005-06 48.50 6 6 spots from SGRY (ZP/TP) Scarcity relief
works, JBIC schemes are selected.
322
3 2006-07 78.00 7 7 are selected from the list.
Total 182.50 18
3.0 Field work

The evaluation team visited 34 plantations (in which 17 plantations are of territorial
division and 18 plantations are of social forestry divisions). The committee started inspection
of territorial and social forestry divisions works simultaneously. (By evaluating Territorial
ranges of Lingasugur, Manvi, Sindnoor and Raichur, Social forestry ranges of Lingasugur,
Deodurga Manvi, Sindnoor, and Raichur). The committee has spent 4 days in this district
starting from 24-11-2008 to 27-11-2008. In each spot the committee members assessed
performance of different species, quality of works carried out and general condition of the
plantation. In the laid out sample plots the details on number of plants planted, number of
surviving plants and growth details of the different species were collected. Apart from taking
GPS reading of the sample plot. The plantation wise GPS readings are given in Annexure I
The committee filled up the forms prescribed for the evaluation in the field, after assessing
above said parameters.
4.0 Results of Evaluation
4.1 Evaluation of Plantations
4.1.1 Survival Percentage: Raichur Forest Division.
percentage of plantations in Raichur forest divisions (Territorial) was calculated. While
weighted overall survival percentage for Raichur divisions (Territorial) is found to be 46.37
per cent.
4.1.2 Survival percentage: Raichur Social Forestry Division
percentage of plantations in Raichur Social Forest division calculated. While assessing the
survival percentage for Raichur Social Forests Division is found to be 36.15 per cent.
The overall survival percentage of seedlings planted for the entire district is below 50
per cent. The details of individual plantation survival percentage are given in the Table-4
4.1.3 Plantation model wise performance:
of planting models were also compiled so as to arrive at continuation of the said models in
the district or not. For this purpose, plantation models are broadly classified based on the land
preparation and the protection etc in to block planting, natural regeneration, school planting
and roadside planting. Planting model wise survival percentage of both Territorial and Social
Forestry Divisions are given in the following Table-5(a) & Table-5(b).
Table 5(a): Details of planting model wise survival percentage for Raichur Forest
Divisions (Territorial).
No. of Extent
Sl Method of land Seedling Survival
Planting model plantations (Ha)
No preparation bag size percentage
evaluated
1 Block plantations Pit Small 7 268 43.54
2 Block plantations Trench Small 5 85 53.38
3 Natural Regeneration Only protection Seed sowing 2 100 -
4 Road side Pit Big 1 4.5 65.44
5 School plantations Pit - - - -
6 Town planting Pit Big 1 4 65.09
323
Table 5(b): Details of planting model wise survival percentage for Raichur Social Forest
Division.
No. of Extent
Sl Method of land Seedling Survival
Planting model plantations (Ha)
No preparation bag size percentage
evaluated
1 Block plantations Pit Small 10 112 30.67
2 Block plantations Trench Small 1 10 56.32
3 Road side Pit Big 2 12 48.63
4 School plantations Pit Big 1 20 70.00
5 Demonstration plot Pit Big/Small
3 6 4.69
(Farmers land)
6 Seed sowing Sowing - 1 10 0.00
small seedling with the exception of demonstration plots raised in farmers land. Roadside,
school and town plantations have more than 50 percent survival percentage than block
plantations. Among the block plantations raised with trenches formed either manually or by
machines have slightly better survival than the pit plantations.
By looking at the above tables, it is necessary to use tall seedling grown in bigger
bags for raising block plantations also depending upon the cost norms of the given schemes.
Possibly, these schools, roadside and town plantations might have got better care than the
block plantations by way of watering, protection due to the fact being near to urban area.
4.1.4 Qualitative aspects of plantations.
suitable site is selected or not apart from giving proper protection to the plantation. In this
direction, all plantations evaluated are classified in to very good, good, poor and failed based
on survival percentage. Reasons for the failure broadly fall into inappropriate site selection,
species selection, protection and model selection apart from adverse climatic, edaphic and
biotic factor, which are beyond the staff control. Based on the above criteria, plantations
evaluated are grouped and are given in Table 6.
Performance of species
In general, it is local indigenous species like Azadiractha indica, Pongamia pinatam.
Tapasi, are performing well wherever proper protection is given to the plantations in the
block plantation models in red soil areas of Lingasugur, Raichur and Sindanur taluks. On
roadside plantations it is again Azadiractha indica, Tapasi, Raintree, Arali and Sissoo are
faring better in almost all talukas.
In natural forests of the district, it is Kakke and Bore growth is very good and efforts
should be made to include these species in the nursery to plant in forest block plantations. In
the past in many block plantations and roadside plantations, Sissoo was planted apart from
Eucalyptus. In such areas, Sissoo regeneration through root suckers is seen on large scale in
some of the plantations in Lingasugur. Since, the species is suitable for both poor and black
cotton soils, it is may be taken up for planting only in open and roadside plantations in black
soil talukas of the district. The details of performance of different species are given in
Table-7
4.3 Site Selection:
In Raichur Forest Division out of 16 plantations evaluated, site selection is improper
in only two plantations and in rest of the plantations site selection is proper. In case of Social
Forestry Division out of 18 plantations evaluated, site selection is improper in five
plantations. The ACF and RFO should take special interest in selection of site for the models
prescribed in different schemes depending on the objectives of the scheme. For none of the
plantations site specific plan is drawn which is mandatory while sanctioning the estimate. The
climatic and edaphic conditions being harsh in the district, the site specific plan would go a
long way in making good plantations.
324
4.4 Model Selection:
Model selection is found improper in 2 plantations out of 16 plantations
evaluated in Raichur Forest Division and in remaining 14 plantations it is proper. In
case of
Table 6 : Summary of qualitative aspects of different plantations as observed by the
evaluation committee in Raichur District.
No. of No. of No. of
No. of
Grouping of plantations based on plantations plantations plantations
plantations
survival percentage (No. of where site where where
where choice
plantations in each grade) selection selection of protection
Sl. of species
Range was model aspects
No
Satisf Very
Failed Poor Good Im Im Im Im
actory good Pro Pro Pro Pro
Pro Pro Pro Pro
20 – 40 - 60 - 80- per per per per
0 – 19 per per per per
39 59 79 100
Teritorial Division
1 Raichur. - 1 - 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1
2 Deodurga - 1 2 2 - 5 - 5 - 5 - 5 -
3 Lingasugur 1 - 1 - - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
4 Manvi - - 3 1 - 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1
Total 1 2 6 4 1 11 3 11 3 11 3 11 3
Social Forestry Division
1 Raichur. 1 - 2 1 - 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1
2 Deodurga 3 - 1 - - 3 1 3 1 3 1 - 4
3 Lingasugur 2 - - 2 - 3 1 4 - 3 1 2 2
4 Manvi 1 - 2 - - 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2
5 Sindhanoor 1 1 1 - - 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1
Total 8 1 6 3 - 13 5 14 4 13 5 8 10
Grand Total 9 3 12 7 1 25 8 26 7 25 8 20 13
Social Forestry Division model selection was improper in 3 plantations out of 18
plantations in remaining 15 plantations it is proper. Since no site specific plan is prepared
before taking up of advance work, it is seen apparently lack of involvement of higher level
officers, RFO and ACF in the selection of the suitable model for the site. Had there been
involvement of the higher level technical officers in planning of the plantation estimates,
plantations survival would have been better.
4.5 Choice of Species:
Choice of species is improper in 2 plantations out of 16 plantations where the
evaluation team visited in Raichur Forest Division. Site with shallow soils with boulders
have been ripped with bulldozers and planted with Sissoo, Anjan, Neem and Tapasi.
Otherwise such refractive sites are fit to be planted with Agave. In some block plantations of
territorial division, Tecoma is also planted which could have been avoided. Most of the above
said species have failed to establish. Hence, many plantations are failure. In case of Social
Forestry Division, is more than 1/3 rd of plantations species selection is improper.
4.6 Protection aspects:
In Raichur Forest Division, out of 16 plantations evaluated, protection is not proper in
2 plantations. In some places CPT is not completely covered making way for live stock to
enter the plantation. One side CPT is done leaving other 3 sides open. In many places
barbed wire fencing is done, but due to termite attack to fence posts, the fence as become
ineffective. In some schemes like FDA due to limit on cost norm, protection measures like
CPT or fencing are not done. In most of the FDA plantations it is the improper protection and
lack of participation of VFC members which has lead to low survival of plants. Wherever
protection is ensured the plantations have come up well with very good survival of plants in
spite of adverse climatic and edaphic conditions prevailing in the district.
325
In case of Social Forestry division, in about 60 per cent of plantations evaluated,
protection was improper. For roadside plantations no brush wood fencing is provided.
4.7 General condition of plantations:
The team decided to classify the general condition of plantation based on survival
percentage, growth of plants and performance of different species during the field visit into
very good, good, poor and failed. Accordingly the plantations evaluated are graded. Out of
34 plantations evaluated in the district around 3 per cent of plantations fall in to the category
of very good, 21 per cent in good, 35 per cent in satisfactory and 41 per cent falls into the
category of poor and failed plantations. The details are given in Table –7.
4.8 Formation of Village Forest Committees (VFC):
In Raichur Forest Division, out of 12 plantations inspected, in all 12 villages VFC are
formed. Micro plans are also written for 11 VFC. In one case microplan has to be written. In
all most all VFCs entry point activities are carried out in the FDA scheme. The summary of
Range wise details of VFCs formed for the plantations evaluated are given in Table-8.
Table –8 The Range wise details of VFCs formed in plantations evaluated in Raichur
Division.
Sl.No. Range VFC
Formed Not formed Written Not Written Carried out Not carried out
Raichur Forest Division
1 Raichur 3 - 3 - 3 -
2 Deodurga 4 - 4 - 4 -
3 Manvi 2 - 2 - 2 -
4 Lingasugur 3 - 2 1 3 -
Total 12 - 11 1 12 -
Social Forestry Division

1 Raichur SF - - - - - -
2 Deodurga SF - - - - - -
3 Manvi SF - - - - - -
4 Lingasugur SF - - - - - -
5 Sindhanoor SF - - - - - -
Total 12 - 11 1 12 -
4.9 Record maintenance (Plantation Journal, FNB, Estimate etc;)

Plantation Journals are maintained in the proper Performa and are updated. Copies of
estimates and FNB were collected and are verified vis-à-vis field operations, after visiting the
plantations selected for evaluation. It was found in the field that in almost all cases it is in-
conformity with the information furnished. Only in few cases the team could not assess the
pit/ trench size and maintenance operations in the field as due to rain most of the pits/
trenches or soil workings have smoothened. For all of the plantations the journals are written
completely. The details such as model of plantation spacing, species planted and maintenance
operations are recorded in the plantation journal. The summary of observations of the team
with regards to the maintenance of records is given in the Table-9.
326
Table-7: Performance of different Species in plantation of Raichur District
Year
Plantation General
of Area Surviv
Sl. No Location & Scheme Model Species planted condition of
planti (Ha) al %
Model plantation
ng
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 12
1 2004- Nelkolla FDA 36 Pit 52.70 Honge, Sirus, Jatropa, Good
05 ANR planting Tugali, Betla, Kakke, Jali,
Aala, & Tapasi
2 2004- Galag ANR FDA 60 Pit 50.57 Honge, Bage Neem, Tapasi Good
05 planting Glyricidia & Seemetangadi
3 2004- Chandrabanda FDA 20 Trench 66.87 Neelgairi Honge, Jatropa, Good

05 AR Area
4 2004- Halabhavi FDA 20 Pit 0.00 Honge, Jatropa, Tapasi, Failed
05 AR planting Neelagiri, Kakke & plantation
Seemetangadi
5 2004- Machanoor FDA 20 Trench 0.00 Honge, Tapasi Failed
05 MFP cum pit Kamara, Jatropa, plantation
planting Kakke, Batla, &
Seemetangadi.
6 2004- Chandrabanda FDA 20 Pit 28.87 Kamara, Poor
05 Silvi planting Neema, Bage,
Sisso, Glyricidia
Jatropa, & Arali,
7 2004- Kotekal Silvi FDA 20 Pit 53.00 Honge, Sirus, Jatropa, Good
05 planting Tagali, Batla, Kakke, & Jali.
8 2005-06 Galag ANR FDA 72 Pit 26.00 Seemetangadi Tapasi, Poor

planting Honge, & Jatropa.
9 2006-07 Talawardoddi FDA 40 Pit 58.47 Honge, Tapasi, Good

ANR planting Kakke, Seemetangadi,
Jatropa, & Sitaphal.
10 2004-05 Sindanur GUA 4 Pit 44.75 Neem, Honge Arali, Basari, Satisfactory
Town planting Raintree, Basavanpada,
Petlorform, Bage, &
Gulmohar,
11 2005-06 Adkalagudda JBIC-II 60 Pit cum Honge, Semetangadi, Good
(m-01) Thali Sitaphal, Neem, Glyricidia,
Etc.,
12 2005-06 Kyadigera CO 10 Trench 64.00 Seemetangdi Good

Other Planting Honge, Neelgiri,
Works Jatropa, Kamara &
Glyricidia.
13 2006-07 Undraldoddi-I JBIC-II 20 Pit cum 85.64 Glyricidia, Very good
(M-04) Trench Seemetangadi
Planting Honge, Tapasi.
Tecome, Sihi Hunase
14 2006-07 Gadagi (M- JBIC-II 40 Thalis Batla, Glyricidia Regeneration
01) Kakke, jail, improved
Jatropa, Tankal
327
15 2006-07 Manvi Town CO 4.50 Pit 65.44 Honge, Tapasi, Bevu, Good
to Nandihal (KSHIP planting Gulmohar. Raintree, Sissoo.
Camp ) Arali, Peltoform
16 2006-07 Guntagol 12th 15 Trench 57.00 Seemetangadi, Tecoma, Satisfactory

Finance Kakke.
Tapasi,
17 2004-05 Kalmala SGRY 6 Pit 55.00 Honge, Bevu, Arali, Sissum satisfactory
Block ZP Planting
18 2004-05 Arkera Block SGRY 10 Pit 10.00 Bevu, Basari, Aala, Arali. Failed
ZP Planting plantation
19 2004-05 Gunjalli Tank SGRY 20 Pit 0.00 Tapasi, honge, Bambbo, Failed
TP Planting Glyricidia, & Kari jail. plantation
20 2004-05 Hokrani Scarcity 10 Pit Honge, Mutaga, Kakke, Seed sowing
Relief Planting Bagi, Sissum, Kari jail.
Works Banni. Etc
21 2004-05 Hokrani JBIC 10 Pit Guava, Mango, Honge, poor
Planting Neelgiri, Nugge, Holematti,
Casurina
22 2005-06 Gudadanal- SGRY 6 Pit 60.00 Neem, Aala, Honge, good
Hatti Cross ZP Planting
23 2005-06 Maliyabad SGRY 15 Pit 61.00 Bevu, Honge, Basre, Jatropa, good
Blcok TP Planting Glyricidia, Tapasi, Ala,
24 2005-06 Bassapur SGRY 12.50 Pit 0.00 Neem, honge, Tapsasi, Failed
Block TP Planting Mutaga, kamara, plantation
25 2005-06 Bailmerched KSFM 10 Trenches 56.32 Honge, Glyricidia Jatropa, satisfactory

Block BC
26 2005-06 Aranalli KSFM 3 Pit 9.38 Mango, Neelgiri, Glyricidia Failed
(Demonstratio BC Planting plantation
n Plot)
27 2005-06 Mudgal KSFM 2 Pit 0.00 Mango, Failed
BC Planting plantation
28 2006-07 Jamgaldinni- NREG 6 Pit 57.66 Bevu, Honge, Sissoo satisfactory
Puchaldinni A Planting
Road
29 2006-07 Navalkal NREG 10 Pit 55.00 Honge, Jali, Sisso, Tapasi. satisfactory
Block A Planting
30 2006-07 Kalmgera NREG 7.50 Pit 8.50 Seemetangadi, Jatropa, Failed
Block A Planting Honge, plantation
31 2006-07 Alkod- NREG 6 Pit 40.00 Bevu, Honge, Tapasi, Sisso, poor
Ulagabandi A Planting
road
32 2006-07 Adavinabhavi NREG 10 Pit 70.00 Neem, Basare, Neerale, good
Moragi Desai A Planting Tapasi, Badami, Honge,
School Arali.
33 2006-07 Kalmango NREG 15 Pit Ficus, Bevu, Honge, satisfactory
Blcok A Planting
34 2006-07 Vengalapur KSFM 1 Pit 0.00 Mango, Teak, Jatropa, Failed
(Demonstartio BC Planting Honge, Neelgiri. plantation
n Plot)
Note: Survival percentage between 0% to 19%– Failed, 20% to 39% Poor, 40% to 59%-
Satisfactory, 60% to 79%-Good, 80% to 100%- Very good
328
Table-9: Number of cases where deviations are there between the information furnished by
the Deputy Conservator of Forests Office and in the field
Model of Species
Pit/trench size Spacement Maintenance Plantation journal Rem
Sl. plantation planted
Range arks
No. Disag- Disag- Disag- Disag- Disag- Partially Not
Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Written
ree ree ree ree ree written written
Raichur Forest Division
1 Raichur 2 1 3 - 3 - 2 1 2 1 3 - -
2 Deodurga 5 - 5 - 5 - 5 - 5 - 5 - -
3 Manvi 4 - 4 - 4 - 3 1 4 - 4 - -
4 Lingasugur 3 1 4 - 3 1 2 2 4 - 4 - -
Total 14 2 16 15 1 12 4 15 1 16 - -
Raichur Social Forestry Division
1 Raichur SF 3 1 4 - 4 - 4 - 4 - 4 - -
2 Deodurga SF 3 - 3 - 3 - 3 - 1 2 3 - -
3 Manvi SF 4 - 4 - 4 - 4 - 2 2 4 - -
Lingasugur
4 SF 4 - 4 - 4 - 4 - 2 2 3 - -
Sindhanoor
5 SF 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 3 - -
Total 16 2 16 2 16 2 17 1 10 8 18
5.0 Evaluation of other works.
There is considerable progress in IGA activities in VFC. The IGA amount released to VFC,
has been issued through loan to SHGs. Repayment of by installments is satisfactory. More of
training to SHGs with regards to income generating activates which is more viable and
economically sustainable is needed
5.1 Soil & moisture conservation measures.
The soil and moisture conservation techniques adopted are worth document in this report.
In model 1, and 2 of KSFMBC project, money provided for SMC works is thoughtfully used for
the purpose. Percolation trenches at regular intervals and percolation pits across nalas done in
the natural regeneration models found to be very effective as seen in the field. Just few days
before our visit, the district received sporadic rains in Lingasugur, Deodurga and Raichur and we
could see water conservation in the perculation pits. More of agave gapping could have been
done on mounds. Sowing of Glyricidia and Cassia siamia and planning of Jatropa and
eucalyptus have come up well.
5.2 Seed sowings
Thalies in Model 1 are not effective. Attempts to dig shallow trenches and sowing on the
mounds yielded good results. Glyricidia and Cassia siamia sown in Model 1 and FDA-AR is
promising.
5.3 Seedlings distribution
No seedlings distribution spot has been selected for evaluation in the district.
5.4 Building maintenance:
5.5 Logging works
329
6.0 Conclusion
• On observation of older plantations of raised during 1st phase of JBIC, Kamara has
done extremely well. More emphasis should be given to Kamara and Seethapal along
with species which are found performing better in the plantations of the district as
given in the report and should form the core species in the afforestation works in the
districts.
• Tree patta scheme implementations for roadside plantations are lacking and are need
to be implemented to ensure effective protection of roadside plantations.
• Though protection measures are taken in varying degrees in the plantations, the same
are not found effective in some of the plantations. Hence, it is felt that protection
measures should be strengthened to make it really effective irrespective of schemes.
• Afforestation programme should be strictly undertaken based on the carrying capacity
of the land to ensure best land use by adopting site specific planning.
• More emphasis should be given to soil and water conservation woks in the district.
The watershed should be carefully delineated and treated in the integrated manner.
• It is observed in all the cases visited by the team, the extent of plantation area is
reported on the basis of number of trenches/pits but as espacement of pits/trenches
varies from place to place it is essential to survey the area before reporting the extent
of plantation.
• Institutional building i.e.; strengthening of VFC and training to staff would go a long
way in protecting forests of the district. In this direction, EPA amount if FDA
programme is of great help to our staff at section and beat level in establishing good
relation with the villagers. IGA activities in SHG are restricted to animal husbandry.
More emphasis should be given to train SHG’s with more viable and economically
sustainable activities.
• An important observation which needs to be mentioned in the report is the effect of
additional irrigation potential created in the recent past on our forestland and the
vegetation. Our forest lands are under terrific pressure from the cultivators along
newly formed canals. At any point of time these lands may fall into the hands of
unauthorized cultivators. Hence, it is high time to consolidate our forest boundaries.
Apart from the encroachments, due to seepage of water from the canals in some parts
of Lingasagur and Deodurga taluks, gradual change of vegetation is apparent. Over a
period of time native species might be displaced with weeds and other less useful
species. This would result in salinity of the soils in the forest areas.
Sd/-
Chief Conservator Forests,
The Evaluation Team
Chief Conservator Forests, Head Quarters .
Conservator of Forests, Belgaum Circle.
Deputy Conservator of Forests, Bijapur
330
Annexure-VIII-Detailed Cirlce Reports
8.8 HASSAN CIRCLE

Hassan Circle comprises of Hassan district and Tumkur district. For Hassan district
(Hassan forest division and Hassan Social Forestry division), field work for evaluation was
carried out by CF, Mangalore Circle and DCF (ZP), Shimoga. For Tumkur district (Tumkur
forest division and Tumkur Social Forestry Division), field work for evaluation was carried out
by DCF (Development), Bangalore and DCF & TA to CF, Bangalore. Team Leader, Chief
Conservator of Forests, Working Plan conducted field demonstration of laying of sample plots in
Hassan Division on 17-1-2008 in presence of all forest officers of the circle.
Plantations and other works including Farm forestry raised during 2004-05, 2005-06 and
2006-07 were taken up for evaluation. These included those done under various State sector Plan
and Non plan, District Sector, Centrally Sponsored Schemes and Externally aided schemes.
Schemes included NAP-FDA, KSFMBC, SCP, KFDF-03, 12TH Finance Commission, NOVOD,
CRF, GUA, COP-II Forest Protection, DDF, RSPD, Compensatory Plantations, SGRY, KSF and
DPAP etc. Division wise Evaluation Report is submitted below.
EVALUATION REPORT OF FORESTRY WORKS IN HASSAN DISTRICT
Introduction:
Hassan Forest Division covers the whole of Hassan revenue district. The forests dealt are
distributed over all the eight taluks of the district. The area lies between 12° - 30’ and 13° - 35’
North latitudes and between 75° - 35’ and 76° - 40’ East longitudes. Part of the District adjoining
Dakshin Kannada District in the western ghat zone receives heavy rainfall from the South-West
monsoon.The Eastern part of the District receives only scanty rainfall during October to
November upto 700mm . Mean annual temperature is 23.3° C. April is generally the hottest
month and December the coldest.
The details of number of spots in both Territorial division and Social Forestry division
are given below:-
No. of spots considered for
Name of the Division Total no. of spots
sampling
Sl.No.
1 Hassan Territorial 270 27
2 Hassan Social Forestry 140 14
Hassan division and Hassan social forestry division comprises of Arsikere, Arkalgud ,
CR patna, HN pura, Sakleshpura, Alur, Belur, Yeslur & Hassan Talukas.
Works in Hassan Social Forestry Division were taken up for evaluation to cover at least
one plantation per taluk.
HASSAN TERRITORIAL DIVISION
The staggered trenches dug at Rangapurakaval of Arsikere Range is very helpful the
plantation in water and soil moisture conservation.The percolation tank at Rangekaval
constructed by stepping method and a catch pit dug on the uphill side is commendable. In
Arsikere where rain fall is less, suggestion is that it should not be limited to the plantations alone.
At Gobbli of Arkalgud range the depth of the percolation tank is 0.60m which is certainly less.
It should never be less than 1.50 meters since this will be silted up soon. The gulley checks
work done at Ramenahalli is good.
The Nalabund made at HK gudda is good and very nicely done at a strategic point.
But the entire hillock needs more boulder checks, because of many small rills formed in the
331
entire hillock. The village forest committee’s works of institutional building has been good.
The record keeping is good, stock register, resolution book register, check book, bank accounts,
self help groups, especially the ladies are well conscious and taking good benefit form all the
schemes in all the cases of Poomadahally Dasarhally VFC S.Makhanaldally & Yarehally,
Sajjekoplu VFC,. The only suggestion which is made is that in all the VFC the VFC
presidents should be given printed letter head pads with their seal. So that they after resolution
in General body or executive meetings can write to other departments heads, including Chief
Executive Officer, District Commissioners, for all other non forestry works.
The plantations raised under Compensatory, 12th finance , KSFMBC, CRF are good.
The stocking and survival percentage is good and quite suited to the locality. The only comment
to be made especially the selection of species in Model-01 under KSFMBC is not appropriate in
some of the plantations and the sowing of seeds of different species with though good in
germination are struggling because of the drought or the long dry spell is effecting badly. The
thallies concept is of no use and the seedlings after germination is dieing due to loss of moisture.
Thallies do not serve any purpose for retaining moisture. Hence it should be discontinued.
Instead small trenches of 1m x 0.40m x 0.40m may be dug and seeds may be sown.
Novod plantation at Belsinda of 2005-06 with average height of 1.2 meter. is
commendable. Both the species Seemaruba glauca and Honge have come up very well. Hence
this should be done on a large scale. In the entire area of 30ha the survival percentage is 95%.
The above are observations and suggestion made after the evaluation of Hassan
Territorial and Social Forestry Division.
Performance of species in Hassan Forest Division:
In the drier parts of the division Eucalyptus, spp. and Acacia auriculiformis are
performing well and other spp like Bevu, Ala, Arali, Tapasi, Tamarind are also performing well.
In Arsikere range, the misc. spp. performance is very poor, due to heavy biotic interference
except in a few plantations where protection by CPT or fence is provided..
In the high rainfall areas misc species doing well and Eucalyptus spp. and Acacia
auriculiformis are performing well. In Saklespura the misc, spp. are surviving, but needs proper
protection. In older plantation from 2004 to 2007 most of the misc. spp. are surviving but need
adequate protection from cattle and fire. The survival percentage is good. In most of the Ranges
survival percentage is above 75%, Fuelwood species surviving better than the miscellaneous
Spp.
In Hassan forest division out 41 plantations evaluated by the team site selection is proper
in almost all the plantations the Team visited. Model selection was proper in all 10
plantations evaluated in Hassan Forest Division. Choice of species is proper in all the selected
plantations.
The details of species performance in different plantations are given in Table- below.
Protection aspects:
In Hassan forest division in 41 plantations the works carried out for the protection
purpose like fencing and CPT are taken care for the 3 years, but it is found that the plantation
which are older then 3 years the protection is not good and misc. spp are not performing well
expecially the compensatory Afforestation works due to heavy biotic interference.
General condition of the plantations in Hassan Territorial division:
The committee decided to classify the general condition of plantation based on survival
percentage growth of plants and performance of different species into very good, average, poor
332
and failed. Accordingly the plantations evaluated are graded out of 41 plantations evaluated in
the division 35 are good because survival and growth is satisfactory, exceeding 70%. Eucalyptus
or Acacia auriculiformis plantations which are trench mound are performing very well.
6 plantation not so good due to lack of protection and poor rain fall conditions. The details are in
table – 3.
The objective of the schemes:
In Hassan forest Division the objective of the schemes are well taken care of . Misc. spp.
plants are performing well but needs added protection from biotic interference . Eucalyptus spp,
and Acacia auriculiformis are the preferred short rotation species. However, the plantations
raised under compensatory scheme must be converted in to Reserved Forests as per Forest
Conservation Act. This is not being done except Sy.No.81, Hosagadde which has been declared
under Sec-4.
Table 2:
List of Plantations of Hassan Circle Evaluated by the Evaluation Team during 2007-08.
Survey Area Main Species

No. Year Scheme Range Hobli Village Remarks
Nos. (ha.) planted
Acacia,
CSS- Kulirumavu,
Saklesh
1 2004-05 NAP- Kasaba Kyanahally 138 10 Yalaga, Very Good
pur
Model-06 Manthulli,
Dhuma, Karimara
Acacia,
Kulirumavu,
KFDF-03- Saklesh Kumbari /
2 Hanbal 116, 29 10 Yalaga, Very Good
OP pur Nadahally
Manthulli,
Dhuma, Karimara
Saklesh Achangi/
3 2005-06 DDF Belagodu - 14.25 Acacia Good
pur Doddanagara
Acacia, Honge,
02-
Saklesh Bamboo,
4 2005-06 Compensa Belagodu Hosagadde 81 11.4 Good
pur Mahagani, Atti &
tory
Garige
CSS- MFP,Tari,
Saklesh
5 2005-06 NAP- Hanbal Kemphole - 25 Halasu, Honge, Very Good
pur
Model-06 Halasu and others
02-
23, 26, Acacia, Honge,
6 2004-05 Compensa Belur Kasaba Prasadihally 20 Very Good
27, 28 Silver etc.
tory
Eucalyptus,
OECF- Casurina, fruit
7 2004-05 Belur Hatebid Yalagunda - 10 ha. Very Good
EPKF yielding species,
teak etc.
8 2005-06 NOVOD Belur Kasaba RD Halla - 10 ha. Simarouba Very Good
Belur Shivpura
Neelagiri, Acacia,
9 2005-06 CRF SF Halebeedu Kaval, 1 15 Good
Honge, Others
Range Rashigudda
333
72, 83,
86, 47,
82, 267,
55, 46,
Belur
JBIC- 47, 86, Mavu, Teak,
10 2005-06 SF Madihalli Andale 8 Very Good
Model 8 45, 81, Silver Oak, etc.
Range
18, 26,
25, 1/3,
1/2, 10,
19
Teak, Silver Oak,
Belur
Venkatepete Cherry, Sampige,
11 2006-07 SGRY SF Biccodu 17 4.2 Good
HPS Bevu, Halasu,
Range
Honge, Others.
FDA /
12 2004-05 Yeslur Hettur Bisle Arani - I 55 Cane Good
NAP
02-
Acacia, Silver
13 2004-05 Compensa Yeslur Yeslur Yeslur 361 - Very Good
Oak, Dhupa
tory
KSFM-
14 2006-07 Yeslur - Goddu - 45 ha. Acacia Good
BDCP
15 2006-07 - Doddakundur - 20 ha. Acacia Good
CSS-
Arsiker Honge, Bevu,
16 2004-05 NAP- Banavara Garudanagiri - 20 ha. Good
e Hunase etc.
FDA
KDFM- Arsiker Hirekallugudd Medicinal plants
17 2005-06 - - 100 Good
BDCP e a cuttings and seeds
02-
Compensa
Arsiker Acacia, Nilgiri
18 2006-07 tory Banavara Chakanakatte - 7 ha. Good
e etc.
plantation
s
Arsiker 18/1, 15, Mango, Teak,
Devarayapatn
19 2005-06 JBIC e SF - 12, 10, 6 Silver, Halasu, Good
a
Range 17 Nugge
Arsiker Acacia, Cherry,
DM Kurke
20 2006-07 SGRY e SF - Kata No. 3 Honge, Silver, Good
GHPS
Range Teak, Ashoka.
44, 39,
Arsiker Mango, Teak,
Dummenahall 41, 43,
21 2006-07 JBIC e SF - 6 Silver, Halasu, Good
y 50, 60,
Range Nugge
61 etc,
Arsiker
Mallipatn Arkalgud Honge, Ashoka,
22 2004-05 SGRY e SF Kudluru LPS 2 Good
a u Jakaranda, Bevu
Range
HN
23 2004-05 SCP - Odanahally - 2.5 Good
Pura
HN Hallymys Block -
24 2005-06 CRF Kolalubore 17.5 Eucalyptus Good
Pura ore 01
KSFM- HN Kotiganahosu Medicinal plants

25 2006-07 - - 50 ha. Good
BDCP Pura r cuttings and seeds
HN
CRF & Hallymys Gulagunjanah Neelagiri, Acacia,
26 2005-06 Pura SF 146, 147 15 Good
VDF ore ally Others
Range
HN Teak, Silver,
Hadavanahall
27 2006-07 SGRY Pura SF Halekote 3.5 Cherry, Neralu, Good
y
Range Nalli, Others
334
HN
Hallymys Neelagiri, Acacia,
28 2004-05 VFDF Pura SF Odanahally 15 15 Good
ore Others
Range
13- Teak, Hunase,
Arkalgu
29 2004-05 Compensa Konanur Kantenahally - 8 ha. Silver, Antuvala, Good
d
tory Belvu & Nerale
Acacia, Nilgiri,
12th Arkalgu Doddama
30 2006-07 Ibbadi - 10 Honge, Bevu, Good
Finance d gge
Hippe, Neralu
Arkalgu Honge, Ashoka,
Bychanahally
31 2006-07 SGRY d SF Kasaba 2 Jakaranda, Bevu, Good
JR College
Range Silver
Arkalgu 34, 61/8,
Demonstration
32 2004-05 JBIC d SF Ankanahally 3, 2, 49, 10 Good
Plots 10 members
Range 42, 46
Mavu, Nelli,
Somanathana
33 2004-05 SCP Hassan Salagame - 4 Hunase, Teak & Good
hally
Silver
Basavanapada,
Cherry,
34 2005-06 GUA Hassan Hassan Hassan - 5 ha. Jakaranda, Good
Raintree,
Spathodia
Basavanapada,
Cherry,
35 2006-07 GUA Hassan Hassan Hassan - 6 ha. Jukaranda, Good
Raintree,
Spethodin
DDF Hebbalasu,
36 2006-07 Yeslur Yeslur 361 20 Good
(State) Dhupa
Hassan
Dcranahally Silver Oak, Teak,
37 2006-07 SGRY SF Kanaya 144 5 Good
LPS Honge, Cherry
Range
Hassan
Basavanaghat Silver Oak, Teak,
38 2004-05 SGRY SF Dudda Good
ta PHC Halasu, Honge
Range
CR 76, 77, Honge &
39 2005-06 NOVOD Kasaba Belasinda 30 ha. Good
Patna 78 Simarouba
12th CR 76, 77, Honge, Neralu,
40 2006-07 Kasabva Belasinda 20 Good
Finance Patna 78 Belvu & Others
CR Doddakarabe 39, 63, Teak, Silver Oak,
41 2006-07 JBIC 7 Good
Patna vu 249 Grafted Mavu
Table 3:
Area Main Species Survival

Year Scheme Range Hobli Village
(ha.) planted %
Acacia, 96
CSS-NAP- Kulirumavu,
2004-05 Sakleshpur Kasaba Kyanahally 10
Model-06 Yalaga, Manthulli,
Dhupa, Karimara
Acacia, 95
Kumbari / Kulirumavu,
KFDF-03-OP Sakleshpur Hanbal 10
Nadahally Yalaga, Manthulli,
Dhuma, Karimara
335
94
Achangi/
2005-06 DDF Sakleshpur Belagodu 14.25 Acacia
Doddanagara
Acacia, Honge, 87
02- Bamboo,
2005-06 Sakleshpur Belagodu Hosagadde 11.4
Compensatory Mahagani, Atti &
Garige
MFP,Tari, Halasu, 81
CSS-NAP-
2005-06 Sakleshpur Hanbal Kemphole 25 Honge, Halasu and
Model-06
others
02- Acacia, Honge, 93
2004-05 Belur Kasaba Prasadihally 20
Compensatory Silver etc.
Eucalyptus, 85
Casurina, fruit
2004-05 OECF-EPKF Belur Halebid Yalagunda 10 ha.
yielding species,
teak etc.
95
2005-06 NOVOD Belur Kasaba RD Halla 10 ha. Simarouba
Shivpura 90
Belur SF Neelagiri, Acacia,
2005-06 CRF Halebeedu Kaval, 15
Range Honge, Others
Rashigudda
94
Belur SF Mavu, Teak, Silver
2005-06 JBIC-Model 8 Madihalli Andale 8
Range Oak, etc.
Teak, Silver Oak, 88

Belur SF Venkatepete Cherry, Sampige,
2006-07 SGRY Biccodu 4.2
Range HPS Bevu, Halasu,
Honge, Others.
80
2004-05 FDA / NAP Yeslur Hettur Bisle 55 Cane
02- Acacia, Silver 45
2004-05 Yeslur Yeslur Yeslur 10
Compensatory Oak, Dhupa
92
2006-07 KSFM-BDCP Yeslur - Goddu 45 ha. Acacia
84
2006-07 KSFMBC YESLUR - Doddakundur 20 ha. Acacia
CSS-NAP- Honge, Bevu, 69
2004-05 Arsikere Banavara Garudanagiri 20 ha.
FDA Hunase etc.
60
Medicinal plants
2005-06 KDFM-BDCP Arsikere - Hirekallugudda 100
cuttings and seeds
02- 77
2006-07 Compensatory Arsikere Banavara Chakanakatte 7 ha. Acacia, Nilgiri etc.
plantations
Mango, Teak, 72
Arsikere SF
2005-06 JBIC - Devarayapatna 6 Silver, Halasu,
Range
Nugge
Acacia, Cherry, 62
Arsikere SF DM Kurke
2006-07 SGRY - 3 Honge, Silver,
Range GHPS
Teak, Ashoka.
Mango, Teak, 60
Arsikere SF
2006-07 JBIC - Dummenahally 6 Silver, Halasu,
Range
Nugge
79
Arsikere SF Honge, Ashoka,
2004-05 SGRY Mallipatna Kudluru LPS 2
Range Jakaranda, Bevu
336
Hallymysor 89
2005-06 CRF HN Pura Kolalubore 17.5 Eucalyptus
e
60
Medicinal plants
2006-07 KSFM-BDCP HN Pura - Kotiganahosur 50 ha.
cuttings and seeds
89
HN Pura SF Hallymysor Gulagunjanahal Neelagiri, Acacia,
2005-06 CRF & VDF 15
Range e ly Others
Teak, Silver, 60
HN Pura SF
2006-07 SGRY Halekote Hadavanahally 3.5 Cherry, Neralu,
Range
Nalli, Others
65
HN Pura SF Hallymysor Neelagiri, Acacia,
2004-05 VFDF Odanahally 15
Range e Others
Teak, Hunase, 69
13-
2004-05 Arkalgud Konanur Kantenahally 8 ha. Silver, Antuvala,
Compensatory
Belvu & Nerale
Acacia, Nilgiri, 88
Doddamag
2006-07 12th Finance Arkalgud Ibbadi 10 Honge, Bevu,
ge
Hippe, Neralu
Honge, Ashoka, 75
Arkalgud SF Bychanahally
2006-07 SGRY Kasaba 2 Jakaranda, Bevu,
Range JR College
Silver
Mavu, Nelli, 60
Somanathanaha
2004-05 SCP Hassan Salagame 4 Hunase, Teak &
lly
Silver
Basavanapada, 80
Hassan Cherry, Jakaranda,
2005-06 GUA Hassan Hassan 5 ha.
Gendekate Raintree,
Spathodia
Basavanapada, 80
Cherry, Jukaranda,
2006-07 GUA Hassan Hassan Hassan 6 ha.
Raintree,
Spethodin
70
2006-07 DDF (State) Yeslur Yeslur 20 Hebbalasu, Dhupa
60
Hassan SF Dcranahally Silver Oak, Teak,
2006-07 SGRY Kanaya 5
Range LPS Honge, Cherry
94
Hassan SF Basavanaghatta Silver Oak, Teak,
2004-05 SGRY Dudda
Range PHC Halasu, Honge
Honge & 95
2005-06 NOVOD CR Patna Kasaba Belasinda 30 ha.
Simarouba
Honge, Neralu, 83
2006-07 12th Finance CR Patna Kasabva Belasinda 20
Belvu & Others
Teak, Silver Oak, 52
2006-07 JBIC CR Patna Doddakarabevu 7
Grafted Mavu
Table9: FDA PLANTATIONS:

(ha.) planted %
337
Acacia, 81
Kulirumavu,
CSS-NAP-
2004-05 Sakleshpur Hanbal Kemphole 10 Yalaga,
Model-06
Manthulli,
Dhupa, Karimara
MFP,Tari, 96
CSS-NAP- Halasu, Honge,
2005-06 Sakleshpur Kasaba Kyanahally 15
Model-06 Halasu and
others
CSS-NAP- Goni, Ala, Bevu, 95
2004-05 Hassan Kasaba Buvanahally 5
Model-06 Honge
CSS-NAP- Shanthigr Goni, Ala, Bevu, 45

2004-05 Hassan Heggadihalli 10
Model-06 ama Honge, Teak
CSS-NAP- Haluvanahall 70
2004-05 Belur Salagama 25 Acacia, Honge,
Model-06 y
CSS-NAP- 85
2003-04 Belur Madihally Hagare 25 ha. Acacia, Neelagiri
Model-06
Honge, Ala, 69
CSS-NAP-
2004-05 Arasikere Banavara Garudanagiri 20 Goni, Bevu,
Model-06
Bage
Honge, Hunse, 95
Hippe, Halasu,
CSS-NAP-
2005-06 Arasikere Arasikere M.Tirupathi 25 Acacia
Model-06
auriculiformis,
Nilgiri
Honge, Hunse, 90
Hippe, Halasu,
CSS-NAP- Doddama
2006-07 Arkalgudu Kanivekaval 25 Acacia
Model-06 gge
auriculiformis,
Nilgiri
Honge, Hunse, 83
Hippe, Halasu,
CSS-NAP-
2004-05 Arsikere Kanakatte D.M.Kunke 25 Acacia
Model-06
auriculiformis,
Nilgiri
FDA / 80
2004-05 Yeslur Hettur Bisle 55 Cane
NAP
Table – 4. Summary of qualitative aspects of different plantations as observed by the evaluation
committee in Hassan District.
Division: Hassan Territorial
No. of
plantation plantation plantation
plantation
Survival percentage in Plantation (%) where site where where
where selection
selection choice of protection
of model was
was species was aspect was
Range
Failed 0-19
Good 60-79
Satisfactory
Poor 20-39
Very good
Improper
Improper
Improper
Improper
80-100
Proper
Proper
Proper
Proper
40-59
Arsikere 9 9 9 9 9
Belur 9 9 9 9 9
338
C.R.Patna 9 9 9 9 9
Hassan 9 9 9 9 9
Holenarsi 9 9 9 9 9
pura
Sakaleshp 9 9 9 9 9
ura
Yeslur 9 9 9 9 9
Table – 4(a) Summary of qualitative aspects of different plantations as observed by the evaluation
committee in Hassan District.
Division: Hassan S.F.
No. of
plantation plantation plantation
plantation
Survival percentage to Plantation (%) were were were
were site
selection of choice of protection
selection was
Satisfactory 10-59 model was species was aspect was
Very good 80-100

Range
Good 60-79
Failed 0-19
Poor 20-39
Improper
Improper
Improper
Improper
Proper
Proper
Proper
Proper
Arakalgud - - - - - Yes - Yes - Yes - Yes -
Arsikere - - 1 - - 1 No 1 Yes - No Ye
s
Belur - Yes - - - Yes - Yes - No - No Ye
s
C.R.Patna - - - Yes - Yes - Yes - Yes - Yes -
Hassan - Yes - - - Yes - Yes - Yes - Ye

s
Holenarsipura - - - Yes - Yes - Yes - Yes - Yes -
H.N.Pura - - - - Yes Yes - Yes - Yes - Ye

s
Saklespura - - Yes - - Yes - Yes - Yes 1 Yes -
National Afforestation Programme FDA:

The FDA plantations at Garudengeri, M.Tirupati, Valehalli, Arsikere, Kantehatti,
Kaninekaval of Arkalgud are good. Village forest committees have taken interest to protect the
planted seedlings. It is suggested is that the choice of species should be more on fuel wood than
timber and N.T.F.P, since the basic requirement of the villagers from the forest is fuel wood
rather than fruits or usufructs or NTFP species in this region. A resolution may be approved in
the General body so that fencing could be taken by utilizing Rs. 1000/ha out of Rs.4000/ha year
marked in the FDA scheme. Plantation done at M. Tirupathy is good, stocking is 95% but the
Acacia seedlings are forked at 1 to 2 feet only. This is mainly because of genetically poor
quality seeds used in the nursery or seeds which are forked in nature. This has to be avoided so
that good pole or timber crop can be attained. Also planting three & more seedlings in a trench
is not advisable because the seedlings do not put on more girth, inside the plantation setting
339
aside the peripheral plants which normally have good girth because of the better light condition.
The ideal espacement should be two and not three in a trench. In case if it planted two then the
volume of each plant is good and also the cost of plantation is reduced with better yield.
In Hassan Division FDA programme is implemented. VFC/s are formed and with the
participation of VFC’s plantations have been raised. Entry Point activities have been executed
and the scheme is successfully implemented in the division. Hanbal, Kempahole, Kyanahally,
Haruvanahally, Buvanahally, Heggadihally, Hagare are some of the plantations visited by the
Evaluation Team. Generally plantations are good and survival percentage is above 70%.
The Team visited several villages to assess the success of seedling distribution scheme. It
was observed that generally the farmers have taken adequate care of the seedlings and protected
them well. The survival percentage is more than 60% in most of the cases. The farmers have
expressed opinion that seedlings should be made available at the taluk headquarter so that they
can procure the seedlings without spending too much money on transportation.
OTHER WORKS:
Other works have been carried out under the budget heads 01-Timber-139-works, Nature
Conservation-01-Timber-139-Major works CRF (Calamity relief fund) 01-Timber-139-major
works, under this schemes, The committee has visited all 39 spots. In all the spots the works
carried out are good,
Table – 6, Status of Distribution of Seedlings in Hassan Territorial Division:
No. of General
Survival
Range Number of villages Seedlings Species planted condition of
percentage
distributed plantation
Year: 2004-05
H.N.Pura H.N.Pura 10380 Acacia, Bevu, 60% Good

Halasu, Ashoka etc.
Belur Kasaba – 7 50000 Silver, Teak, Acacia, 60% Good
Honge
C.R.Patna Bagur- 12 5874 60% Good
Sandiganahally – 2
Year: 2005-06
H.N.Pura H.N.Pura 425000 Teak, Silver Oak, 70% Good
Eucalyptus, Acacia,
Honge, Nelli, Halasu
etc.
Alur Kasaba – 28 23712 Silver, Nilgiri, 65% Good
Havalige, Teak,
Halasu, Acacia,
Honge, Antuvala,
Bevu,
Kuli,Sampigere,
Nalli, Seebe
Alur Palya – 15 22304 65% Good
Alur Kundur – 6 5277 65% Good
Alur K. Hoskote – 24 31311 65% Good
Hassan, Bellur, 16606 65% Good

Sakleshpur
340
Sakleshpur Kasaba – 4 3683 Havalige, Silver 80% Good
Oak, Teak, Juli,
Halasu, Nelli,
Mahagani, Mysapice
Sakleshpur Belagodu – 8 12173 Havalige, Silver 90% Very Good
Oak, Teak, Kuli,
Halasu, Nelli,
Mahagani, Mysapice
Sakleshpur Kasaba – 6 56335 Havalive, Silver 80% Good

Oak, Teak, Kuli,
Halasu, Nelli,
Mahagani, Mysapice
etc.
Yeslur Yeslur – 39 12504 Teak, JK, Silver, 70% Good
Hettur – 20 Antuvala, Havalige,
Halasu, Beete,
Nerale, Acacia,
Mixed plantations,
JK & Silver, Silver
& Mixed
Hassan Hassan – 10 4082 Teak, Silver, 70% Good
Arsikere Banavara – 1 2385 Teak 65% Good
Arkalgud Gorur – 1 85000 Silver, Teak, Nilgiri, 65% Good

Halasu, Sampige
C.R.Patna Dandiganahally – 6 4721 65% Good
Bagur – 4
Kasaba – 5
Nuggehally – 10
N.Belagola – 1
S.Belagola – 3
Chandiganahally –
1
Hiresave – 1
Year 2006-07
H.N.Pura H.N.Pura – 1 105000 Silver Oak, Teak, 65% Good

Acacia, Neralu,
Mavu, Hunase, Bevu
etc.
Alur Kasaba – 7 19693 Silver, Nilgiri, Teak, 70% Good
Acacia, Juli, Halasu,
Havalige, Cherry
Alur Kundur – 4 2891 Atti, Honge, Honne, 70% Good
Panneralu
Alur Palya – 7 13087 Bevu, Gulmohar, 70% Good
Nandi, Halasu
Alur K.Hoskote – 14 16094 70% Good
Hassan, Bellur, 10227 70% Good

Sakleshpur
Sakleshpur Kasaba – 6 24000 Silver, Teak, Halasu, 70% Good
Kooli, Havalige
Sakleshpur Belagodu- 3 31000 Silver, Teak, Halasu, 85% Good
Koli, Havalige
Sakleshpur Hanbal – 4 20000 Silver, Teak, Halasu, 85% Good
Koli, Havalige
341
Sakleshpur Hanbal – 2 3000 Garige, Halasu 85% Good
Belagodu – 1
Kasaba – 1
Yeslur Yeslur – 18 27154 Silver, Havalige, 75% Good

Teak, Halasu, Kuli,
Nandi & Kiralbogi,
Acacia, Mango,
Neralu, Rampatre,
Ranja, Hebbalasu,
Bokkala,
Hassan Hassan – 3 1725 Silver 70% Good
Arsikere Kanakate – 1 1410 Teak, Silver, 65% Good

Javagal – 3
Gandsi – 1
Banavarav – 1
Hassan Hassan 7500 Teak 70% Good
Banavara Thippaghatta – 1 100 Teak 70% Good
Belur Belur – 1 105 Teak, Silver 70% Good
Kadur Kadur – 1 250 Silver, Hunse 70% Good
Chikkaballapur Chikkaballapur – 1 2000 Shivani 65% Good
Arkalgud Goru – 1 105700 Nilgiri, Sampige, 65% Good

Ramanathapura – 1 Cherry, Silver, Teak,
Nilgiri, Halasu,
Sampige
C.R.Patna Kasaba – 5 52304 Nilgiri, Sampige, 65% Good
Dandiganahally – 8 Cherry, Silver, Teak,
Bagur – 2 Nilgiri, Halasu,
S.Belagola – 1 Sampige
Nuggehally – 1
Table – 7, Status of Distribution of Seedlings in Hassan Social Forestry Division:

Name of No. of General
Survival
Range Hobli/Number of Seedlings Species planted condition of
percentage
villages distributed plantation
Year: 2004-05
Alur Kasaba – 1 1300 Teak, Silver oak 65% Good

Hassan Kasaba – 1 4295 Teak, Silver, 70% Good
Kattaya – 3 Antuwala
Belur Kasaba -3 9250 Teak, Silver & other 70% Good
Halebeedu – 4
Madhihalli - 2
Arkalgud Konanur – 11 300000 Teak, Silver 65% Good
R.N.Pura – 4
Doddamagge – 1
Kasaba – 2
Mallipattana – 2
Ramanathapur – 2
Konanur - 2
Arasikere Kasaba – 3 15857 Nugge, Teak, Silver, 65% Good
Banavara – 2 Honge, Halasu,
342
Gandasi – 1 Nilagiri, Bevu,
Javagal - 3 Bidiru, Yabovu
C.R.Patna Dandiganahalli – 2 2500 Teak, Silver, 65% Good
Nuggehalli – 1 Neelagiri, Honge,
Sampigi,
H.N.Pura Kasaba – 1 13100 Teak, Silver, Acacia, 65% Good
Halekote – 7 Nilgiri, Hunise,
HalliMysore - 2 Halasu, Honge,
Year: 2005-06
Hassan Kasaba – 2 4650 Teak, Silver oak, 70% Good

Dudda – 1 Nilgiri
Kattaya – 1
Alur Kundur – 5 9305 Teak, Silver, Nilgiri, 65% Good
Plya - 1 Havalige, Halasu
Belur Kasaba -8 25015 Teak, Silver & other 65% Good
Biccodu – 3
Madhihalli – 4
Halebeedu – 2
Harehalli – 6
Arkalgud Kasaba – 6 80000 Teak, Silver 65% Good
Mallipattana – 4
Doddamagge - 3
Arasikere Javagal – 3 13260 Teak, Silver, Honge, 65% Good
Kasaba – 8 Nugge, Halasu,
Gandasi – 2 Bidiru, Shivanne,
Kanakatte – 2 Acacia, Yabevu,
Banavara - 2 Nilgiri
C.R.Patna Nuggehalli – 1 4000 Teak, Basavanapada, 60% Good
Dandiganahalli – 1 Cherry

HalliMysore - 2 Halasu, Honge
HalliMysore - 2 Halasu, Honge
Year: 2006-07
Hassan Kasaba – 1 1445 Teak, Silver, 70% Good

Salagame - 1 Sampige, Cherry
Shanthigrama – 1
Kattaya – 1
Alur Plya – 1 900 Teak, Silver 65% Good
Kundur – 1
Belur Kasaba – 2 5578 Teak, Silver & other 65% Good
Madhihalli – 1
Biccodu – 1
Sakaleshpur Kasaba – 3 5000 Silver 90% Very Good
Belagod – 1
Hetthur - 1
Arkalgud Konanur – 7 80000 Teak, Silver 65% Good
Ramanathapur – 6
Arasikere Kasaba – 1 4402 Teak, Nugge, 65% Good
Gandasi – 1 Shivanne, Nilgiri,
Banavara – 1 Halasu
C.R.Patna Ramanathapur - 1 2700 Teak, Silver 65% Good
OTHER WORKS:
343
Other works have been carried out under the budget heads 01-Timber-139-works, Nature
Conservation-01-Timber-139-Major works CRF (Calamity relief fund) 01-Timber-139-major
works, under this schemes, The committee has visited all 39 spots. In all the spots the works
carried out are good,
Table – 8. Summary of Assessment of Other works in Hassan Territorial Division under
various Schemes
EVALUATION FORM- I (LIST OF ALL OTHER WORKS)
1. Name of the District: assan
2. Name of the
Division:Hassan
Year of Taluk Hobli Village Sy.No. Scheme Work Sanction Remarks
No Sanction ed cost
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 2006-07 Alur Karjuavally JBIC Water 25900 Very Good
KSFM perculation quality work
BDCP pond
2 2006-07 Alur Ramenahall JBIC Nalabund 380000 Good quality
y KSFM work
BDCP
3 2004-05 Arkalgud - Bysoor - JBIC- Desilting of 10000 Good quality
EKAP tank work
4 2006-07 Arkalgud Gobbli JBIC Nalabund 95500 Good quality
KSFM work
BDCP
5 2004-05 Arkalgud Dodda Ankanahall CRF Samudaya 154000 Good quality
SF magge y Bhavan work
Range
6 2004-05 Arsikere - Ramenahall JBIC- Staggered 26820 Good quality
y EKAP trenches work
7 2004-05 Arsikere - H.K.Gudda JBIC- Nalabund 31000 Good quality
EKAP work
8 2004-05 Arsikere Yarehally JBIC- Institutiona 22000 Good quality
VFC EKAP l Building work
Activities
9 2005-06 Arsikere Arsiker Rangapura 12th Excavation 61000 Good quality
er Kaval Finance of work
Perculation
Ponds and
Pits - 30
Nos. 1374
m3
10 2005-06 Arsikere Kanaka Valehally NAP-CSS Constructio 50000 Good quality
tte (FDA) n Room to work
HPS,
Valehally
11 2005-06 Arsikere S.Makanah JBIC Institutiona 15000 Good quality
ally VFC KSFM l Building work
BDCP Activites
12 2006-07 Arsikere Banava Chakanakat 12th Constructio 57800 Good quality
ra te Finance n of work
Nalabund-1
No.
13 2004-05 Belur Salaga RD Halla - FDA Constructio 35000 Good quality
me SF n of work
Nalabund-
344
293m3
14 2004-05 Belur Halebid R D Halla CRF Excavation 99900 Good quality

u SF, Block- of work
1 Staggered
trenches,
6700 trs
15 2004-05 Belur Halebid Kallahally JBIC- Checkdam 77000 Good quality
(Vadagathi EKAP work
halla)
16 2004-05 Belur Halebid Tagere JBIC- Watch 13500 Good quality

EKAP Tower work
17 2004-05 Belur Hagare JBIC- Institutiona 12000 Good quality
VFc EKAP l Building work
Activities
18 2004-05 Belur Holabagere JBIC- Institutiona 22000 Good quality
VFC EKAP l Building work
Activities
19 2005-06 Belur Salaga TD Gudda KFDF-03- Excavation 103812 Good quality
me SF, Block- OP of CPT work
2 2500 rmtr
20 2005-06 Belur Salaga T D Gudda FDA Excavation 28000 Good quality
me SF of work
staggered
trench 747
mtrs
21 2005-06 Belur Halebid Idalla SF 12th Maintenana 7450 Good quality
Finance ce of work
Commissio Bommanah
n ally to
Ranganatha
swamy
temple
22 2006-07 Belur Halebid Kallahally Extraction 101592 Good quality
of 1988 work
plantation
23 2006-07 Belur Kanaka Ramenahall 11-Forest Constructio 36600 Good quality
tte y Protection n of Gully work
COP Checks
24 2006-07 Belur Madihally JBIC Nalabund 95700 Good quality
KSFM work
BDCP
25 2006-07 Belur Madiha Hanare SF, KFDF Constructio 25900 Good quality
lly Block-2 n of Tank work
Bund
532.58m3
26 2004-05 Belur SF Halebee Baliganahal 17/14,1 SGRY Checkdam 79000 Good quality
Range du ly 7/2 work
27 2004-05 CR Pomadaihal JBIC- Institutiona 22000 Good quality
Patna ly- EKAP l Building work
Dasahally Activities
VFC
28 2005-06 CR Mallappana JBIC Gully 42000 Good quality
Patna betta KSFM Checks work
BDCP
29 2004-05 C.R.Patn Hirisave 94 SGRY Constructio 52300 Good quality
a SF Metikere n of work
Range Nalabund
345
30 2005-06 CR Sajjekoppal JBIC Institutiona 15000 Good quality
Patna u KSFM l Building work
BDCP Activites
31 2004-05 H N Pura Hallym Kolalubore 1 CRF Gullycheck 86600 Good quality
ysore s 145, work
staggered
trenches,
Agave
planting
32 2004-05 H N Pura Bachenahal JBIC- Institutiona 22000 Good quality
ly Koppalu EKAP l Building work
VFC Activities
33 2006-07 Hassan Seegegudd JBIC Staggered 69000 Good quality
a KSFM trenches work
BDCP
34 2005-06 S K Pura Bugudahall JBIC Gully 31500 Good quality
y KSFM Checks work
BDCP
35 2006-07 S K Pura Doddakund JBIC Water 21000 Good quality
(Yeslur ur KSFM Perculation work
Range) BDCP pond
36 2006-07 S K Pura Vanagur JBIC Staggered 45270 Good quality

(Yeslur Gudda KSFM trences work
Range) BDCP
37 2006-07 S.K.Pura Agani JBIC Gullycheck 75600 Good quality

KSFM s work
BDCP
38 2005-06 S.K.Pura Goddu JBIC Income 25000 Good quality
(Yeslur VFC KSFM Generation work
Range) BDCP Activities
39 2006-07 Yeslur Yeslur Heggadihal 12th Perculation 60000 Good quality

ly Finance Pond work
Commissio
n
EVALUATION REPORT OF HASSAN S.F. DIVISION
Hassan Social Forest Division has administrative jurisdiction over the entire Hassan
District with 7 Ranges and 2 Sub-divisions. During the evaluation, out of the total number of
works carried out in the year 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07, 14 work spots were selected for
assessment. The 10 Demonstration plots of Social Forestry Division are very good selection of
species was appropriate except in few cases Teak, Halasu, have suffered due to negligence on the
part of the farmer. The school forestry at Dorenahally and R.D. Kaval plantations are good.
There is casualty which is mainly due to negligence during April-May time when there is no care
from the school authorities. The soil conservation work done by Social Forestry Division
especially Nalabund at T.D.Gudda is good. Block plantations of social forestry at Shivapura,
Yelegunda are good. The distribution of seedlings inspected by Team Member at 44 spots are
good and the survival percentage on average is 70%..The farmers have opined that the seedlings
should be given at Taluka panchayat office so that the transportation cost is minimized.
Table9: FDA PLANTATIONS:

(ha.) planted %
346
Acacia, 81
Kulirumavu,
2004-05 CSS-NAP-Model-06 Sakleshpur Hanbal Kemphole 10
Yalaga, Manthulli,
Dhupa, Karimara
MFP,Tari, Halasu, 96
2005-06 CSS-NAP-Model-06 Sakleshpur Kasaba Kyanahally 15 Honge, Halasu and
others
95
Buvanahall Goni, Ala, Bevu,
2004-05 CSS-NAP-Model-06 Hassan Kasaba 5
y Honge
45
Shanthigra Heggadihal Goni, Ala, Bevu,
2004-05 CSS-NAP-Model-06 Hassan 10
ma li Honge, Teak
70
Haluvanaha
2004-05 CSS-NAP-Model-06 Belur Salagama 25 Acacia, Honge,
lly
85
2003-04 CSS-NAP-Model-06 Belur Madihally Hagare 25 ha. Acacia, Neelagiri
69
Garudanagi Honge, Ala, Goni,
2004-05 CSS-NAP-Model-06 Arasikere Banavara 20
ri Bevu, Bage
Honge, Hunse, 95
Hippe, Halasu,
M.Tirupath
2005-06 CSS-NAP-Model-06 Arasikere Arasikere 25 Acacia
i
auriculiformis,
Nilgiri
Honge, Hunse, 90
Hippe, Halasu,
Doddamag Kanivekava
2006-07 CSS-NAP-Model-06 Arkalgudu 25 Acacia
ge l
auriculiformis,
Nilgiri
Honge, Hunse, 83
Hippe, Halasu,
2004-05 CSS-NAP-Model-06 Arsikere Kanakatte D.M.Kunke 25 Acacia
auriculiformis,
Nilgiri
80
2004-05 FDA / NAP Yeslur Hettur Bisle 55 Cane
COMMENTS ON THE PLANTATIONS:

During the inspection, technical discussion has been held with the front line personnel
(Forest Guard & Forester) and Officers. It is informed that the plantation model adopted and
as well as the other related activities of plantation are entirely depended on the flow of funds
from Zilla Panchayath. Due to irregular flow of funds and non-availability of funds for
maintenance, no maintenance works have been carried out during the first year. There is no
provision for taking up of the watch and ward of the plantations and other protection
aspects after raising the plantation. In view of the irregular flow of funds, it is suggested to
take up works only when the funds are assured .
The efforts of Belur , HN pura , Arakalgud Range Forest Officers are worth mentioning
here and they have taken all precaution under the trying conditions and seedlings have
survived well. It is advised to give adequate protection and also involve locals in protection
of plantations.
Before taking up plantations, following measures are required to be followed,
1) Identification of site after inspection by RFO and ACF and preparation of sketch.
2) Transfer and mutation of the selected site in favour of KFD in case of non forest lands.
347
3) Preparation of micro-plan and adoption of suitable model to the site.
4) Closure of area and advance work in previous year.
5) Planting of suitable and healthy seedlings.
6) Taking follow up measures such as maintenance and protection.
7) Participatory approach in afforestation activities.
COMMENTS for SF DIVISION:
Generally, plantations are good with more than 60 % survival rate.Lack of VFCs is a set
back.Ptotection aspects should be given priority involving the local communities.
Suggestions:
The over all impression of the team is that the plantation seen by the evaluation Team
performance is good and percentage of failure is less. The upkeep of records has improved .Most
of the plantations were surveyed and survey sketches were pasted in the plantation journals.
The miscellaneous Species in the plantations are generally not doing well due to the
fact that the protection aspect given to the plantation is not adequate, the locals are not involved
and VFC are not formed in many places.VFCs should be formed in all plantation areas and local
communities should be involved in plantation activities on a care and share basis.
The objectives of management should be kept in mind while taking up the various
models available in executing the works in a particular scheme.Working Plan prescriptions
should be strictly followed in all forestry operations.
Hassan being a low rainfall zone,more emphasis should be given to the soil and moisture
conservation works in the district. Afforestation programmes should be undertaken based on the
carrying capacity of the land to ensure best utilization of land resource. Water is the most
precious commodity at present and keeping in view the ecological and environmental value of the
forests, afforestation and conservation of natural resources should be given priority and the
Department must come up to the expectations of the people.
In Territorial Division the survival percentage in Arasikere Arkalgud, HN pura and Alur
ranges is between 75 and 88 %, whereas in other ranges it is above 90%. The survival percentage
of miscellaneous species in most of the plantations is good. In high rainfall area,and also drier
areas Eucalyptus and Acacia are performing well. In Sakaleshpur and Yeslur Ranges the
miscellaneous species are surviving and growing well but need protection. In Social Forestry
Division the pit model has been adopted irrespective of site condition. The plantation sites in
Belur, Arasikere and Holenursipura range are not at all suitable for pit model plantations. The fuel
wood plantations in Arakalgud, Belur ,Alur and Channarayapatana range are in good condition.
In other works category soil moisture conservation works such as check dams, gully
plugs, percolation ponds, construction of buildings are evaluated. Under farm forestry,
distribution of seedlings in villages were surveyed.Generally, the seedlings sold or distributed free
of cost are found to be planted effectively and survival percentage is also encouraging.
EVALUATION OF WORKS OF IN TUMKUR DISTRICT
Introduction:-
Tumkur district has got 10 Talukas viz. Tumkur, Tiptur, Kunigal, Sira, Gubbi,
Turuvekere, Chikkanayanahalli, Madhugiri, Korategere and Pavagada. Whereas all the talukas are
in the mainland of the State, Pavagada has a unique position being like an island all round
surrounded by the Andhra Pradesh. The district has a dry climate with temperatures soaring high
during summers. There is a good scattering of rocky outcrops and some of them having old
dilapidated forts atop them. Some of these hills as in Madhugiri, Tumkur, CN Halli, Sira and
348
Korategere are homes to fairly good and varied dry deciduous/ Scrub forests. Siddarabetta forests
in particular are rich in plants of medicinal importance. District has got a varied wildlife and in
addition to smaller wildlife, Panther, Sloth Bear, Black Bucks etc are found. The staff also
reported sighting of tiger few months back which is not substantiated but even if so, it may have
been a lone non-resident tiger.
As per the 2007- 08 Annual Report of the Karnataka Forest Department, the district has
got 12.19% of its geographical extent as forest. This estimation is based on the Reconstituted
Expert Committee Report. However the State of the Forest Report (2005) published by the Forest
Survey of India estimates only 5.39% of the district’s geographical area having forests. Whatever
be the forest area, about 88% of the forests are open/scrub and only about 12% are moderately
dense.
52 plantations & other works (including 18 plantations of NAP) of Tumkur Division and
31 plantations of Social Forestry Division were selected for evaluation. In addition to these 121
spots of Farm Forestry were taken up for evaluation. Whereas all the plantations and other works
were visited by the evaluation team individually, all the farm forestry spots could not be visited. It
was found that seedlings provided to the farmers in a village were clubbed together. However a
fairly good cross section of farm forestry spots has been visited by the evaluation team to arrive at
general conclusions.
Conclusions:-
1. National Afforestation Programme (FDA) –
NAP is a totally Centrally Sponsored Scheme being implemented from the beginning of
the Xth five year plan. The scheme was launched to carry out Afforestation programme through
active participation of the local community. The programme has inbuilt components of Entry
Point Activities (EPAs) to enlist the support & involvement of the local community and Soil
Moisture Conservation works (SMCs) for soil and water conservation in addition to afforestation
activities. In Tumkur division also this programme is being implemented through the Tumkur
Forest Development Agency having the Conservator of Forest Hassan as the Chairman and
Deputy Conservator of Forest Tumkur as the Chief Executive Officer.
Out of plantations raised during 2004-5, 2005-6 & 2006-7, 18 plantations were selected
for evaluation. Survival percentage in individual plantations ranged from 10% to 93%.
Plantations where Eucalyptus was planted have suffered extensively due to the
occurrence of Gall Disease. Though the local staff has tried its best to replace casualties by
planting Honge or other available seedlings but they are small. The disease has also severely
impacted the growth of the remaining Eucalyptus seedlings. However the disease has not affected
Eucalyptus citriodora.
A major component of NAP scheme is involvement of local VFCs and in fact works are
carried out by channeling the funds directly to them through FDA. However it is observed that in
a number of plantations there seems to be only a little contribution of the local VFC in protection
and upkeep of the plantation. The reasons are not far to see. In a number of VFCs no Entry Point
Activities have been taken up with the provision of funds provided under the scheme. These
EPAs were supposed to be the Confidence Building Measures between the KFD and the VFCs
and the inability to take up these activities (due to what-so-ever reasons) is a factor in the apathy
shown by the local VFC towards the afforestation activity. This is just opposite of what was
envisaged under the scheme and defeats the very purpose of the scheme.
In some cases nala bunding has been taken up under the EPAs and in some other
instances funds have been loaned to the VFC members for taking up Income Generating
Activities. But unfortunately the funds advanced thus are not recoverable and some of the
349
frontline staff is facing problems of settlement of accounts. Ideally speaking the EPAs are
different from the Income Generating Activities (IGAs). The funds provided under this
component have to be utilized for the activities beneficial for the community as a whole and not
for the individuals.
Regarding the SMC works component under the NAP in a number of cases this
component has been utilized in trenching & planting of permanent species in 1 meter pits.
2. Incidence of Gall Disease - Gall Disease has practically engulfed almost all the Eucalyptus
plantations raised during the three years although the impact is more profound on plantations
raised from 2005-06 onwards. Wherever possible, casualties have been replaced with the
seedlings of Honge and other miscellaneous species. In addition from 2007- 08 onwards no
plantations of Eucalyptus are being raised.
3. Tamarind as a planted species in Forest areas - In most of the plantations Tamarind has been
planted in 1 CMTR pits as a permanent species. Big pits accompanied by effective soil working
have resulted in better water regime which is really appreciable. However in our opinion
Tamarind thrives very well if it is given timely after care by way of Soil working & mulching etc.
In natural forest areas after three years of maintenance it will find itself struggling (in fact it has
already started happening in some of the plantations). Tamarind is more a species of pure
orchards and private lands than our forest lands due to the factor of individual care taken in the
former lands.
4. Talley Method - One plantation was evaluated where Natural Regeneration Model under
KSFMBC project is implemented by employing Talley method. It was observed that whereas the
natural vegetation of the area has improved considerably (as per the observations of the local
staff), it is not an outcome of Talley method, rather as a result of effective protection accorded
due to a Cattle Proof Trench and better watch and ward. The seed dibblings done out in the open
though have germinated, but how long they survive is the mute question as they will find it
difficult to grow into a tree in the exposed land and gaps. In our opinion seed dibblings in bushes
using a seed dibbling gun would be a much better option as the bushes provide better
microclimate to the young germinations to grow well.
Accordingly there is a case for modifying the Talley method and instead of dibbling
seeds in the exposed lands we should dibble only in the bushes accompanied with Pucca CPT and
watch & ward.
5. Roadside Plantations - Roadside Plantations in territorial as well as Social Forestry divisions are
doing satisfactorily with survival ranging from 30% to 85% in evaluated plantations. Species
doing well are Neem, Tamarind, Rain tree, Honge and Ficus etc.
In Social Forestry Division a peculiar model has been devised at few places. It consists
of dibbling Jatropha seeds around the planted main seedlings. It was done probably to protect
main seedling from browsing by cattle, Jatropha being non browsable. However it loses its utility
once the main plant grows up above the browsable height and at this stage Jatropha has to be
removed to give main plant space to grow. It has not been done with the result that in some
instances main plant has withered and disappeared and only Jatropha remains now.
6. Maintenance of Old Plantations - There are a number of projects and schemes that have already
ceased to exist e.g. SJRY, KSF etc. The assets created under such schemes have to be maintained
under some other scheme. It is suggested that option of maintaining such assets under the newly
GOI-introduced employment generation scheme NREGS may be explored. In fact as per the
Government guidelines at least 20% of the NREGS funds have to be utilized for forestry related
drought proofing works and according to present projections funds to the tune of about Rs. 220
Crores may be available for Forestry works in the state. Works may be taken up both under the
350
territorial as well as Social Forestry divisions. It will help us to tap this huge resource for
improving the health of our already existing forest resource. In addition these funds can also be
utilized to take up CPT works around old plantations or forest lands having good regeneration and
root stock.
7. Farm Forestry – All the spots of farm forestry could not be visited by the evaluation team as
they were very substantial (121 villages). Moreover the list of seedlings distributed in the
respective divisions is not very clear. Record keeping and documentation with regard to
seedlings provided under this component is quite poor. Number of seedlings distributed in a
certain village have all been pooled together instead of being beneficiary wise. Still a good
number of farm forestry spots have been visited by the team and our observations are as follows :
• In most of the spots the survival rate of seedlings is low and is rather not encouraging. However
it also has to be considered that Tumkur district is in general a low rainfall area and the district
has received very deficient rain in the last few years.
• On an average success rate is better where farmer has purchased seedlings as in territorial
division. In contrast where the seedlings have been provided free of cost, as in Social Forestry
divisions, the survival rate is quite low.
• It is observed that in their enthusiasm people tend to procure and plant large number of seedlings
on their lands but there is no aftercare and the planted seedlings either dry up or suffer in the
absence of watering or cultural operations. Due to lack of staff/ their willingness there is very
little or almost no technical guidance or interaction with the farmers, subsequently to providing
seedlings
• It is also noted that survival rate and the health of planted seedlings is low where the landowner is
not staying or the lands have been left fallow.
• It has been observed that Teak is in high demand, and lots of seedlings have been planted too.
However in most of the farm forestry plots, teak seedlings have been very heavily pruned in the
mistaken notion that pruning leads to fast and better growth of the seedlings. It is noted that these
heavily pruned plants have only grown lanky and without any strength. In Social Forestry
Divisions Motivators are employed as extension workers. This cadre of motivators has to be
effectively used as an interface between the farmers and the department. They have to be
technically competent to advise the farmers to take up farm forestry in a more meaningful and
technically correct manner.
• There is a multiplication of schemes under which seedlings for public distribution are being raised
by more than one department and various wings of the same department too. KFD raises
seedlings for farm forestry under the RSPD, KSFMBC, Vanasamvardhana etc. Watershed
Department also raises seedlings for planting on farmers lands. There is no uniformity in
guidelines of various schemes. Therefore it is felt that there should be uniform guidelines
under various schemes for farm forestry. Moreover it has been found that the rates fixed by the
Government for selling seedlings are quite high and the field officers find it very difficult to sell
the seedlings at those rates, primarily because the private nurseries sell at comparatively low
prices. The policy of fixing high rates is a deterrent in achieving the target of having forests and
trees on at least 33% of the geographical area within 2012, as envisaged under the National Forest
Policy. Therefore a considerate view has to be taken in this regard.
• Demonstration Plots have been raised under the KSFMBC project to convince and attract
farmers to take up planting of various tree species on their lands. It is noted that some of these
Demo plots are not well planted and convincing enough and may in fact defeat the very purpose
for which they are raised. It is noted that in such plots cultural operations are left for the
351
beneficiary which in most of the cases are not done with the result that the plants are not able to
attain optimum growth. It is suggested that the concerned staff should take proper care to ensure
that the beneficiary takes proper care of his/her Demonstration Plot.
Moreover proper species mix is another attribute that has to be considered at proper
time. Whereas by and large the species mix is agreeable, there is a scope of improvement in
others. Fast growing species like Silver Oak, Acacia or timber species like Teak have to be
planted towards the boundary to make effective shelter belts. Fruit yielding trees have to be
planted towards the centre. However in deciding about all these matters the opinion of the
beneficiary and his ability / inability to provide irrigation has to be considered.
• In general it is difficult to motivate people to purchase seedlings to plant on their own land but as
an exception we came across a good Samaritan, named Shivprakash in Hunaseghatta of Tiptur
taluka who purchased seedlings from the department and planted them in Government School
premises and about 85% of the planted seedlings are surviving.
8. Other Works – A total of 13 works falling under the category of Other Works were evaluated.
These works included Cattle proof Trenches, Percolation Ponds, Nala bunds etc. By and large
works have been satisfactorily done. In Nala bunds good quantity of water has been impounded
leading to the overall improvement in the soil moisture status in the area.
CPT has been satisfactorily done by & large. As per the local staff, seed dibbling has also been
done, however the success of such mound consolidation component is good only in patches and it
has to be improved. Seeds of suitable species have to be dibbled again in proper season or
wherever possible. To be effective CPT has to be continuous without any gaps in between. Any
breaks in CPT render it ineffective. In a number of places CPT has been found broken in between
planting of Bamboo and Agave suckers may also be considered.
9. Compensatory Plantations- One plantation raised under Compensatory Plantation Scheme at
Yerekatte in CN Halli range was evaluated. Curiously the extent of plantation is only 1 Ha,
which is not at all a viable extent. It seems that it was not an originally planned plantation
and was raised to achieve the left over target under the scheme. There is no proper
protection nor are species the same as mentioned in the documents. Most of the originally
planted species have died and to make up for the heavy casualties very small Acacia
seedlings have been planted very recently as evident from the extremely small size of
seedlings - not at all commensurate with the age of plantation (raised in 2004). This
plantation has been raised to compensate the loss of which forest area is not known.
Plantations like these have no future and seem to have been raised just to achieve the
targets assigned and book the expenditure.
The plantations raised under compensatory scheme must be converted in to Reserved
Forests as per Forest Conservation Act. This is not being done.
Survey Area ( Main species

Year Scheme Range Village Survival %
No Ha) planted
2004-05 SGRY (ZP) Koratagere 2002 rains - 5 Ha Honge, 50
Muddamanagutta to Hunase, etc.,
Gomal
2004-05 JBIC Koratagere 2003 rains - 3 Km Honge, Bevu, 50
Akkirampura to Hunase,
Koratagere Road Nerale
side Plntn
352
2006-07 SGRY (ZP) Koratagere 2005 rains - 3 Km Honge, 70
Jempenahalli to Hunase,
Ajjihalli Road side Bevu, Nerale,
Plantation Matti, etc.,
2005-06 SGRY (ZP) Madhugiri Badavanahalli Agro 40 2400 Nilgiri 50
Forestry Plants
2006-07 SGRY (ZP) Madhugiri Bandrehalli Agro 9/2,12/P 980 Nilgiri, 30
Forestry Plantation Plants Tamarind
2004-05 SGRY (ZP) Madhugiri Bedathur (Agro 150,23,2 440 Tamarind 45
Forestry) 23,199 Plants
2006-07 KSFMBC Kunigal Boregowdananpalya - 31 Ha. Mavu, Silver 20
Oak, Survey
2006-07 SGRY (ZP) SF Tiptur Devarahalligate to 3 KM Halasu, Silver 95
Bommenahalli Road Oak, Bevu,
Bilavara
Arali,
Torematti
2006-07 SGRY (ZP) Madhugiri Dodderi Agro 216199 460 Tamarind 72
Forestry Plantation Plants
2004-05 SGRY (ZP) SF Tiptur Goragondanahalli - 16 No Hunase, 20
Koppa-1 Nos. SC Halasu, Mavu
Echanur - 11
Karadal-3 Nos
2004-05 SGRY (ZP) Tumkur Honnadike to R/s 3 Km Mavu, Hippe, 50
Neralapura Hunase,
Nerale,
Hebbavu,Aral
i, Ala
2006-07 SGRY(ZP) Madhugiri Hosahalli Agro 82, 17, 1080 Nilgiri, 25
Forestry Plantation 55 plants Tamarind
2005-06 SGRY(ZP) Kunigal Kamanahalli to - 3 KM Arali, Matti, 30
Singonahalli Bevu,
2005-06 SGRY (ZP) Tumkur Kestur TFS 10 Nilgiri, 90
Acacia,
2005-06 SGRY(ZP) Turuvekere Kondaiji to Shivane - 3 KM Honge, Ala, 33
Bagari, Arali,
Bevu, Nerale,
Shivani,
others
2004-05 D.P.A.P.(Ha Pavagoda Kotabunde to - 3 Km Honge, 62
riyali) Veralagondhi Halasu, Bevu,
Nerale
2006-07 KSFMBC Madhugiri Kurihalli - 4 Ha. Mango 60
Demonstration Plot
2004-05 SGRY (ZP) Sira Hulikante to R/s 3 KM Bevu, Honge, 85
Kyadigunte Hunase etc.,
2006-07 KSF Sira Madenahalli 48 10 ha Honge, 50
Acacia,
Arculiformies
, Nilgiri,
Seemethanga
di
2004-05 SGRY (ZP) Koratagere Maintaincence of - 3 KM Honge, 60
2004 rains Hunase,
Gattahalli to Bevu, Nerale,
Hirejenahalli Road Matti, etc.,
side Plantation
353
2004-05 SGRY (ZP) Koratagere Maintanance of 43 3 Ha. Hunse, Bevu, 50
2002 rains Nelli, Matti,
muddammanagutta
to Gomal Plantation
2005-06 D.P.A.P. Pavagada Megalapalya to - 5 Ha Honge 80

(Hariyali) Gomal
2006-07 KSFMBC Pavagada Nidgal Village VFC - 5 Ha Hunase, 5.4
Bevu, Honge,
Nilgiri
2006-07 KSF C.N.Halli Sadarahalli 195 7 Ha Honge, 25

Survey
2006-07 KSFMBC C.N.Halli Sadarahalli 139 1 Ha. Acacia 60
Arculiformies
, Honge,
Mavu,
Silveroak,
Saguvani,
2006-07 KSF Madhugiri Shanaganahalli - 5 Ha Nilgiri 90
2006-07 SGRY (ZP) Madhugiri Virupagondanahalli - 10 Ha 83
2004-05 SGRY(ZP) Kunigal Yalagavadi to - 3 KM Arali, Matti, 39

Vadagatta Bevu, Nerale,
others
2004-05 SGRY (ZP) C.N.Halli Yerekatte to - 3 KM N.Nerale, 80

Nandihalli J.Nerale,
Bevu,
Bilavarn
2004-05 SGRY(ZP) C.N.halli Ysalakatte 3 KM Nerale, Bevu, 60
Bilvara
TABLE-3
2007-08 EVALUATION-TUMKUR DIVISION
Surve Area Main species Survi Very

Year Scheme Range Village Good Poor
y No (Ha) planted val % Good
2004- KFDF- Bukkapatna Chikkas 2 10 Nelli, Honge, 35 Honge Bevu,
05 03 andra Bevu, Eucalyp
SF Eucalyptus, tus
Tamarind,
Ficus, mallige
2006- 12th Bukkapatna Gantena SF 1 15 Hunase, 75 Kamara Honge Nilgiri

07 Finanace halli Kamara,
Commiss block Bettadanelli,
ion
2006- KSFMB Koratagere Gondhai Hirebe 25 Nilgiri, Kamara, 70 Kamara Nilgiri,

07 C halli tta SF Hunase, , Hunase
Model-4 (Gond Accasia, Tapasi, Honge,
hihalli Udaya, Bilvara, Nelli,
Block) Citradora, Banni Acasia
etc.,
354
2006- GUA Gubbi Gubbi Gubbi 5 Sampige, 80 Spathod Jacara
07 Town Town Jakaranda, ia, nda
Bevu, Spathodia Sampig
e
2005- KSFMB Bukkapatna Hanuma 46,47 40 Honge, Bage, 1.5 Bevu.
06 C nthanah Bevu, Hunase,
Model-I alli Nerale, Kamara,
2006- 12th Gubbi Hemadr SF 25 Honge, Hunase, 72 Honge, Nilgiri

07 Finanace ikere Nilgiri Hunase
Commiss
ion
2005- COP-II C.N.Halli Kampla - 15 Honge, Nelli, 86 Casia Nilgiri
06 Forest pura Seethapala, siamea,
Protectio Kamara, Honge,
n Acacia
auriculi
formis
2006- KSFMB Madhugiri Kunigal Badav 25 Nilgiri, Kamara, 80 Kamara Nilgiri

07 C anahall Hunase Accasia, ,
Model-4 i Tapasi, Udaya, Udaya,
Tapsi
2005- DDF Pavagada Nidgal SF 23 Honge, Nilgiri, 40 Kamara Nilgiri

06 Casurina, C , Casia,
siamea, bevu, Honge
Kamara, etc.,
2004- KFDF- Madhugiri R.D.Bet - 10 Hunase, Bevu, 95 Hunase,

05 03 ta Honge etc., Bevu,
2005- DDF Tiputur Rajatha SF 15 Honge, Nilgiri, 79 Honge,

06 dripura Casurina etc., Eucalyp
tus,
Casuari
na,
Kamra
2004- KFDF- Pavagada Rangasa - 10 Nerale, Kamara, 30 Kamara Nilgiri,
05 03 mudra Nilgiri, Honge, , Nerale
Bevu, Tapsi, Honge,
Nelli Tapsi
2006- 12th Sira Rangant SF 25 Hunase, 88 Honge
07 Finanace hpura Kamara, B.nelli, ,
Commiss Borajjan Honge, Bedaru, Nerale
ion ahalli Hippe etc., ,
block Nilgiri
2006- KSFMB C.N.Halli Sadarah Thirtha 25 Duranta/Glyciri natural
07 C alli mpura dia Cuttings vegetati
Model-1 SF on has
improv
ed
2006- KSFMB Kunigal Shivapu Ippadi 40 Nilgiri, Kamara, 60 Honge Nilgiri
07 C ra SF Hunase Accasia, ,
Model-4 (Shiva Tapasi, Udaya, Hunas
pura & e,
Govin Kamar
daiaha a
napaly
a
355
2006- COP- Sira Sira to Rd. 6 Km Honge, Ala, 76 Honge
07 AOA Amarap side Bevu, Hunase, , Ala,
ura etc., Bevu,
Hunas
e,
Arali
etc
2005- COP-II Koratagere Sulekal - 57 Honge, Nelli, 70 Citriod
06 Forest SF Seethapala, ora,
Protectio Kamara, Honge,
n Casia
siamea
2005- GUA Tiptur Tiptur Tiptur 3 KM Bevu, Ashoka, 71 Sampi
06 Town Town Cherry etc., ge,
Nerale
,
Halem
athi,
Kadub
adami
etc
2006- GUA Tiptur Tiptur Tiputu 5 Sampige, 80 Sampi
07 Town r Town Jakaranda, ge,
Nerale
,
Halem
athi,
Kadub
adami
etc
2004- CPS-02 C.N.halli Yarakatt - 1 Fuel wood 20 Acacia
05 e mixed
TABLE-6
Seedlings-Territorial Division, Tumkur
Year of
No of seedlings Species of seedlings
Sanctio Taluk Village Survival % Condition
distributed distributed
n
2004-
05
Madhugi Ejihalli 950 Honge, Neem
ri Acacia,
Arculiformies, Silver
oak
Vitalapura 1200 Honge, Bevu, Silvr
oak, Matti, Acasia,
Arculiformies, Teak
Midigeshi 605 Teak, Silver oak,
Eucalyptus
Tumkur Ajjappanaha 1100 Nilagirei, Halasu
lli
Kodihalli 170 Teak, Nugge, Halasu
Hebburu 250 Teak, Nugge, Halasu
Nagannanap 200 Nugge
alya
Avalipalya 1550 Nilgiri, Hunase
Byrasandra 1576 Teak, Nilgiri, Honge,
Halasu, Silver Oak
Hirehalli 1384 Teak, Silver oak, etc.,
356
Tururvek T.Hosahalli 1150 Teak, Silver oak,
ere Halasu
Mavinakere 2500 Hunase, Bevu etc.,
Soolekere 1840 Acacia,
Arculiformies,
Halasu
Turuveke Akkalasandr 850 Acacia,
re a Arculiformies,
Halasu
2005-
06
Madhugi
ri
Vitalapura 200 Teak
Gulahalli 600 Eucalyptus, Honge,
Acacia
Tumkur
Kanchenahal 1150 Teak, Silver oak etc.,
li
Pandithanah 4446 Teak, Silver oak, etc.,
alli
Arakere 550 Silver oak, etc.,
Tumkur 777 Hunase, Teak, Silver
oak, etc.,
Bugudanahal 500 Teak, Silver oak, etc.,
li
2006-
07
Kunigal
Madikekenn 4350 Teak, Honge, Halasu
asandra
Madhugi
ri
Vitalapura 1600 Teak, Silver oak,
Nelli
Badavanahlli 100 Silver Oak 100 Very good,
(Irrigated
condition)
Jakenahalli 2050 Silver oak, 80 Good
Ecalyptus,etc.,
Shambenaha 1100 Teak, Silveroak,
lli Tamarind, Survey
Basavanahal 75 Teak, Silver oak,
li Acacia,
Arculiformies
Midigeshi 825 Arali etc.,
Veerapura 800 Teak, Silver oak,
Eucalyptus
Tumkur
Maskallu 2250 Survey, Nilagri
Kanakuppe 900 Nilgiri, Teak
Chikkonahal 1000 Nilgiri
li
Rajapura 900 Survye, Silver oak,
Teak
357
Menasandra 1200 Teak, Silver oak,
Nilgiri, Survey
Maidhala 505 Nilgiri, Halasu,
Hunase.
Byrasandra 854 Tega, Silver oak,
Nilgiri, etc.,
Dodderi 700 Teak, Silver oak,
Nilgiri, Survey
Turuveke
re
Neeragunda 1128 Hunase, Nerale, Bevu
Neralekatte 370 Teak, Silver oak,

Nilagriri
Byalahalli 575 Halasu etc
Chikkonahal 8000 Halasu, Mulbery etc.,
li
Table – 6
Seedlings-Social Forestry Division, Tumkur
Year
Species of
of Survival
Taluk Village No of seedlings distributed seedlings Condition
Sanct %
distributed
ion
2004-
05
C.N.Halli
Thimmanahalli 1966 Teak, Silver oak 0-40
Teak, Silver oak,
Kapanahalli 666 0-60
Halsu
Teak, Silver oak,
Pinnenahalli 35
Nerale
Tharabenahalli 933 Teak, Silver oak 10-15
Teak, Silver oak,
Halgona 1367 25-80
Halasu, Nerale
Teak, Silver oak,
Nandihalli 1870 0-20
Halsu
Gubbi
Nilgiri, Survey,
Dhulenahalli 500
Silver oak
Silver oak, Survey,
Nettikere 4500
Nilgiri
Teak, Silver oak,
Bidare Raja Kaval 1535
Nilgiri, Halsu
Teak, Silver oak,

Mugana Hunase 300
Nilgiri, Halsu
Teak, Silver oak

Kondli 3000
etc.,
Teak, Silver oak,
MMA Kaval 4300
Nilgiri
Bommarasanahalli 500 Teak, Silver oak
Koratagere
358
Somapura 670 Silver oak
Madhugiri
Nilgiri, Silver oak
Annenahalli 1250
etc
Pavagada
Gowdathimmanah Silver oak, Teak,
1200 0-70 Teak
alli Honge
Teak, Silver oak,
Y.N.Hosakote 774 10
Honge
Teak, Silver oak,
Aralekunte 1100 30 Poor
Nilgiri
Sira
Teakm Grafted
Kumbarahalli 250 60 Poor
Hunase, Hunase
Eucalyptus Papaya
Agase Nugge
Shige Bamboo
Melkunge
Grafted Hunase
Mango Halasu
Bela
Teak Nugge
Sira Town Papaya Honge
Bevu Mango
Agase Neelli
Vaddanahalli Nugge Teak Silver
oak
Halasu Teak
Nugge Silver oak
Mudigere 50 Good
Hunase Grafted
Hunase
Doddagula 300 Honge, Hunase
Teak Agase Nugge
Tavarekere Hunase Bevu
Bamboo Bela
Nugge Papaya
Hebberu Bite
Magodu
Shige Grafted
Hunase
Ganada hunase 1800 Hunase, Honge 40 Poor
Tiptur
Teak, Silver oak, Teak doing
Anagondanahalli 2000 60
Nugge well
2005-
06
C.N.Halli
Yallenahalli 1000 Teak, Silver oak
Gubbi
Gubbi 454 Teak, Chari
Teak, Silver oak,
Hoskere 800 Chari, Halsu,
Nerale etc.,
Koratagere
Negalala 2500 Nilgiri
Thimmanayakanah
1000 Nilgiri
alli
Pavagada
359
Teak, Silver oak,
Nagalamadike 185
Hunase
Acacia
C.K.Pura 2151 70 Poor
Arculiformies
Sira
Changavara 260 Teak, Hunase
Ranganahalli 600 Hunase, Honge
Tiptur
Muddaranagna
400 Teak
palya
Nerale, Hunse,
Halasu, Nimbe,
Eachanoor 40 95 Good
Dalima, Seebe,
Kadunelli
Teak, Honge,
Thimlapura 355
Halasu
2006-
07
C.N.Halli
Nulenoor 500 Teak, Silver oak
Teak, Survey,
Themanahalli 500
Halsu
Gubbi
Anehalli 621 Teak, Silver oak
Sopanahalli 518 Nilgiri, Survey
Hunase, Halsu,
Kulumegudlu 2925
Silver oak, Nilgiri
Konanakere 1320 Nilgiri, Hunase
Kodagihalli 1150 Nilgiri, Teak
Thorehalli 1300 Nilgiri, Survey
Surigenahallikaval 450 Nilgiri, Survey
Teak, Silver oak,
Hodalur 624
Nilgiri
Silver oak, Nilgiri,
Manikuppe 7700
Survey
Teak, Silver oak,
Yalachahalli 2536
Survey
Koratagere
Teak, Silver oak,
Chikkapalanahalli 500
Nilgiri
Teak, Silver oak,
Kyshwara 540
Nilgiri
Teak, Silver oak,
Bilegurahalli 1300
Nilgiri
Bundepalya 800 Nilgiri
Doddanashayapaly
700 Nilgiri
a
Koratatger
e
Teak, Silveroak,
Byrenahalli 3030
Nilgiri
360
Pavagada
Teak, Silver oak,
Jalappanapalya 500
Hunase
Teak, Silver oak,
B.K.Halli 1100 24 Poor
Nilgiri, Hunase
Teak, Silver oak,
Lingadahalli 600
Hunase, Nilgiri
Teak, Silver oak,
C.K.pura 3600 3-45 Good
Hunase, Nilgiri
Teak, Silver oak,
Potaganahalli 200 50-60
Hunase
Sira
Kenchappanahlli, Hunse, Silver oak,
Hossalli Survey
Kallembella 5500 Honge
K.ranganahalli 710 Hunase, Honge
Kaluvarahalli 355 Hunase, Honge
Chikkanahalli
710 Hunase, Honge
Magodu
Yadaladakahalli 1065 Hunase, Honge 70 Good
Hundimulk 2500 Nilgiri
Hunase, Honge,
Hulidare 1320 75 Good
Mavu
Harogere 170 Hunase
Lakkanahalli 30 Hunase
Mudlenahalli 200 Hunase
Good
Veerabommanahal
300 Hunase 75
li
Honge, Teak,
Maranagere 615
Silver oak
Honge,
Rangapura 600 15 Poor
Hunase,Bevu
Tiptur
Hullukatte 527 Teak, Silver oak 80 Good
Teak, Silver, oak,
Hunaseghatta 1514 85 Good
Honge etc
TABLE-8
All other works
Year of Sanctioned
Taluk SyNo Scheme Work Remarks
Sanction cost
2005 Bukkapatna Bukkapatna SF KSFMBC- Excavation of 325500 Poor, it is

Mo-01 CPT 6200 rmtr discontinous at many
places
2006 C.N.Halli Thirtharampura KSFMBC Excavation of 76580 Good work
SF - Mo-04 CPT 1400 rmtr
2006 Gubbi Bennehalla kaval KSFMBC- Excavation of 41025 Good work
SF Mo-04 CPT 750 rmtr
2005 Gubbi Bennehalla kaval KSFMBC- Excavation of 54700 Good
SF Mo-04 CPT 1000 rmtr
361
2005 Kortagere Hirebetta SF KSFMBC- Construction of 59000 Good works, water
Mo-04 Nalabund-1 No. impounded in good
quantity.
2006 Kunigal R.S.Gudda SF KSFMBC- Excavation of 21880 Good works
Mo-05 CPT 400 rmtr
2006 Kunigal Kamplapura SF KSFMBC- Excavation of 86426 Good work
Mo-01 CPT 1580 rmtr
2005 Kunigal Ippadi SF KSFMBC- Percolation 84040 Good works
(Shivapura block) Mo04 Pond-1 No
2005 Kunigal Ujjani SF KSFMBC Excavation of 212626 Good work, seeds
-Mo-01 CPT 4050 rmtr sowings germinated
in patches,
discontinuous at may
places
2005 Madhugiri Byalya SF KSFMBC- Excavation of 109400 Good work, but seed
Mo-04 CPT 2000 rmtr sowings not properly
germinated.
2005 Pavagada Nidagal SF KSFMBC- Construction of 106644 Satisfactory
Mo-01 Earthen bund-2
Nos.
2006 Sira Mudigere SF KSFMBC construction of 123000 Good works
- Mo-04 Nalabund-1 No
2006 Tiptur Halkurke SF KSFMBC- Construction of 99000 Satisfactory
Mo-05 Nalabund-1 No
TABLE-9
NAP-FDA
Area Survival
Year Scheme Range Hobli Village (Ha) Species %
2005-06 NAP-FDA Bukkapatna Ajjenahalli 20 Honge, Bevu, 55
Alale, Nilgiri
2004-05 NAP-FDA Bukkapatna Chikkasandra 10 40
Kaval
2005-06 NAP-FDA C.N.Halli Sondenahalli 20 Hunase, 85
Nilgiri,
Honge,
Casuarina
2004-05 NAP-FDA Gubbi Sarigepalya 10 Bamboo, 10
Arali, Honge,
Nilagiri,
Bevu, Nilgiri,
2005-06 NAP-FDA Gubbi Bodathimman 20 Ala, Arali, 93
ahalli Basari,
Hebbevu
2004-05 NAP-FDA Koratagere Negalala 10 Honge, Bevu, 75
Alale, Nilgiri
2006-07 NAP-FDA Korategere Kambadahalli 40 Alovera, 50
Adusoge
2004-05 NAP-FDA Kunigal Sonayakanaha 20 Ala, Arali, 80
tti Basari,
Hebbevu
2006-07 NAP-FDA Kunigal Lakshmipura 20 Nilgiri, 88
Kamara,
Hunase, Ala,
Bevu
2005-06 NAP-FDA Madhugiri Basmangi 20 Kamara, 78
Bage,
Hunase, Bevu
362
2006-07 NAP-FDA Madhugiri Vaddarahalli 20 Eculyptus, 86
Honge,
Nilgiri, Ala
2004-05 NAP-FDA Pavagada Giddiahnarop 30 Nilgiri, 40
pa Honge,
Nilgiri,
Hunase
2006-07 NAP-FDA Sira Mudugere 20 Tare etc., 90
2004-05 NAP-FDA Sira Battiganahalli 10 Hunase, Tare, 70
Honge,
Eucaliptus
2006-07 NAP-FDA Sira Kalinganahall 10 Tamarind, 80
i Kamara
2005-06 NAP-FDA Tiptur Annemallenh 10 Honge, 73
alli Nilgiri,
Casuarina,
Kamara,
Hunase,
Bevu, Nerale
etc.,
2004-05 NAP-FDA Tiptur Annenamalle 10 Nilgiri, 73
nahalli Seethapala,Ca
suarina,
Kamara,
Hunase,
Bevu, Nerale
etc.,
2004-05 NAP-FDA Tumkur Ayyanapalya 15 Honge, 49
Nilgiri,
Seethapala,
Kamara
363
Annexure-IX-Detailed Cirlce Reports
8.9 KANARA CIRCLE

INTRODUCTION
The Kanara Circle came to be organized on 1st January 1967 with head quarters at
Dharwad. However, from January 1967 to May 1970 one Conservator of Forests managed both
Belgaum and Kanara Circles. During May 1970, an Independent Conservator of Forests was
posted to Kanara Circle. Subsequently the circle head quarters has been shifted form Dharwad to
Sirsi on 10/05/1993. Its territorial jurisdiction covers the entire Uttara Kannada District. The
Ramanagar village area of Uttara Kannada District has to be integrated within jurisdiction of
Kanara Circle as per Government order. The Deputy Conservator of Forests, Belgaum is yet to
hand over the area.
Kanara Circle comprises of 5 Territorial Forest Divisions, 1 Wild Life Division and 1
Social Forestry Division with the Headquarters correspondingly at Haliyal, Honnavar, Karwar,
Sirsi, Yellapur, Dandeli and Karwar. The 5 territorial divisions are further divided into 14 sub-
divisions viz., Haliyal, Dandeli, Alnavar, Honnavar, Kumta, Bhatkal, Karwar, Ankola, Sirsi,
Siddapur, Janmane, Yellapur, Mundgod & Manchikeri. The Wild Life Division, Dandeli is
divided two Sub-divisions namely Dandeli and Anshi. The entire forest area of the circle is
divided into 39 territorial Ranges and 10 S.F. Ranges headed by Range Forest Officer, 155
Sections headed by the Foresters and 477 Beats headed by Forest Guards. The Government
Timber Depots in the Circle are situated at Dandeli, Kirwatti, Mundgod, Kadra, Hattikeri, Katgal,
Idugunji, Kabbinhakkal, Chipgi and Manmane. The Government Timber Depot at Dandeli,
Kirwatti and Mundgod are managed by Assistant Conservator of Forests and others by Range
Forest Officers.
There is a Forest Mobile Squad at Sirsi headed by the Deputy Conservator of Forests.
There are 19 forest checking Nakas to check the Forest produce in transit.
The Circle is situated between 10’-55” and 15’-32” North latitude and between 74’-9’
and 75’-32’ East Longitude. Uttara Kannada District is situated in Western Ghats and forms one
of the coastal district of Karnataka State. Some of the richest moist deciduous forests of the
country are in this district and most of the areas of Uttara Kannada are hilly. Out of 11 Taluks of
Uttara Kannada District 5 are coastal Taluks and the rest lie on the upper Ghat sections. The
Uttara Kannada District extends from the coastal belt adjacent to the Arabian Sea, moving
eastwards covering rich evergreen, Semi-ever-green moist deciduous and deciduous forests. The
evergreen and Semi-ever-green tracts cover Honnavar, Sirsi and Yellapur Divisions and portions
of Karwar Division.
Uttara Kannada District experiences typical climate of the plateau. There are no cold
months. Yet the higher reaches of the Ghats (around 800M) do experience a cooler climate than
the coastal areas. The rainfall varies from
250 cm along the coastal areas to 300 cm in the Ghats and 100 cm along the eastern fringe of the
District. Most of the rainfall is monsoonal and falls from June to August. Weather from
December to April will be invariably dry. Summer temperature can go beyond 40c in some
places. The types of soils in these Taluks are Black cotton soil, Red loam, Black clay and forest
soil.
As per the legal status the total forest area of the Uttara Kannada District is 8296.4569
Sq.Km, including areas released for various non-forestry activities and recent orders of
regularization of encroachment. The total geographical area of the District is 10,246.00 Sq.Kms.
364
The Forests found are mainly of the below mentioned type :
1. Ever- green,
2. Semi-Ever-green,
3. Moist-deciduous,
4. Dry-deciduous,
5. Scrub forests (as a result of degradation),
The important species that are found in these forests are Teak, Rosewood, Bijasa, Laurel
and many others. Generally lofty trees occur through out the Circle due to fertile soils. These
forests also have prominent place for Bamboo and Canes especially in Haliyal, Yellapur and
Karwar respectively.
During the period of two world wars these forests were excessively exploited.
Subsequently, also there has been heavy removal from these areas for the purpose of Hydel
Projects, Rehabilitation of the displaced families etc.
The minor forests set aside for enjoyment of right and privilege by the people, Betta lands
are forests set apart to provide accessories for arecanut cultivation, Hakkals are areas set apart for
shifting cultivation. Presently the shifting cultivation practice is no longer in vogue. The lands of
the above three categories are highly degraded.
The artificial plantations started in the forest area of this circle as back as 1865-66. The
cumulative total for the period from 1865-66 to 2007-08 given in the following table :-
(Area in Hecatares)
Sl. Species Plantations During Total
No. 1865-66 to 2006-07 2007-08
1. Teak and other hard wood. 97020.68 3900.000 100920.680
2. Matchwood and softwood. 17944.93 0 17944.930
3. Bamboo and Canes 13877.18 821.000 14698.180
4. Cashew/Fuel wood/others 94311.12 6566.898 100878.018
5. Others. 80368.58 2859.500 83228.080
TOTAL 303522.49 14147.398 317669.888
The concepts of “ Pavitra Vana” “Devara Kadu” are getting popularity in these areas. In
Bakkal village of Sirsi Division a Botanical Garden (Medicinal plants) has been formed.
The department has undertaken to run firewood depots at all important villages and towns
to cater to the needs of the people at concessional rates i.e. Rs. 1219/- per tonne from 01/01/2008.
Bamboos were also delivered to the prescribred depots for being sold to Buruds and Medars.
Canes were extracted and supplied to the cottage Industries as well.
The Minor Forest Produces are sold in tender-cum auction sale at divisional level once in
two years as per the procedure laid down in K.F.C.
All the schemes under Plan and Non-plan were implemented properly.
Encroachment is a burning problem in Uttara Kannada District. Generally
encroachments were attempted in the interior forests or extensions to the existing cultivation area.
It has been decided by the Government G.O.No. AHFF/5GFL/90(Vol.II) Bangalore dated
10/10/1991 to regularize the encroachments which have taken place prior to 27-04-1978 along
with the periphery of the forests and in the areas where tree growth is poorer depending upon
other conditions of land grant. Hangami Lagan (Temporary lease) cases have been finally
decided by State Government. Most of these areas have been released for cultivation purposes
since 1954 in this Circle.
In these areas landslides are unknown. However, land slips are sometimes occurring
because of heavy rainfall. This area is catchment for number of rivers, which flow towards west
and join the Arabian sea. In Uttara Kannada district six major rivers join Arabian Sea.
365
Many important projects namely Kadra Dam, Kodasalli Dam, Sharavathi Tailrace,
Konkan Railway, Seabird Navalbase etc. has been taken up in the forest area of this Circle.
These projects are felt essential for the growing population of mankind in the country.
Under these situations restocking of under stocked forests, rigid water and soil conservation
measures to augment the vegetation and fauna protection of forests and meeting the local
demands are the present needs of the forests of this Circle.
The Kanara Circle comprises of the entire 11 Taluks of Uttara Kannada district.
The division wise total forest area at the close of the year 2007-08 was as follows :
Sl. Division Forest Area of all types in Sq. Km. % of the forests area of the
No. rcle to the total forest area.
1. Haliyal 1183.4456 14.26
2. Honnavar 1409.4286 16.99
3. Karwar 1419.5893 17.11
4. Sirsi 1718.2817 20.71
5. Yellapur 1689.8666 20.37
6. W.L.Dandeli 875.8451 10.56
TOTAL 8296.4569 100.0
The forest area under the control of the Forest Department is

7759.794 Sq.km. It is 93.53% of the total forest area. The forest area to the extent of
536.662Sq.Kms is under revenue and other departments. The Uttara Kannada District is unique
in one sense that, where the land does not belong to any one is a forestland.
There are four classes of forests in this Circle viz.
1) Reserved Forest.
2) Protected Forest.
3) Village Forest.
4) Un-classed Forests.
No private Forests exist in this Circle.
The forest area of the Circle as per legal status is given in the following table : -
Sl. Department Type of Forest Area
No. (in Sq.Kms.)
1. Forest 1) Reserved Forest 7727.712
2) Protected Forest 31.644
3) Village Forest -
4) Un-classed 0.438
TOTAL 7759.794
2. Revenue 1) Reserved Forest -
2) Protected Forest 510.485
3) Village Forest 26.177
4) Un-classed -
TOTAL 536.662
GRAND TOTAL 8296.456
The Forest area can also be classified on functional basis as follows :

Sl. Types of Forests Area
No. (in Sq.Kms.)
I Reserved Forests – (1) Proper Forests 7727.712
(2) Minor Forests
II Protected Forests – (1) Hakkals 31.644
(2) Betta land 510.485
III Village and Un-classed Forests and Mangrove 26.615
Total 8296.456
366
In addition to this as per Govt. Notification No. RD/24LRD/80 dated 30/11/82, the area
of 19.44 Sq.Km, (4805.65 acres) of Sitawada, Adoli and Akrali villages have excluded from the
limits of Gunji Revenue Circle of Belgaum District and constituted a new village called
Ramanagar and included it in Castle Rock Revenue Circle of Uttara Kannada district for
establishing a rehabilitation Centre for the affected persons of Kali Hydro Electric Projects.
Accordingly the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Bangalore has ordered to transfer
the Ramanagar area from the jurisdiction of Londa Range of Belgaum Forest Division to
Jagalbet Range of Haliyal Forest Division under his O.M.No. B3/Misc/CR-79/93-94 dated 16-
12-1993. And this area will be included in the Circle, after handing over of Ramanagar area
from Belgaum Forest Division to Haliyal Forest Division.
EVALUATION TEAM : -
The Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests(EWPRT) in his O.M.No.
APCCF(EWPRT)/I-32/Eval./07-08 dated 08-10-2007 constituted teams for Evaluation of works
implemented under Plan and Non-plan schemes during
2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07 for different circles.
The Evaluation Team of Kanara Circle consisted of the following : -
Team Leader Sri. M.N. Jayakumar, Chief Conservator of Forests
(Communication and Information), Bangalore.
Team Members (1) Sri. Nagaraj Hampole, Conservator of Forests
(Research), Bangalore.
(2) Sri. Ajay Misra, Conservator of Forests, Dharwad
Circle.
(3) Sri. K.S. Nayak, Deputy Conservator of Forests,
Zilla Panchayat, Dharwad.
(4) Sri. Jagadish, Deputy Conservator of Forests, Zilla
Panchayat, Bangalore Rural.
Consequent upon the transfer of Sri. Nagaraj Hampole and Sri. Ajay Misra Sri. B.K.
Dikshit and Sri. Vijay Kumar Gogi respectively took their position. Subsequently Sri. K.S.
Nayak, Deputy Conservator of Forests was also transferred and his place was taken by Sri. R.N.
Nayak, Assistant Conservator of Forests, Zilla Panchayat, Dharwad. In order to speed up
evaluation work in Sirsi and Honnavar Divison. Sri. O. Palaiah, Deputy Conservator of
Forests, Kundapur and Sri. Vijay Lal Meena, Deputy Conservator of Forests, Karwar were also
co-opted as members at a later stage.
BREIF SUMMARY OF EVALUATION
Kanara Circle had raised during 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07,
a total extent of 28,813.22 ha. of plantations in 1491 different spots of which an extent of
5137.93 ha. situated in 248 different locations were selected for evaluation. Thus the sampling
intensity is very high. The details are furnished in Table – I.
TABLE – I
PLANTATIONS EVALUATED
Sl. Name of the Division Total extent Total No. of Extent of No. of spots /
No. of plantations Spots / sampling area locations of
(Ha) Locations selected selected
plantations
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
1. Haliyal (T) 7182.63 123 759.46 19
2. Yellapur (T) 5494.00 442 1317.00 41
367
3. Sirsi(T) 5085.51 284 870.93 55
4. Honnavar (T) 6331.10 239 1022.08 40
5. Karwar (T) 2147.50 143 659.50 45
6. Dandeli (Wildlife) 1834.00 58 360.00 13
7. Karwar (SF) 738.48 202 148.96 35
TOTAL 28813.22 1491 5137.93 248
The weighted survival percentage of plantations has fluctuated from a low of 19.72% in
Karwar Social Forestry Division to a high of 74.88% in Honnavar Division. Similarly Sirsi and
Yellapur Divisions have also a fairly high weighted survival percentage of 70.95% and 69.65%
respectively. The other three divisions have much lower figures as furnished in Table II below :
TABLE – II
SURVIVAL % (WEIGHTED)
Sl. Name of the Division Survival % weighted

No.
(1) (2) (3)
1. Haliyal (T) 58.05%
2. Yellapur (T) 69.65%
3. Sirsi (T) 70.95%
4. Honnavar (T) 74.88%
5. Karwar (T) 57.85%
6. Dandeli (WL) 47.74%
7. Karwar (SF) 19.72%
OTHER WORKS : -
A total of 2708 works in the other works category were implemented in Kanara Circle
during the evaluation period of which 414 works wee selected for evaluation and details are
furnished in Table – III below :-
TABLE – III
TOTAL NUMBER OF OTHER WORKS EVALUATED
Sl. Name of Divison Total No. of other works No. of works selected
No. implemented for evaluation
(1) (2) (3) (4)
1. Haliyal (T) 327 62
2. Yellapur (T) 515 90
3. Sirsi (T) 806 94
4. Honnavar (T) 339 62
5. Karwar (T) 372 79
6. Dandeli 344 26
(Wildlife)
7. Karwar (SF) 5 1
TOTAL 2708 414
As regards seedling distribution and performance of seedling after distribution and other
items of works they have been spelt out in the individual division report.
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS FOR THE CIRCLE : -
(1) Kanara Circle is bestowed with rich natural forests which require consolidation and
absolute protection. Developmental works including afforestation works are
undermining management of natural forests. Emphasis on proper protection of natural
resource should be given even at the cost of reduction of plantation works.
368
(2) Planting of Fuelwood species like Acacia in Coastal Divisions and blanks and open
spaces in the upghats is recommended to meet the local firewood needs. Emphasis on
planting of miscellaneous species in the upghat divisions should be there.
(3) Proper survey and preparation of sketches of plantations indicating Gross area and
net area of plantation should be mandatory. GPS readings of all corner
points of plantations should be recorded on the plantation sketch.
(4) Preparation of Site Specific Plan and Treatment Map indicating species, espacement
and other technical details are to be prepared in advance and got approved from the
Conservator of Forests. This would eliminate instances like Acacia / Teak which are
strong light demanders being under planted.
(5) Hammer mark and chisel numbering after teak thinning are not visible or perhaps not
done, this should be mandatory.
(6) Bamboo flowering is in progress in Haliyal and Dandeli Wildlife Divisions. Action is
to be taken as per prescription of Working Plan and fire protection of these forests
should receive top most priority.
(7) Treating excavation of cattle proof trench as a Soil and Moisture Conservation work
is not desirable. All SMC works should be done with a Watershed approach and due
technical planning. Rubble stone gully checks cannot be a substitute for Cement
Concrete Check Dams in steep areas and perennial streams / streams with high
volume of gushing water.
(8) Works like Fire Line Clearance, View Line Clearance, Saltlicks, Maintenance of
Roads etc. should be excluded from Evaluation as they are not verifiable after a lapse
of time.
(9) Improper maintenance of records, multiplicity of sources of seedlings make a
Evaluation of distribution of seedlings confusing and difficult.
If enough and sufficient data are not provided this item of work may have to be
excluded.
(10)The staff should be trained in preparation of Site Specific Plan and Treatment
Map, dealing with Forest offences, SMC works.
(11) It is advisable to have one team for the entire evaluation work. Even if officers are
transferred out, they should continue to be members of the team. This would help in
completing the assigned task without much disruption.
(12) It is recommended to have a set of proformae / template for finalization of
evaluation report after the field work to maintain uniformity. This would facilitate
compilation of various reports.
Haliyal Forest Division
Introduction:
Haliyal Forest Division is one of the six forest divisions of Kanara Circle. It comprises of
Haliyal and part of Joida Taluks of Uttar Kannada district but excludes the Reserve Forest areas,
falling in Wildlife Division, Dandeli. The Haliyal Division comprises of Haliyal, Bhagavati,
Sambrani, Dandeli, Virnoli, Kulgi, Barchi, Jagalbet, Tinneghat and Gund Ranges. In 1997-98
after the formation of wild life division with the head quarters at Dandeli, the ranges namely,
Gund, Kulgi, Virnoli of of Haliyal forest division were attached to Wild life.
This division is situated between the Northern Latitude 140 58’ 34” to 150 31’ 16” and
East longitude between 740 4’ 52” to 740 29’ 52”.
369
The Haliyal Forest Division comprises of 118239.583 ha of reserved forests covering
three Forest Sub-divisions namely Haliyal, Dandeli and Ganesh-gudi. The reserved forests
constitute 65.85% of total geographical area of the division.
The Forest area of this tract, can broadly be classified into following types;
1. Southern tropical wet evergreen forest (1A)
2. Southern Tropical Semi evergreen Forests (2A)
3. Tropical moist deciduous forests (3B)
4. Southern tropical dry deciduous forests (5A)
Forestry works of all the nature viz plantation, distribution of seedlings to public, logging,
extraction, thinning and various other works are being executed in the division. Present Working
Plan of Haliyal division is for the period 2003-04 to 2012-13.
Methodology:
The evaluation work was taken up following the methodology, as issued in this regard, in
the evaluation guidelines. The information about the works was obtained in the form A, D, & G.
The list of selected works was received in the form B, E, and H. Further observation of the field
work were recorded in the form C, F, & I. All these forms have been filed. The works were
evaluated for the year 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07 under various plan and non-plan schemes.
10% of all the works reported were taken for evaluation. Sampling intensity was kept 2% for the
selected plantations. Though the seedlings were raised under RSPD programme, records of
address and details of purchasers (beneficiaries) were not maintained. Hence, no specific
methodology was used for its evaluation. While evaluating other works, efforts were made to
include the works of all nature, carried out in the division and to ensure that at least few works
were evaluated in each Range. Sample plots were laid in the plantation randomly by drawing
transact from N-W direction. Distribution of sample plots was done randomly at a
predetermined, equal spacing, on the principal transact (as worked out for the given sampling
intensity.) In case of more nos. of such sample plots were required, these were located on
subsidiary parallel transact at a predetermined fixed distance from the main transact line. Hence
the sample plots/subsidiary transacts, were fixed on the sketch randomly, as per the extent and
shape of plantation area and there after were accordingly located on the ground. All the
observations of the evaluated works were recorded as per the guidelines by the Team members in
the Form C, F & I.
I. Plantation Evaluation:
During the year 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07 an extent of 7182.63 ha of plantations
were raised in 123 locations in the Haliyal division. Out of this 19 locations were selected for the
evaluation purpose covering an extent of 759.46 ha which is more than 10% of the plantation
works. Plantation under the Model-1 of KSFMBC project was also included (raised during
2005-06 and 2006-07). However as this model was not having planting of seedlings activity,
these have been excluded from working out the survival percentage in the division. One of the
plantations in Sambrani Range could not be evaluated due to the problem of crossing the over
flowing stream on the way to plantation. Similarly, one plantation under KFDF 3OP could not be
evaluated as sampling methodology of laying out of sampling plot was not correctly followed.
These plantations were excluded and remaining 19 plantations were evaluated. The details of
plantations raised, year wise at various locations and selected for evaluation are given here below
in the Table-1.
370
Table-I
Sl Year for which Area Total no.of No.of locations/ Total sampling Remarks
No evaluation is (in ha) locations/spots spots selected for area selected for
being done samplings evaluation (in ha)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
†
1 2004-05 2043.58 32 7 155.00
††
2 2005-06 3003.05 41 7 462.46
†††
3 2006-07 2136 50 5 142.00
Total 7182.63 123 19 759.46
NB:
† 2004-05 NAP plantation in the Sambrani Range in an extent of 25.00 ha. was not
evaluated due to the problem of over flowing stream on way to plantation which was cut
off.
†† 2005-06 M-1, KSFMBC plantation, there is no planting component.
††† 2006-07 M-1 KSFMBC plantation, there is no planting component.
††† One plantation of 2006-07, raised under KFDF-3OP, 50.00 ha. in Barchi Range could
not be evaluated for want of properly laying out the sample plots.
Besides the field work as per the methodology of evaluation guidelines, performance of
the different aspects of the plantations was also taken up. As per the sampling intensity of 2%,
the required nos’. of sample plots were laid in selected plantations. Survival percentage in each
plantation was worked out on the basis of surviving seedlings/casualties found in the sample
plots in the plantation. It is found that the overall survival percentage in the division was found to
be 58.05%. Survival percentage under NAP-FDA scheme. It was 68.10%, under DDF 77.50%
and under the 12th Finance Commission it was 56.21%. Under the KSFMBC project it was found
80.04%. The survival percentage in other schemes, namely compensatory afforestation, KFDF
3OP, RCF and GUA it was 870.6%, 34.83% 73.00% and 47.78% respectively. The year wise
and scheme wise details of survival percentage are given here below in Table-II and Table-III.
Table-II
Sl Year Type of scheme Name of the Area (in ha.) Length of Survival Survival
No Plan/Non-plan/ Scheme for Block plantation in % % x Area
Compensatory Plantation Kms (for road
afforestation side plantation,
urban
plantation etc)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 2004-05 Plan NAP-FDA 100.00 - 63.77% 6377.75
2 2005-06 Plan NAP-FDA 50.00 - 76.78% 3839.25
150.00 10217.00
1 2004-05 Plan DDF 40.00 - 70.00% 3100.00
371
1 2004-05 Plan Compensatory 15.00 - 87.06% 1305.90
Afforestation
1 2005-06 Plan 12th Finance 55.00 - 59.16% 3091.55
1 2005-06 Plan KFDF-3OP 212.46 - 34.83% 7399.98
1 2005-06 Plan RCF 30.00 - 73.00% 2190.00
1 2006-07 Plan KSFMBC 87.00 - 78.22% 6963.60
1 2006-07 Plan GUA * 5.00 - 47.78% 238.90
594.46 34506.93
Over all survival % 58.05%
* Under GUA programme , 1.00 KM of plantation length has been taken up as 1.00 ha
Table-III
ABSTRACT OF SURVIVAL % OF ALL THE SCHEMES:
Sl Name of the Scheme Weighted Survival %
No
1 2 3
1 NAP-FDA 68.10%
2 DDF 77.50%
3 Compensatory Afforestation 87.06%
4 12th Finance 56.21%
5 KFDF-3-OP 34.83%
6 RCF 73.00%
7 KSFMBC 80.04%
8 GUA 47.78%
The low survival percentage has could be seen in the above table in respect of 12th
Finance Commission is due to the fact that Plantation is a mixture of species consisting of
Acacia, Teak and miscellaneous species. Similarly the low survival percentage of KFDF-3-OP
is because it was a miscellaneous Plantation. The low survival percentage under GUA was
because human pressure of Dandeli town.
While evaluating the performance of plantation based on other parameters, it is found that
site selection was proper in 84.21% cases while selection of plantation model was found proper
only in 68.90% cases. In case of choice of species, it was found proper, in 70.80% cases. In
74.20% cases protection aspects were found proper, however in 26.5% cases general condition of
plantation was found improper. The details of these performances are given here below in Table-
IV.
Table-IV
PERFORMANCE OF PLANTATION:
General
* Choice of Protection
Total No Site selection Model selection condition of
species aspects
Sl of plantation
No plantation Proper ImPro Proper ImPro Proper ImPro Proper ImPro Proper ImPro
evaluated per per per per per
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1 19 16 3 13 6 12 5 14 5 14 5
*
N. Under the M-1 works of KSFMBC programme, planting component is not
B.: there.
372
In case of model-I works of KSFMBC projects, the parameters of choice of species has
not been taken into account as this model does not have any planting activity. JFPM works were
evaluated based on the parameters like formation of village forest committees, preparation of
micro-plans and entry point activities. It was found that only, in 61.11% cases, where various
afforestation/regeneration works have been taken up, the VFCs have been formed. In 56.00%
cases micro-plan have been prepared. However, progress in taking up the entry point activities
was found to be only in 33.60% villages. Here the plantation raised under the GUA scheme has
not been included for assessment of JFPM as these works are taken up in the urban areas. The
details of these aspects are summarized in the Table-V given below.
Table-V
DETAILS OF FORMATION OF VFC, PREPARATION OF MICRO PLAN AND ENTRY POINT ACTIVITIES:
No.of spots for which
Total No of Micro plans Entry point activities Remarks
VFC have been formed
Sl No spots
evaluated Carried Not carried
Formed Not formed Written Not written
out out
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 18 11 7 10 8 6 12
The JFPM components were not evaluated for plantation raised under GUA
N.B.: scheme.
II. Distribution of Seedlings to public:
Out of the given list, seven beneficiaries were selected for raising the performance of
species in Farm forestry/Agro forestry. But during the discussion with the local officers
it was informed that seedlings were sold during the local functions etc., and therefore
records of the details about the purchasers (beneficiaries) or the place of planting was
not been maintained. In view of this, the evaluation of this component could not be
taken up. Details of this component are given in Table-VI.
Table-VI
Sl Year Total no.of Total no.of No.of location/ No.of seedlings at
No seedlings location/ beneficiaries selected selected location/
distributed beneficiaries for evaluation beneficiaries
1 2 3 4 5 6
1 2004-05 - - - -
2 2005-06 - - - -
3 2006-07 70923 7
Total 70923 7
III. Other works:

Evaluation of other works was taken up as per the information furnished in the Form-“G”
and as per the list of selected works given in Form-“H”. The observation recorded for these other
works are enclosed in the Form-“I”. Following were the main categories of other works:-
1. Thinning of Teak plantations
2. Salvaging of dead and fallen materials
3. Extraction of Green Bamboos
4. Soil and Moisture Conservation works including the construction of Gully plugs/
Check-Dams/ Nala-bund/ Desilting of Tanks/ Pitching works etc.,
5. Building construction & repairs works including electrification.
373
Out of total 327 such works 62 works were selected for evaluation. Year wise, list of
various other works taken for evaluation is given in the Table-VII.
Sl Total no.of other works Works selected in that
Year Nature of other works
No in that category category for evaluation
1 2 3 4 5
2004-05 Thinning of Teak Planatation 12 -

I 2005-06 " 24 2
2006-07 " 2 1
Total-I 38 3
Logging work (Removal of dead

2004-05 17 3
and fallen timber)
II
2005-06 " 21 6
2006-07 " - -
Total-II 38 9
2004-05 Bamboo extraction works 7
III 2005-06 " 7
2006-07 " 4
Total-III 18
2004-05 SMC Works 8
IV 2005-06 " 6
2006-07 " 5
Total-III & IV 176 19
2004-05 Building Constructions/ Repairs 31 4
V 2005-06 " 32 7
2006-07 " 12 2
Total-V 75 13
Grand Total 327 62
Comments:
Plantation works
1. In the enclosed sketch of the plantations, it is observed that net area and gross area of
plantations have not been marked. The location map and survey sketches should be
prepared correctly.
2. Plantation sketches should be prepared with great care to ensure its correctness. The
extent and espacement need to be furnished correctly.
3. The espacement as given in the plantation records, has not been properly followed, while
executing the works.
4. Plantation works should be taken up only after approval of the site specific plan and
Treatment Map from the Competent Authority. This would ensure proper selection of
species and treatment to the selected site.
5. The protection aspect need more attention and should be made more effective to avoid
any damage to the plantation.
374
6. Silvicultural requirement of species should be taken into account while selecting them for
gap plantation/under planting works. Improvement operation should be taken up strictly
as per the prescriptions of working plan.
7. Intermixing of miscellaneous species and Acacia auriculiformis should be avoided.
8. In certain FDA plantations lack of maintenance works has adversely affected the survival
percentage of the plantation.
9. Compensatory afforestation should be taken up under the specific objectives of the
particular scheme in the given type of area, as approved in the Govt.Order.
10. In certain cases of entry point activity under NAP-FDA, the work was sanctioned and
only partly carried out, without properly estimating the total requirement of funds for the
given work, resulting in non completion of such work. Quality of wood used in
construction of buildings should be good.
11. Under the G.U.A Scheme planting of timber / pulpwood species like Acacia, Teak, Matti,
Nandi etc., may be avoided.
12. It is necessary to keep the information like addresses of beneficiaries and land details of
planting for the sale of seedlings to them to ensure proper evaluation of Farm
forestry/Agro forestry components.
13. More attention need to be paid to ensure effective people’s participation under the JFPM
especially for the protection of plantations.
14. Under CSS-NAP, raising of plants, herbs and shrubs having medicinal value was not
seen.
Soil Moisture Conservation Works:
SMC works should be designed and executed strictly as per the principle of watershed
management. Geo-referencing and numbering of individual SMC structure need to be done.
More care should be taken in calculating of volume of various SMC works. Rubble stone gully
checks should be avoided in areas requiring cement concret check dams.
Other Works:
1) Thinning:
While taking up the thinning operations, it should be ensured that the number of
stumps/ha to be retained, should be strictly as per the prescription of working plan.
Stumps of all the thinned teak poles should be hammer marked and number of poles
prepared from the stem should also be chiseled at the thinned stumps.
2) Dead and fallen:
Before taking up the salvaging of the dead and fallen materials, the estimation of
expected out turn should be in a realistic way to avoid any excessive difference between
the expected and actual out turn.
3) Extraction of Green Bamboos:
It is mostly done by breaking it from the middle of culms. The number of Bamboo
extracted was only as per the division requirement. As the Bamboo flowering is
progressing in the division, necessary the action should be taken as per the working plan to
manage the flowered area. Protection of these forests from fire should be a priority work.
4) In certain cases though the estimate was sanctioned and the work was listed in the list
of selected works but the work has not been executed. These works were not been
evaluated.
5) Building:
The splitting of works estimates should be avoided. The staff quarters maintenance
should be given special attention. Maintenance of FRH in the division was found
satisfactory.
375
6) General:
In some places in forest area widening/formation of road works were noticed.
Necessary action may be taken to ensure that these works are as per the existing forest
laws.
Action taken on the observations made of the Evaluation Report during 2002-03 and
2003-04.
(1) Plantation journals have more or less updated.
(2) All the rest houses being repaired and maintained well.
Evaluation Report of Yellapur Division for the year 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07
Introduction:
Yellapur Forest Division falls in the revenue Taluks of Mundgod and Yellapur. The total
forest consisting of Proper Forest, Minor Forest and Betta land is 1,65,458.831 ha. Some of the
Minor forest in Katur Range that had not been included in any of the earlier plans, have also
been included in this plan. In addition to this, the inaccessible areas of Yellapur and Indagundi
have been included in this plan.
The present Yellapur Division with certain boundary modifications coincides for most of
the area with the earlier Kanara Eastern Division. The date of inception of Yellapur division is
01-07-1950. The organized Forest of Honnavar, Karwar and Sirsi Divisions surround it. In the
eastern part, there is the boundary of Dharwad Division. The boundary of the Division lies
between 14044’ to 150 7’ North latitudes and between 740 25’ to 750 6’ east longitudes. The total
geographical area of the division is 1,90,227.67 ha.
Climate:
There is a lot of variation in climate as we move towards west from east. Mundogd
receives about 150-160 cm of rainfall, where as 400 cm or more, rainfall is recorded near
Yellapur. The rainfall along Kalinadi valley, Arbail slope and Nirsol slope may be even more
than what had been recorded at Yellapur. In summer the temperature in Mundgod is higher than
Yellapur and in the evergreen area it becomes quite humid.
Establishment:
Present Yellapur Division, the erstwhile Eastern Kanara Division was having its
headquarter at Dharwad which was later shifted to Yellapur. There are three sub divisions ie.,
Yellapur, Manchikeri and Mundgod in this division. Yellapur sub division is having Yellapura
and Kirwatti ranges, Manchikeri and Idagundi ranges form Manchikeri Sub-Division and
Mundgod sub-division is having Katur and Mundgod ranges in its jurisdiction.
METHODOLOGY.
the evaluation guidelines. The information about the works was obtained in the form A,D, & G.
work were recorded in the form C, F, & I. All these forms are enclosed in Annexure. The works
were evaluated for the year 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07 under various plan and non-plan
schemes. 10% of all the works reported were taken for evaluation. Sampling intensity was kept
2% for the selected plantations. Though the seedlings were raised under RSPD programme,
records of address and details of purchasers (beneficiaries) were not maintained. Hence, no
specific methodology was used for its evaluation. While evaluating other works, efforts were
made to include the works of all nature, carried out in the division and to ensure that at least few
works were evaluated in each Range. Sample plots were laid in the plantation randomly by
drawing transact from N-W direction. Distribution of sample plots was done randomly at a
predetermined, equal spacing, on the principal transact (as worked out for the given sampling
376
intensity). In case of more nos., of such sample plots were required, these were located on
subsidiary parallel transact at a predetermined fixed distance from the main transact line.
Hence, the sample plots / subsidiary transacts were fixed on the sketch randomly, as per the
extent and shape of plantation area and there-after were accordingly located on the ground. All
the observations of the evaluated works were recorded as per the guidelines by the Team
members in the Form C, F & I.
I. Evaluation of Plantation works.:-
For evaluation of plantations raised during 2003-04, out of 63 spots 5 were selected
extending 110-00 ha., in NAP-FDA were selected. For the plantations of 2004-05, 2005-06
and 2006-07 an extent 460-00 ha.(11 spots), 455-00 ha. (11 spots) and 302-00 ha. (14 spots)
have been evaluated. The evaluation work is carried out for more than 20% of the areas and
approximately 10% localities.
a) Plantation Evaluated:
Year for No. of
Total no.
which Locations/ Total sampling area
Sl. Area Of
evaluation Spots selected for evaluation
No. (in ha.) Locations/
is being Selected for (in ha.)
spots
done samplings
1 2 3 4 5 6
1 2003-04 521-00 063 05 110-00
2 2004-05 2710-00 124 11 460-00
3 2005-06 889-00 115 11 455-00
4 2006-07 1374-00 140 14 292-00
Total 5494-00 442 41 1317-00
The scheme-wise survival percentage was worked out on the basis of the evaluated
plantation works. It is found that the overall survival percentage is 69.63%. The survival
percentage under NAP-FDA is 67.39%, under KFDF Scheme it was found 66.20%, under DDF
it is 80.00%, under NOVOD it is 95.00%, under 11-Forest-COP- 74.57%, under
KSFMBC it is 85.36%, under Compensatory Afforestation it is 64.00% and under TFC it is
74.17%. The area under the plantation under various schemes is as follows;
NAP-FDA - 440-00 ha.
KFDF - 512-50 ha.
DDF - 20-00 ha.
NOVOD - 25-00 ha.
KSFMBC - 82-00 ha.
Componesatory
Afforestation - 50-00 ha.
TFC - 91-00 ha.
11-Forest
Protection - 97-00 ha.
-------------------------
1317-50 ha.
Survival percentage year wise for other than FDA plantations and FDA plantations are
listed plantationwise in the following table.
Plantations Evaluated in Yellapur Division
Sl. Year Scheme Divn Range Hobli Village SY.No Area Surviva
No in ha l
%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 2004-05 11-Forest Yallapur Yellapur Kirwatti Hunashettikop XV-25 25-00 80
377
Protection pa
2 2004-05 02-Comp. Yallapur Yellapur Yellapur Kyasankeri XXXI-4 30-00 60
Pltn
3 2004-05 02-Comp. Yallapur Idagundi Idagundi Idagundi -- 20-00 70
Pltn
4 2004-05 DDF Yallapur Katur Katur Atabail XXI-18 20-00 80
5 2004-05 KFDF-03- Yallapur Katur Katur Hanumapur XXII-17 20-00 60
Other FS NO.6
Plantation
6 2004-05 KFDF-03- Yallapur Manchik Manchikeri Manchikeri XVIII-27 225-00 70

Other eri
Plantation
(Intensive
Mngmt of
logged area
7 2005-06 KFDF Yallapur Kirwatti Kirwatti Tenginageri XIV-18 225-00 65
8 2005-06 11-Forest Yallapur Mundgo Mundgod Andalagi FS NO.3 18-00 53
Protection d
9 2005-06 NOVODA Yallapur Kirwatti Kirwatti Tottilgundi XV-8 25-00 95
(Karewada)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
10 2005-06 TFC Yallapur Idagundi -- Arabail XXII-11 12-00 85
11 2005-06 TFC Yallapur Mundgo -- Basapur FS 30-00 75

d NO.232
12 2005-06 TFC Yallapur Katur -- Alalli CXC- 15-00 60
7P2
13 2006-07 11-Forest Yallapur Katur Katur Alalli FS NO.4 20-00 75
Protection
14 2006-07 11-Forest Yallapur Idagundi Idagundi Mavinamane FSNO.2 20-00 90
Protection 88
15 2006-07 11-Forest Yallapur Mundgo Mundgod Koppa FSNO.5 14-00 70
Protection d 3
16 2006-07 TFC Yallapur Yallapur Yallapur Chandguli XXXI- 06-00 90
28
17 2006-07 TFC Yallapur Katur Katur Chitgeri FSNO.1 08-00 65
6, 26,21
18 2006-07 TFC Yallapur Kirwatti Kirwatti Karadolli XV-8 20-00 85
19 2006-07 03-KFDF Yallapur Kirwatti Kirwatti Jogikoppa XV-4,5 22-50 20

(Alkeri)
20 2006-07 03-KFDF Yallapur Idagundi Idagundi Marahalli CXXXV 20-00 95
-5
21 2006-07 KSFMBC Yallapur Manchik Manchikeri Halasinakoppa XXX-7 22-00 85
M-IV eri
22 2006-07 KSFMBC Yallapur Katur Katur Oralgi FS 30-00 96
M-IV NO.13
23 2006-07 KSFMBC Yallalpur Mundgo Mundgod Ajjalli FSNo.74 30-00 75
M-IV d
For these 23 plantations over an area 877.50 ha. weighted average is found to be
70.75%.
The survival percentage for FDA plantations year wise and plantation wise are listed in
the following Table.
FDA plantations in Yellapur (T) division
Sl. Year Scheme Divn Range Hobli Village SY.No Area in Surviv
No ha al
%
1 2003-04 NAP(FDA) Yellapur Yellapur Kanniger Kannigeri XIII-31 20-00 70
i (25-00)
2 Yellapur Manchikeri Bharani Bharani 20-00 50
378
3 Yellapur Manchikeri Hitlalli Hitlalli 200A 25-00 55
4 Yellapur Katur Kolgi Kolgi XXII-1 25-00 70
5 Yellapur Mundgod Attiveri Attiveri 44 20-00 55
6 2004-05 NAP(FDA) Yellapur Yellapur Kanniger Kannigeri XIII-2 20-00 70
i (25-00)
7 Yellapur Idgundi Hulgaon Hulgaon 34-9 30-00 70
8 Yellapur Kirwatti Hosalli Hosalli XV-07 25-00 85
9 Yellapur Katur Haraganh Haraganhal 24 25-00 52
alli li
10 Yellapur Mundgod Attiveri Attiveri 44 20-00 65
11 2005-06 NAP(FDA) Yellapur Yellapur Kondema Kondeman XXXII- 20-00 60
ne e 20
12 Yellapur Manchikeri Hitlalli Hitlalli 200A 25-00 55
13 Yellapur Kirwatti Deshpand Deshpande XV-1 20-00 100
enagar nagar
14 Yellapur Katur Togralli Togralli XXI-25 25-00 70
15 Yellapur Mundgod Basapur Basapur 40-00 52
16 2006-07 NAP(FDA) Yellapur Yellapur Kuchgao Kuchgaon XXXXI- 25-00 90
n 8
17 Yellapur Kirwatti Domageri Domageri XV-27 25-00 70
18 Yellapur Mundgod Arishinger Arishingeri FSY-42 30-00 80
i
For these 18 plantations over an area 440.00 ha. weighted average is found to be
67.39%.
The scheme wise survival percent is given in the Table-3 here - below
Abstract of survival percentage under all the schemes.
Sl. Weighted
Name of the Scheme
No. Survival %
1 NAP-FDA 67.39
2 KFDF 66.20
3 DDF 80.00
4 NOVOD 95.00
5 KSFMBC 85.36
6 TFC 74.17
7 C.A. 64.00
8 11- FOREST COP. 74.57
NOVOD and DDF plantations have recorded highest survival percentage because of
single sample chosen for each of the scheme. KSFMBC also has recorded high percentage of
85.36% because all the three samples selected fall under newly created plantation category ie.,
for 2006-07. Generally the performance of plantations under non FDA schemes is satisfactory.
Under FDA the performance of the plantations when looked from the view point of survival
percentage appears to be satisfactory.
However, it is due to largely plantations of Acacia auriculiformis in moist deciduous and
dry deciduous tracks of Mundgod and Kirwatti where survival rate is higher. Other ranges have
got survival percentage below weighted average shown. Even though miscellaneous species
planted are surviving as indicated in the survival percentage the growth parameter are not
satisfactory. With existing biotic pressure these slow growing plants are being browsed and are
not likely to result in tree form.
Selection of the site and species are not according to the technical requirements of the
location. It is often dictated by scheme which is not relevant to field situation. In most of the
cases the prime concern for selection of the site was for eviction of encroachment or prevention
of encroachment irrespective of the density classifications and availability of open patches for
afforestation. Such being the situation following the prescribed espacement is difficult and the
379
same is visible in most of the plantations. Under planting in areas with dense canopy cover for
above said reasons has resulted in poorer growth and non performance of the species. Generally
Acacia auriculiformis has done very well in grassy blanks, open patches irrespective of rainfall
and depth of the soil. Teak has performed well in open areas of moist deciduous and dry
deciduous forests. Tapasi and Honge (Hulugal) also have performed well in most of the areas
wherever they have been planted. Miscellaneous species even though are surviving with poorer
percentile and growth are almost non-performers.
II) Distribution of seedlings:
Sl. Year Scheme Divn Range Hobli Village No. of seedlings Survival
No. %
1 -- -- Yallapur Yallapur Yallpur Hebbanapal 4232 (Acacia, Teak, 75
Sampige)
2 -- -- Yallapur Yallapur Idagundi Bare 3899 (Mavu, Hunase, 90
Halasu)
3 -- -- Yallapur Yallapur Manchikeri Tudguni 4298 (Mavu, Hunase, 85
Halasu)
4 -- -- Yallapur Mundgod Katur Alalli 800 (Mavu, Hunase, 95
Halasu)
5 -- -- Yallapur Mundgod Mundgod Mainalli 702 (Mavu, Hunase, 50
Halasu)
In Yellapur three sites were visited for assessing performance of seedlings distributed,
number of seedlings, species did not tally with the records. It is said that the seedlings are not
distributed but sold for the actual price. People from various regions have purchased seedlings
in the name of local farmers and used for their own purposes. Hence, this mismatch of records
and field situation. In Manchikeri, Idagundi and Katur one field was visited in each of the range
and in Mundgod two places were evaluated. The situation with respect to number of seedlings
and species was no way different than that of Yallapur Range. However, evaluation was done by
interacting with the farmers regarding number of seedlings and species planted by them and their
survival rate and performance. Generally, survival of Teak is extremely good farmers also
preferred Acacia auriculiformis, Casurina equisitfolia and Eucalyptus. The survival percentage
are as indicated in the Table above. Because of good rainfall and care taken by farmers the
survival percentage is extremely good except in Mundgod Range. In Mundgod Range, one of
the spots visited was a place of worship where 1000 saplings were purchased and planted by the
management which have been completely destroyed leaving behind only 25 seedlings alive.
Because of which the survival percentage is poor even when the performance in farmers field is
satisfactory.
III) Other works:
Under other works category of works of the following nature were included.
1) Logging.
2) Buildings.
3) Bamboo extraction.
4) Soil and Moisture Conservation works.
5) Entry Point Activities.
Abstract of total number of works and sample size selected for evaluation in each category.
No. of spots
Total no. of
Particulars of work Selected for
N works
evaluation
1. Logging works 92 11
2 Building works 91 10
3 Bamboo extraction 54 07
4 SMC & EPA 278 62
TOTAL 515 90
380
For logging out of 92 spots of extraction 11 spots have been selected for evaluation. Out
of 91 buildings 10 were evaluated. In Bamboo extraction out of 54 spots 7 were visited. For
Soil and Moisture Conservation works and Entry Point Activities together, out of total number of
278 works, 62 works were evaluated. The details of each works evaluated, their GPS readings,
quality of work and their effectiveness have been recorded in the required format and filed.
Comments on other works:
Logging works:
Out of 11 samples selected all of them fall in the category of extraction of dead and fallen
trees. It is observed that in all the cases marking register, conversion/ katch register, register of
material transported and register of list of material received at depot are maintained. The
variations in estimated quantities, extracted quantities and billed and sold quantities are within
reasonable limits. In field stumps were cross checked with that of marking list for species and
girth. The test check co-related and there were no variations. Felling has been done as per the
norms without wastage. Lops and tops also have been salvaged properly. Perambulation of the
logged area did not show any kind of laxity in the extraction process. The extraction have been
carried out as per the prescription of working plan. However, a general observation is that no
regeneration prescriptions have been followed for protecting and replenishing the stock in the
extracted coupes. All such areas should have been ideally covered under intensive management
of logged areas.
Buildings:
Out of 10 buildings evaluated, 3 are new constructions, 7 pertains to general maintenance
works. Martyrs memorial erected in Dyputy Conservator of Forests’s office premises is good for
the expenditure made but keeping in view the importance of this structure, more funds should
have been earmarked for the purpose. The staff quarter in Manchikeri Range is not planned for a
comfortable living. The plan did not include for heating of water and toilet. It also does not
provide for connection of water or sinking of well but has got a provision for overhead tank.
When piped water is not supplied it is virtually impractical to fill the overhead tank which is
situated on the roof top that too when there is no provision for ladder to reach the top.
Offenders Cell constructed adjoining to Katur Range office is satisfactory but the ACC sheet
roof is the cause of concern because it is the weakest part of the structure which may be taken
advantage. Regular maintenance for 7 of the buildings evaluated have been carried out
extremely well, they have tried to restore the buildings in bad shape in to a place where
occupants are living happily.
Bamboo extraction:
Bamboo extraction is not driven by the availability as per the prescription of working
plan. However, whatever is extracted is as per the recommendations of working plan, but to the
extent there is demand for green bamboo by the artisans in and around Yellapur Division.
Generally extraction has been carried out carefully without wasting any portion. Cutting is done
at the bottom of the culm. In Yellapur division most of the big bamboo is at flowering stage.
Hence, requires for a massive operation of extraction of dried bamboo to avert a possibility of
fire due to accumulated dry biomass.
Soil and Moisture Conservation Works:
In general implementation of SMC works is satisfactory. Creation of tanks, desilting of
existing tanks and strengthening of bund and waste weirs is an activity not only contributes for
SMC but also earns the goodwill of downstream farmers. In most of the cases even though
nomenclature is check dam in reality in most of the cases gully checks have been created. Most
of the sites selected are good but the calculation of runoff, designing of gully checks needs to be
381
improved. Often times the purpose of head wall and wing wall are not understood and
constructed without taking support of the terrain. 1% of the gully checks have got breached
due to high velocity of water. This is because of the fact that in a place which deserves a
concrete check dam is treated by the construction of gully check. In some of the instances in the
name of SMC works cattle proof trenches and contour trenches have been excavated which may
not serve the purpose of SMC to the desirable extent.
Entry Point Activities:
Entry point activities have been taken up basically to provide drinking water for
community and cattle. Another major activity is to provide steel plates and tumblers to school
children to be used in mid-day meal. Apart from these works others are in the form of Soil and
Moisture Conservation works for augmentation of water. There are instances of providing
ploughs to farmers and purchase of community utensils to be used in festivals. All the activities
have been carried out after arriving at a consensus between the department and community.
Hence, all these programs are very well received by the people and are used to a possible best
extent. The entry point activities have played a vital role in building a harmonious rapport
between the department and community. It is indeed a big success if we look at the goodwill
earned with a meager investment.
Comments:
1) Efforts of the department are highly commendable in implementing the schemes.
2) The schemes are centrally formulated and sent for implementation without looking in to the
requirement of actual forest management.
3) The schemes are laden with other objectives like, participation of people, equal distribution
of work etc.
4) The funds available are development oriented and emphasize only afforestation works. This
lopsided stress for developmental schemes deprives availability of funds for managing the
existing natural stands.
5) This mismatch of requirement of funds for managing natural forests and surplus funds
available in developmental schemes forces the management to find out ways and means to
bring together plantation works and management of existing forests to achieve the required
objectives. This causes deviation from prescribed espacement, selection of species, selection
of sites etc.
6) It is desirable to continue with species like Acacia auriculiformis for plantations in grassy
blanks and open forest areas from the point of view of productivity and making the
requirements of the community available from such areas which will reduce pressure on well
stocked virgin forest areas.
7) Sufficient training inputs are required to imbibe the culture of water shed management
effectively. While taking SMC works, it is necessary to follow holisitic approach as per the
water shed principle. Design of structure and their selection etc. should be made, taking into
account water shed area and peak discharge into account to ensure the stability.
8) Selection of plantation model need to be done carefully. Most of the works have been taken
up in gap planting/ under plantations model. In such cases the Artificial Regeneration (A.R.)
Model should be avoided.
9) Planting of light demander species under the shade should be completely avoided. Choice of
species for planting in the Division, such as Teak, Acacia etc.may be re-examined. Further
Bamboo which is already in abundance and now is in flowering stage, may be avoided in the
plantation.
10) Area taken up for plantation should be properly surveyed and gross and net area should be
marked clearly on the sketch.
382
11) As the spacing varies from place to place, assessment of number of seedlings planted, can
only be done if the gross and net area is very clearly marked.
12) Preference of palatable grass species may also be given, along the tree species at suitable
areas.
13) Plantation Journals should be written giving complete details of works undertaken.
14) Area with good natural regeneration may be avoided in planting works.
15) Protection aspects should be given special attention to avoid any damages to the
plantation and to ensure good survival.
16) People participation should be strengthened, in the conservation efforts by creating more
awareness about such issues.
17) Effective protection and comprehensive implementation as per the site specific plan
(especially with reference to selection of site and nature of species) will ensure increased
survival percentage and improvement in the condition of plantations.
SIRSI DIVISION
( INTRODUCTION : -
Sirsi Forest Division, falling under the jurisdiction of the Kanara Circle comprises mainly
of two taluks Sirsi, Siddapur and a small part of Mundgod of Uttara Kannada.
The area approximately lie between 140 12I and 140 511 northern latitude and 740 341 and
0 1
75 4 eastern longitude. The State forest surrounds towns of Sirsi and Siddapur, more are less in
compact extensive belt towards, west and in scattered bits separated by cultivations, Bettas
(protected forests) and Minor forests towards the east. The sea on west is at a distance of 30 Kms
on western side from the division boundary.
The topography is highly varying . Towards the east the forests are situated on plains
or on gently undulating ground where as towards the west they are found on ridges and spurs of
western ghats. Sirsi – Siddapur road can be taken as parting between streams and rivers flowing
east and west. Dharma and Varada rivers drain the eastern region and the western region
constitutes the catchments area of river Aghanashini. However Bedthi in the North and
Sharavathi in the South also drain the area. The slopes are precipitous at times with a fall of 370
metres especially on the banks of river Bedthi and its tributaries Sonda and Bilinadi, river
Aghanashini and river Sharavathi. The hills raise from 305 mts to seldom more than 760 metres .
Highest peak in the area is Hukligudda with an elevation of 875 mts. The lowest elevation of 52
mts is met with in the Sharavathi river bed. All aspects exist, the area being mountainous.
The distinguishing characteristics of the climate are its more or less equable
temperature throughout the year and monsoon rains. The maximum temperature in the tract
seldom goes above 350C and rarely below 270C. April is the warmest month and December the
coldest.
Forest Area :
The forests of Sirsi Divison comprises of the following types:
1. Tropical Evergreen
2. Tropical Semi-evergreen
3. Tropical Moist deciduous
4. Tropical Dry deciduous
383
Distribution and Extent of Forest area (Ha):
Reserved Forest Betta
Forest (Protected
Range Geogrphical area Proper Minor Forest Forest) Total Forest Forest %
Banavasi 35747.16 13437.98 5393.82 2090.48 20922.28 58.53
Hulekal 40989.78 21172.16 8546.56 6231.18 35949.90 87.70
Janmane 46318.60 22747.30 8581.30 9636.93 40965.54 88.44
Kyadgi 23486.22 9547.50 4655.73 5772.75 19975.98 85.05
Siddapur 38719.11 10600.40 11352.46 6452.24 28405.10 73.36
Sirsi 35095.86 7592.37 7517.37 10465.35 25575.09 72.87

Division
total 220356.73 85097.72 46047.24 40648.93 171793.88 77.96
METHODOLOGY:
The evaluation work, was taken up following the methodology, as issued in this regard,
in the evaluation guidelines. The information about the works was obtained in the form A, D, &
G. The list of selected works was received in the form B, E, and H. Further observation of the
field work were recorded in the form C, F, & I. The works were evaluated for the year 2004-05,
2005-06 and 2006-07 under various plan and non-plan schemes. 10% of all the works reported
were taken for evaluation. Sampling intensity was kept 2% for the selected plantations. While
evaluating other works, efforts were made to include the works of all nature, carried out in the
division and at least few works were evaluated in each Range. Sample plots were laid in the
plantation randomly by drawing transact from N-W direction. Distribution of sample plots was
done randomly at a predetermined, equal spacing, on the principal transact ( as worked out for
the given sampling intensity.) In case of more nos. of such sample plots were required, these
were located on subsidiary parallel transact at a predetermined fixed distance from the main
transact line. Hence the sample plots/subsidiary transacts, were fixed on the sketch randomly, as
per the extent and shape of plantation area and there after were accordingly located on the
ground. All the observations of the evaluated works were recorded as per the guidelines by the
Team members in the Form C, F & I.
(I) PLANTATION EVALUATION : -
During the years 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07 an extent of 5085.51 ha. of plantations
were raised in 284 different locations in Sirsi Division. Out of this 55 plantations covering
an extent of 870.93 ha. have been selected for evaluation purposes which is more than 10%
of the plantation works. The details of plantations raised yearwise at various locations and
selected for evaluation are here in Table – I.
384
TABLE – I
Sl. Year for which Area Total no. of No. of locations / Total sampling
No. evaluation (in ha.) Locations / spots spots selected area selected for
is being done for samplings evaluation (ha)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
FDA Works
1 2004-05 780.00 46 12 250.00
2 2005-06 350.00 26 5 55.00
3. 2006-07 200.00 17 5 55.00
TOTAL 1330.00 89 22 365.00
Non-FDA Works
1 2004-05 1392.30 51 9 241.40

2 2005-06 629.00 35 7 121.25
3. 2006-07 1734.21 109 17 143.28
TOTAL 3755.51 195 33 505.93
GRAND TOTAL 5085.51 284 55 870.93
Besides the field work as per the methodology of guidelines issued for evaluation,
performance of different aspects of plantation raising work also taken up. Survival percentage
in each plantation was calculated based on the surviving seedlings / casualties found in the
sample plots in the plantation.
It was found that the over all survival percentage (weighted) for the entire division
works out to 70.956% of which the survival percentage of FDA plantations is 61.332% and
those of Non-FDA plantations raised in other schemes works out to 80.177%. Year-wise and
scheme-wise details of survival percentage are given here below in Table – II and III.
TABLE - II
At the outset it is clarified that extents of only such plantations are included in computing
the average as could be approached and survival percentage correctly estimated.
8/6
Sl. Year Type of Name of Area Name of Survival Survival %
No. scheme Scheme (in ha.) for plantation % 8
Plan/ Non- Block Area
plan Plantation
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
FDA-
Works
1. 2004-05 CSS(NAP) 30 Tyagli 65% 1950
20 Gadigeri 63% 1260
20 Shiraguni 78% 1560
25 Badagi 80% 2000
25 Kodkani 37% 925
15 Kelaginmane 58% 870
30 Sannalli 78% 2340
20 Rangapur 54% 1080
20 Nidgod 89% 1780
25 Kabbe 0.06% 1.5
10 Gadigeri 45% 450
10 Shigehalli 0% 0
2. 2005 CSS(NAP) 10 Hukkali 0% 0
385
10 Kelaginmane 77% 770
20 Kadagod 51% 1020
5 Kudragod 80% 400
640
10 Hukkali 64%
3. 2006 CSS (NAP) 20 Onigadde 90% 1800
5 Danmav 80% 400
10 Sannali 89% 890
Kunji
15 90% 1350
Bandisar
10 Moodalli 90% 900
22386.50
Sub-Total 365
Non-
FDA-
Works
2406-01-102-
1-KFDF
Schemes-03-
1. 2004-05 Other 10 Harepal 55 550
Plantations-
139-Major
Works
“ 60 Kyadgikoppa Not approachable
Gonsara,
“ 11 96 1056
Guruvalli
Savale,
“ 74 Nekkarki 75 5550
(P2)
Due to presence of wildings cannot
“ 35 Heggodmane
be estimated
Cannot be estimated as plantation
“ 30 Kodigadde could not be located and sample
plots were missing
2406-01-101-
1-02-
Compensatory
10 Bilegod 95 950
Plantations-
139-Major
Works
Special
Component 9.40 Gadageri 0 0
Plan (SCP)
04-School
2.00 Malavalli 95 190
Forestry
2406-01-102-
1-KFDF
Schemes-03-
2 2005-06 Other 40 Barur 79 3160
Plantations-
139-Major
Works
15 Kuppalli 94 1410
Heggarni,
13.50 76
Hallude 1026
Averguppa,
15 72 1080
Balguli
6 Golikai 98 588
2406-01-101-
1425
1-02-
Compensatory 18.75 Akkunji 76
Plantations-
139-Major
386
Works
2406-01-101-
2-11-Forest
Protection,
Regeneration
& Cultural
Operation 13 Sugavi 94 1222
(Comp. Affo.
for
regularization
of ench. of
Forest land)
2406-01-102-
1-KFDF
Schemes-03-
Tarehalli-
3. 2006-07 Other 20 84 1680
Kansur
Plantations-
139-Major
Works
2406-01-101-
2-11-Forest
Protection,
Regeneration
& Cultural
Operation 10 Hoskoppa 93 930
(Comp. Affo.
for
regularization
of ench. of
Forest land)
2406-01-101-
2-20-TFC-
Grand for
Preservation
of Forest 8.00 Sonaginmane 65 520
wealth-200-
Maint. 12th
Finance
Scheme
10 Tarkhand 93 930
4 Hebballi 96 384
2406-01-101-
2-11-Forest
Protection,
Regeneration
10 Kangod 83 830
& Cultural
Operation-
139-Major
Works
10 Bandal 87 870
2406-01-101-
2-10-
Greening of
1.28 Sirsi 40 51.2
Urban Areas-
139-Major
Works
KSFMBC
Marigudde
Project 30 86 2580
(Kankoppa)
Model-IV
10 Mogadde 72 720
20 Nirgaon 99
387
1980
10 Harekoppa 86 860
Sub-Total 505.93# 30542.2
870.93##
Grand total 52928.7
# EFFECTIVE AREA IS 380.93 HECTARES

## EFFECTIVE AREA IS 745.93 HECTARES
Weighted survival % = For FDA works = 61.332
For Non-FDA works = 80.177
For FDA + Non-FDA = 70.956
TABLE III
ABSTRACT OF SURVIVAL % OF ALL THE SCHEMES : -
Sl. Name of the Scheme Weighted

No. Survival %
(1) (2) (3)
1. 2406-01-102-1-KFDF Schemes-03-Other Plantations-139-Major Works 78.73
2. 2406-01-101-1-02-Compensatory Plantations-139-Major Works 82.60
3. Special Component Plan (SCP) 0.00
4. 04-School Forestry 95.00
5. 2406-01-101-2-11-Forest Protection, Regeneration & Cultural Operation 89.58
(Comp. Affo. for regularization of ench. of Forest land)
6. 2406-01-101-2-20-TFC-Grand for Preservation of Forest wealth-200 91.70
Maint. 12th Finance Scheme
7. 2406-01-101-2-10-Greening of Urban Areas-139-Major Works 40.00
8. NAP (CSS) 61.33
9. KSFMBC-Project Model-IV 87.70
The SCP plantation has failed as the beneficiaries seem not to have taken interest in
maintaining the plantation. Urban forestry failed due to biotic pressure.
Generally plantations in open areas, particularly of Acacia auriculiformis have
performed better than misc. or Bamboo plantations. A. auriculiformis has not done well in
shades and weeds. It is also found illicitly cut when planted near habitations.
For evaluating the performance of plantations based on other parameters, it was found
that site selection, model selection and choice of species was proper in all the cases where as
protection aspects were found proper in 98.18%. the details of these performance are given in
Table IV below : -
TABLE - IV
PERFORMANCE OF PLANTATION
Sl. Name Site selection Model selection Choice of species Protection General
No. of the aspects condition of
Scheme plantation
Proper Impro Proper Impro Proper Impro Proper Impro Proper Impro
per per per per per
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12)
1. NON 33 0 33 0 33 0 32 1 As per Form C
FDA
2. FDA 22 0 22 0 22 0 22 0 As per Form C
TOTA 55 0 55 0 55 0 54 1
L
388
(II) DISTRIBUTION OF SEEDLINGS TO PUBLIC :
There was no activitiy of distribution of seedlings in Sirsi division
during 2004-05 and 2005-06. However, during the year
2006-07 a total quantity of 1,,25,832 seedlings have been distributed to 100 beneficiaries of
which 10 beneficiaries were selected for evaluation.
The details of this component are given in Table V below and survival status of seedlings
distributed are furnished in Table VI below : -
TABLE V
Sl. Year Total no. of seedlings Total no. of No. of location / No. of seedlings at
No. distributed location / beneficiaries selected location /
beneficiaries selected for beneficiaries
evaluation
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
1. 2004-05 NIL
2. 2005-06 NIL
3. 2006-07 125832 100 10 11910
TOTAL 125832 100 10 11910
TABLE VI
SURVIVAL STATUS OF SEEDLINGS DISTRIBUTION
Sl. Rate of Name of Ranges

No. Survival
< 20
20 – 30
30-40 Sirsi (39%)
40-50 Banavasi (50%) Siddapur (45%)
50-60
60-70 Kyadgi (67%) Hulekal (64%)
70-80
>80
Condition may be assessed in the following way: -

(1) < 20 Poor
(2) 20 – 70 Average
(3) >80 Good
The Survival percentage reported above may not be a very accurate description of facts.
This is because people are buying seedlings from various sources like KFDC, MPM, West Coast
Paper Mills, Harihar poly fiber, Gram Panchayat, Open Market etc. and the exact survival
percentage of seedlings procured from the Forest Department cannot be isolated.
(III) OTHER WORKS : -
The evaluation of other works were taken up as per the information furnished in the Form
“ G “ and as per the list of selected works given in
Form “ H “. The observations recorded for these works have been filled up in Form “ I “.
Following are the main categories of other works : -
a) Construction of vermi-compost pits.
389
b) Establishment of protection camps.
c) Fire line clearance and maintenance works.
d) Soil and Moisture Conservation works.
e) Construction of Community halls, Compound walls etc.
f) Repairs and Maintenance to Officers and Staff quarters.
Out of a total 806 other works implemented in Sirsi Division during the year, 94 works
have been selected for evaluation.
The details of other works executed in Sirsi division and the works selected for the
evaluation are furnished in Table VII below : -
390
TABLE VII
Sl. Year Nature of other works Total no. of other Works selected in that
No. works in that category category for evaluation
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
1. 2005-06 Establishment of protection 2 1
camps
2. 2006-07 Establishment of protection 2 1
camps
3. 2004-05 Construction of vermi-compost 1 1
in Bakkal
6. 2006-07 Construction & Formation of 11 1
road at Central nursery
7. 2006-07 Construction of road & Gutter 1
(P-I0 at Swarnavalli botanical
garden
8. 2004-05 Road side fire line clearance, 107 9
Fire line clearance around the
older plantation
9. 2005-06 Fire line maintenance around 223 10
the older plantation
Creation of new fire lines 2
10. 2006-07 Road side fire line clearance 87 7
11. 2004-05 Excavation of catch pit 8 1
570.000 cum
12. 2005-06 Excavation of contour 10 1
trench 420.000 cum
Construction of Gully Plug 10 1
No 7
Percolation Tank 12 1
Exiting pond and 5 1
percolation tank
13. 2006-07 Excavation of contour 17 1
trench 108.000 cum
Excavation of contour 1
trench 637.200 cum
Percolation tank 51 6
14. 2006-07 Providing & fixing GI hand 4 1
railing at Sahasralinga
15. 2005-06 Conducting training to 1
VFC, SHG members at
village level 1st week
training 3 capsules 2 days in
Bankanal
Conducting training to 1
VFC, SHG members at
village level 2nd week
training 3 capsules under
VFC Kelaginonikeri
16. 2006-07 Conducting training to 22 1
VFC, SHG members at
VFC Misgundli
Conducting training to 1
VFC, SHG members at
391
VFC Kalve
17. 2004-05 Construction of open well 1
Construction of community 1
hall
Construction of compound 1
wall at Sri Marikamba
temple
Construction of Marigudi 1
Construction of tank for 26 1
earth work compost in
Amminahalli nursery
Repair of guard quarters in 1
Kyadgi
Construction of shed to 1
Foresters quarters in
Dasanakoppa
18. 2005-06 Fiber water storage tank 1
(500 ltr.,)
Purchase of utensils for 1
Akhara Dasoha programme
Construction of community 1
hall
Maintenance of Forest rest 125 1
house, Doddamane
Other repair works in RFO 1
Sirsi Compound
Construction of new bore well 1
in DCF compound children
park
Construction of Motor vehicle 1
shed to RFO residence
Road metaling works to Kansur 1
nursery
Road repair works to CF KC 1
office staff quarters
Road repair works to CF KC 1
office staff quarters
19. 2006-07 Construction of Vermi- 1

compost pit
Repairs to the back side yard 77 1
DCF quarters, painting &
repair to staff quarters
Painting & repair work to the 1
Kansur section, Kansur and
Tyagi beat guard quarters at
Kansur
Construction of compound wall 2
along the boundaries for the
O/o CF Sirsi
Laying of cement concrete 1
PAVERS around the DCF res
at Zoo circle Sirsi
Laying of cement concrete 1
PAVERS around the DCF res
at Zoo circle Sirsi at Garage
side
Providing and making the 2
392
plastering to compound wall of
O/o KC
Construction of Brick Masonry 1
works to flower pot the garden
of DCF res
Repairs to the quarters of Smt. 1
B. B. Balemane FDA at Range
office compound Sirsi
Repairs & Painting works to 1
the car shed for the CF and
ACF Janmane at Alesar road
sirsi
Repair works to Sahyadri rest 1
house
TOTAL 806 83
806 83
Purchase of petty articles items 1
and repair works in Sahyadri
rest house and CF KC office
and residence and DCF house
and office
Construction of open well near 1
guard qtrs Jadigadde
excavation of rain recharge pit
near residence of section
foresters qtrs and construction
of wall to res of Hegdekatta
section foresters
Maintenance of RFO office, 1
RFO qtrs and construction of
well with RC Rings
20. 2004-05 Entry Point Activities under 4
CSS NAP
CSS NAP
CSS NAP
TOTAL 806 94
EVALUATION OF OTHER WORKS: -

The works related to buildings seem to be of good quality. Regarding contour trenches,
percolation ponds and NTFP disposal the remarks are put under General Observations at the end
of this report. The work of gully checks is good but probably not needed as it is too small an
effort in the vast area.
(IV) GENERAL OBSERVATIONS : -
1. Sirsi division has an excellent system of record keeping in matter of works.
Computerization is used to the maximum in it. This may be kept up for future.
2. The performance of FDA plantations in terms of survival percentage is significantly
lower than Non-FDA plantations. This calls for an introspection as to whether VFC’s are
really contributing in the success of the afforestation programmes, particularly so when
the same observation is there in Honnavar Division too.
3. The quality of work turned out is good and codal proviso and working plan has been
followed.
393
4. Almost, as a rule, no uniform spacing of seedlings in plantations is seen. Weeds,
bushes, vegetation and rocky out crops make it impossible to maintain uniform spacing.
In plantations raised in future, the pits / trenches may be confined to space available and
spacing be accordingly done.
5. In case of treating logged areas, planting of seedlings may be replaced with assisting 6 to
9 feet height promising wildlings. This will not only give better results, and promote
native species; the cost of treatment will be reduced significantly.
6. In case of percolation ponds, they are almost always found to be abutting garden lands.
The benefit of percolation thus goes to an individual, not the forest. This too is for no
fault of the staff. Gardens are located in such places in the division that the technically
correct spot for a percolation pond invariably falls near a garden land. It is recommended
that this work may be shifted to divisions in dry areas where water is indeed a precious
commodity, and where there are many places in forests suitable for percolation ponds.
7. The work of contour trenching for water and soil conservation has not added to the
regeneration or growth of vegetation. With rainfall being plenty in the division, these
works may be shifted to divisions of eastern plains. Same is the case with gully plugs
and check dams.
8. The work of having vermi-compost pits in nurseries is excellent and needs to be
propagated and replicated in all malnad divisions where farm yard manure is difficult to
procure or just not available.
9. In case of distribution of seedlings the Survival Percentage reported above may not be a
very accurate description of facts. This is because people are buying seedlings from
numerous sources like KFDC, MPM, Gram Panchayat, Open Market etc. and almost all
the sources provide the same type of seedlings.
(6) REMARKS ON THE ACTION TAKEN ON THE EARLIER EVALUATION REPORT BY THE
DIVISION.
1. The marking list, Kutch register and measurement register are up to date and tally with
one and other.
2. Acacia thinning has been done as per Silviculture description in the working plan.
Re-afforestation has been taken up in clear felled areas.
EVALUATION REPORT OF
HONNAVAR DIVISION
INTRODUCTION : -
Honavar Forest Division is situated on the West Coast and is administratively in Kanara
Forest Circle. The division has three sub divisions at Kumta, Honavar and Bhatkal. There
are seven ranges: Hiregutti, Katgal, Kumta, Honavar Manki, Gerusoppa and Bhatkal. The
division includes the entire Bhatkal, Honavar and Kumta taluks and part of Ankola taluk.
The entire division falls in Uttara Kannada district (earlier Kanara district)
Geographical Profile: Honavar division lies within Northern latitude 130 56’15” to
140 41’15” N and within longitudes 740 26’0” to 740 46’20”E. The total forest area is 1490
Sq., Km. It has Kundapur division on southern side, Sirsi and Sagar divisions on eastern
side, Karwar division on northern side and the Arabian sea on western side.
The division has coastal area and Ghats portion. There are three major rivers
394
Gangavalli, Agnanashini and Sharavati and in addition, innumerable streams and rivulets
join these rivers when they descend from Ghats to coastal region. All the watercourses drain
to Arabian Sea.
METHODOLOGY:
field work were recorded in the form C, F, & I. The works were evaluated for the year 2003-04,
2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07 under various plan and non-plan schemes. 10% of all the works
reported were taken for evaluation. Sampling intensity was kept 2% for the selected plantations.
While evaluating other works, efforts were made to include the works of all nature, carried out in
the division and at least few works were evaluated in each Range. Sample plots were laid in the
plantation randomly by drawing transact from N-W direction. Distribution of sample plots was
done randomly at a predetermined, equal spacing, on the principal transact
( as worked out for the given sampling intensity.) In case of more nos. of such sample plots were
required, these were located on subsidiary parallel transact at a predetermined fixed distance
from the main transact line. Hence the sample plots/subsidiary transacts, were fixed on the sketch
randomly, as per the extent and shape of plantation area and there after were accordingly located
on the ground. All the observations of the evaluated works were recorded as per the guidelines
by the Team members in the Form C, F & I.
(I) PLANTATION EVALUATION : -
During the years 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07 a total extent of 6331.1 ha.
plantations were raised in 239 locations in Honnavar division of which 40 plantations measuring
1022.08 ha. were selected for the purpose of evaluation. Thus, more than 10% of the plantations
have been covered during the evaluation. This includes 1825ha. plantations raised in 87 different
locations under FDA and the rest raised under various other schemes of the department. The
details of plantation raised year-wise and selected for evaluation are given in the Table I below :
-
TABLE – I
No. evaluation (in ha.) Locations / spots spots selected area selected for
is being done for samplings evaluation (ha)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
NON-FDA
1. 2003-04 0 0 0 0
2. 2004-05 1195 34 4 90.00
3. 2005-06 1666.6 41 7 211.60
4. 2006-07 1644.5 77 7 165.48
SUB-TOTAL 4506.1 152 18 467.08
395
FDA
1. 2003-04 550 34 7 170.00
2. 2004-05 550 23 7 190.00
3. 2005-06 525 21 6 150.00
4. 2006-07 200 09 2 45.00
SUB-TOTAL 1825 87 22 555.00
GRAND TOTAL 6331.1 239 40 1022.08
Field work was taken up as per the methodology and guidelines issued for the evaluation
team and along with that performance of different aspects of plantations were also considered.
As per the sampling intensity of 2%, the required numbers of sample plots were laid in
the plantations and actual survival percentage calculated based on the surviving seedlings found
in the sample plots. It is found that the over all weighted survival percentage for all category of
plantation is 74.88%. The weighted survival percentage for FDA plantations is 64.57% and that
of Non-FDA plantations it is 89.29%. The year-wise, schemewise details of survival percentages
are given in Table II and III below : -
TABLE – II
Year Type of Name of Scheme Area Name of Survival Survival %

Sl. scheme (in plantation % 8
No. Plan/ Non- ha.) Area
plan for
Block
Planta
tion
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
Non-
FDA
Works
1 2004-05 Non-Plan 2406-01-102-1- 35 Koppa 70 2450
KFDF Schemes-
03-Other
Plantations-139-
Major Works
2 Non-Plan 2406-01-102-1- 30 Divalli 70 2100
KFDF Schemes-
03-Other
Plantations-139-
Major Works
3 Non-Plan 2406-01-101-2- 10 Koppa 80 800
11-Forest
Protection,
Regeneration &
Cultural
Operation
4 2406-01-101-1-
02-Compensatory
Non-Plan 15 Kadle 98 1470
Plantations-139-
Major Works
5 2005-06 Non-Plan 2406-01-102-1-
KFDF Schemes-
03-Other 10 Gangavalli 91 910
Plantations-139-
Major Works
6 Non-Plan 2406-01-102-1- CANNOT BE N.A
KFDF Schemes- ESTIMATED
20 Yettinabail
03-Other IT BEING
Plantations-139- NATURAL
396
Major Works REGENERATI
ON
7 Non-Plan 2406-01-102-1- 100 Hebbbil, 90 9000
KFDF Schemes- Anegundi,
03-Other Sandolli
Plantations-139-
Major Works
8 Plan 2406-01-101-2-
20-TFC-Grand
for Preservation
100 1500
of Forest wealth- 15 Hanehalli
200 Maint. 12th
Finance Scheme
9 Non-Plan 2406-01-101-2- 15 Manki 98 1470
11-Forest
Protection,
Regeneration &
Cultural
Operation
10 2406-01-101-1-
02-Compensatory
Non-Plan 1.60 Kumta 45.5 72.8
Plantations-139-
Major Works
11 Plan 2406-01-102-2- 50 Heravali CANNOT BE
81-139-Major QUANTIFIED N.A
Works-KSFMBC FOR
REASONS
GIVEN IN
FORM ‘C’
12 2006-07 Non-Plan 99 1485
2406-01-102-1-
KFDF Schemes-
03-Other 15 Hadin
Plantations-139-
Major Works
13 2006-07 Plan 2406-01-101-2- 30 Mahime 95 2850

20-TFC-Grand
for Preservation
of Forest wealth-
200 Maint. 12th
Finance Scheme
14 2006-07 Plan 2406-01-101-2- 10 Kasarkod 96 960
20-TFC-Grand
for Preservation
of Forest wealth-
200 Maint. 12th
Finance Scheme
15 2006-07 Non-Plan 2406-01-101-2- 20.48 Padukuli 100 2048
11-Forest
Protection,
Regeneration &
Cultural
Operation
16 2006-07 Plan 2406-01-102-2- 20 Melinmannige 95 1900
81-139-Major
Works-KSFMBC
17 Plan 2406-01-102-2- 40 Kabgal 89 3560

81-139-Major
Works-KSFMBC
18 Plan 2406-01-102-2- 30 Gundabala 96 2880
397
81-139-Major
Works-KSFMBC
SUB TOTAL 467 35455.80
FDA
Works
1. 2003-04 Plan CSS-NAP 25 Gunavante 95 2375
2. 2003-04 Plan CSS-NAP 25 Urkeri 79 1975
3. 2004-05 Plan CSS-NAP 20 Kuntvani 05 100
4. 2003-04 Plan CSS-NAP 25 Adigon 90 2250
5. 2003-04 Plan CSS-NAP 25 Yelawalli 73 1825
6. 2003-04 Plan CSS-NAP 30 Manki FULLY 00
ILLEGALLY
REMOVED
7. 2003-04 Plan CSS-NAP 20 Marukeri 59 1180
8. 2004-05 Plan CSS-NAP 35 Salkod 70 2450
9. 2004-05 Plan CSS-NAP 25 Shirkur 77 1925
10. 2004-05 Plan CSS-NAP 40 Hillur 91 3640
11. 2004-05 Plan CSS-NAP 20 Beranki 36 720
12. 2004-05 Plan CSS-NAP 10 Yelwalli 40 400
13. 2004-05 Plan CSS-NAP 20 Ulware 95 1900
14. 2004-05 Plan CSS-NAP 40 Shirgunji 56 2240
15. 2005-06 Plan CSS-NAP 25 Salkod 90 2250
16. 2005-06 Plan CSS-NAP 15 Talgod 90 1350
17. 2005-06 Plan CSS-NAP 25 Nagarbastiker 77 1925
e
18. 2005-06 Plan CSS-NAP 25 Beranki 00 00
19. 2005-06 Plan CSS-NAP 35 Bengre 66 2310
20. 2005-06 Plan CSS-NAP 25 Moralli 51 1275
21. 2006-07 Plan CSS-NAP 25 Holanagadde 90 2250
22. 2006-07 Plan CSS-NAP 20 Alavalli- 90 1800
Hegle
Total 555.00 35840
GRAND 1022.0
71295.8
TOTAL 8@
# EFFECTIVE AREA FOR WEIHTED MEAN IS 397.08 HECTARES

@ EFFECTIVE AREA IS 952.08 HECTARES
Weighted survival % = FOR NON FDA = 89.29%
FOR FDA ONLY = 64.57%
FOR FDA AND NON FDA COMBINED = 74.88%
TABLE – III
ABSTRACT OF SURVIVAL % OF ALL THE SCHEMES

No. Survival %
(1) (2) (3)
1. 2406-01-101-2-11-Forest Protection, Regeneration & 94.94
Cultural Operation
2. 2406-01-102-1-KFDF Schemes-03-Other Plantations-139- 83.92
Major Works
3. 2406-01-102-2-81-139-Major Works-KSFMBC 92.66
4. 2406-01-101-2-20-TFC-Grand for Preservation of Forest 96.54
wealth-200 Maint. 12th Finance Scheme
5. 2406-01-101-1-02-Compensatory Plantations-139-Major 92.94
Works
6. NAP (CSS) 64.57
The poor survival percentage in CSS(NAP) is primarily due to the fact that one plantation
(Kuntawani) of cane is damaged by porcupines, one plantation totally illicitly felled (Manki )and
398
other (Beranki) failing due to lack of protection. Even otherwise, survival percentage in
CSS(NAP) plantations is poor as they are raised close to inhabitations where biotic pressure is
very high. VFC’s have not provided the protection against this it seems.
The Plantations were also evaluated based on the other parameters. The sites selection,
model selection and choice of species are proper in 38 out of the 40 plantation selected and it
works out to 95% and in case of protection, it was proper to extent of 90%. The details of these
performance are given in Table IV below :-
TABLE - IV
Sl. Name of Site selection Model selection Choice of species Protection General
No the aspects condition of
Scheme plantation
per per per per per
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12)
1. NON 18 0 18 0 18 0 18 0 As per Form C
FDA
2. FDA 20 2 20 2 20 2 18 4 As per Form C
TOTAL 38 2 38 2 38 2 36 4
(II) DISTRIBUTION OF SEEDLINGS : -

Out of the given list, 18 beneficiaries out of 28 were selected for 2004-05,
1 out of 2 in 2005-06 and 5 out of 26 beneficiaries in 2006-07. Thus,
24 beneficiaires out of a total number of 56 have been selected for evaluation. The number of
seedlings distributed to beneficiaries is also more than 10% of the total number of seedlings
distributed. These details are furnished in Table V below : -
TABLE – V
No. of location /
Total no. of Total no. of No. of seedlings at
Sl. beneficiaries
Year seedlings location / selected location /
No. selected for
distributed beneficiaries beneficiaries
evaluation
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
1. 2004-05 2643 28 18 529
2. 2005-06 11722 02 1 3000
3. 2006-07 25999 26 5 626
TOTAL 40364 56 24 4155
In the absence of proper records of beneficiaries and that the people got seedlings from
different sources, the work evaluation of distribution of seedlings is unreliable and the success of
seedlings distributed by the department could not be isolated from other sources and thus the
entire exercise and the result there of is not realistic. The surviving status of seedlings
distributed and their condition are furnished in Table VI below : -
TABLE VI
[
SURVIVAL STATUS OF SEEDLINGS DISTRIBUTION: -
Sl. Rate of Name of Ranges
No. Survival
< 20
20 – 30
30-40
399
40-50
50-60 Manki Kumta
(58%) (60%)
60-70 Hireguthi Bhatkal Honnavar
(67%) (62%) (64%) *
70-80
>80
Note: * 3000 Cashew seedlings shown as distributed in 2005-06 has actually utilized for
departmental planting of evicted forest areas and hence not included in this computation.
Condition may be assessed in the following way : -
(1) < 20 Poor
(2) 20 – 70 Average
(3) >80 Good

Evaluation of other works was taken up as per the information furnished in the Form “G “
and Form “H”. The observations recorded for these works are filled up in Form I. Following are
the main categories of other works : -
(a) Logging works.
(b) Disposal of cashew and other minor produce.
(c) Soil and Moisture Conservation works.
(d) Extraction of canes.
(e) Repairs and maintenance of Buildings and Entry Point Activities in CSS-NAP.
Out of a total number of 339 such works 62 were selected for evaluation. Year-wise list of
various other works taken for evaluation is furnished in Table VII below : -
400
Table – VII OTHER WORKS
Sl. Year Nature of other works Total no. of other Works selected in that
No. works in that category category for evaluation
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
1. 2004-05 Logging 2 1
2. 2005-06 Logging 7 2
3. 2006-07 Logging 3 4
4. 2004-05 Suragi flower & Bud Seegekal, 17 1
Kakkal pods
5. 2004-05 Uppage huli 1
6. 2004-05 Dalchini 1
7. 2006-07 Uppage huli 11 1
8. 2005-07 Cashew lease tender 22 2
9. 2004-05 Gully check 2 1
10. 2005-06 Gully check 17 2
11. 2006-07 Gully check 41 4
12. 2006-07 Percolation pond 3
13. 2004-05 Extraction of big canes 4 1
16. 2004-05 Repairs and maintenance of 13 1
Range Forest officer qtrs.
17. 2005-06 Repairs and maintenance of 59 1
Assistant Conservator of Forests
survey office & JFPM office
during the year 2005-06
18. 2005-06 Repairs and maintenance of 1
office staff qtrs. No. III, IVA,
IVB, IVC, IVD, VA, VB, VC
19. 2005-06 Repair and TCC water supply of 1
Deputy Conservator of Forests
Honnavar qtrs.
20. 2005-06 Repair and maintenance of 1
Sharavathi guest house
21. 2005-06 Construction of toilets and 3
Gerusoppa staff qtrs 3 nos.
22. 2005-06 Repair & white wash to Kumta 1
range forest officer qtrs. (Part-
III) during the year 2003-04
23. 2005-06 Repairs and maintenance of 1
staff qtrs. In Bhatkal during the
year 2004-05
24. 2006-07 Construction of paragola in 1
Kasargod nurseries (Part-II)
37
25. 2006-07 Repair and maintenance of 1
Assistant conservator of Forests
office Kumta
26. 2006-07 Construction of 53 mtrs 1
compound wall in the north
eastern side of forest staff qtrs at
Manki
27. 2006-07 Wooden ceilling to Hiregutti 1
range Hosakambi IB
28. 2003-04 Entry point activities in 31 10
CSS(NAP)
CSS(NAP)
CSS(NAP)
CSS(NAP)
401
EVALUATION OF OTHER WORKS:
The works related to buildings seem
to be of good quality. Regarding contour
trenches, percolation ponds and NTFP disposal the remarks are put under observations at the end
of the report. The work of gully checks is good but probably not needed as it is too small an
effort in the vast area.
1. The performance of FDA plantations in terms of survival percentage is significantly
lower than Non-FDA plantations. This calls for an introspection as to whether VFC’s are
really contributing in the success of the afforestation programmes, particularly so when
the same observation in Sirsi Division too.
2. The quality of work turned out is good and codal proviso and working plan has been
followed.
3. Almost, as a rule, no uniform spacing of seedlings in plantations is seen. This is quite
natural. Weeds, bushes, vegetation and rocky out crops make it impossible to maintain
uniform spacing. In plantations raised in future, the pits / trenches may be confined to
space available and spacing be accordingly done.
4. In case of percolation ponds, they are almost always found to be abutting garden lands.
The benefit of percolation thus goes to an individual, not the forest. This too is for no
fault of the staff. Gardens are located in such places in the division that the technically
correct spot for a percolation pond invariably falls near a garden land. It is recommended
that this work may be shifted to divisions in dry maidens where water is indeed a
precious commodity, and where there are many places in forests suitable for percolation
ponds.
5. The work of contour trenching for water and soil conservation has not added to the
regeneration or growth of vegetation. With rainfall being plenty in the division, these
works may be shifted to divisions of dry maidens. Same is the case with gully plugs and
check dams.
6. The greatest success of the division lies in raising low cost and input plantations of
Acacia auriculiformis after harvest of the old crop. This is to be demonstrated and
replicated elsewhere at least in Coastal areas where natural regeneration of the species is
profuse.
7. The division has very aptly and appropriately tended logged areas by assisting natural
regeneration and sowing of seeds. The evaluation of such a work by contemporary
procedure is indeed difficult, but the work done cannot be discouraged just because of
that.
8. Soil and moisture conservation works here deserve the same remarks as applicable to
Sirsi division.
9. The work of disposal of NTFP may in future be got done through the method of tender
cum auction rather than the present method of mere open auction.
10. The work of evaluation of distribution of seedlings is very cumbersome and unreliable.
This is because not very good records of beneficiaries has been kept in the range offices
and the fact that people get seedlings from different sources like Zilla Panchayath,
KCDC, KFDC, MPM, etc.,. It is also a fact that in Malnad areas there are innumerable
number of wildlings and seedlings occurring even otherwise also making it difficult to
judge as to which seedling was actually distributed by the department.
402
(6) REMARKS ON THE ACTION TAKEN ON THE EARLIER EVALUATION
REPORT BY THE DIVISION.
1. After cutting of the tree growth in Acacia plantations it is closed to encourage natural
regeneration. Between 2004-05 and 2006-07, totally 438.50 Ha of acacia plantations are
reported to have been closed for natural regeneration.
2. The variations between estimated quantities in logging and actual have
reduced.
EVALUATION REPORT
KARWAR DIVISION:
INTRODUCTION:
(I) Karwar Division is the North West Division located on the west coast of Karnataka. This
being the western division of Kanara Circle, it consists of Karwar Gopshitta, Kadra, Joida,
Ankola, Mastikatta and Ramanguli Ranges. Karwar Division is situated within northern
longitude 140 35’54” to 15017’18” and eastern latitude 7405’10” to 74042’18”. The total notified
reserve forest 1446Sq Km. This Division has coastal region and ghat region. Land is most
latteritic and they are rich source of iron and manganese ores. Soil consists of metamorphic
gnoiss and basalt. This area entirely receives the rainfall from south west monsoon. The coastal
climate is highly humid type of forests which are
1) Karwar fuel reserve.
2) Inlander coastal forests.
3) Kalinadi high forest.
4) Gangavali high forest.
5) Interior high forest.
6) Supa Joida forest.
7) Anamod forest.
The working plan for the forest of Karwar Division (2002-12) is the working plan
for the reserve forest of Karwar Division. The working plan covers 141587.74 ha. of reserve
forest out of total 143212.60 ha. reserve forest legally constituated in the division. These
forests are managed by keeping in view of the ecological and environmental sensitiveness.
METHODOLOGY:
the evaluation guidelines. The information about the works was obtained in the form A,D, & G.
work were recorded in the form C, F, & I. The works were evaluated for the year 2004-05,
2005-06 and 2006-07 under various plan and non-plan schemes. 10% of all the works reported
were taken for evaluation. Sampling intensity was kept 2% for the selected plantations. Though
the seedlings were raised under RSPD programme, records of address and details of purchasers
(beneficiaries) were not maintained. Hence, no specific methodology was used for its
evaluation. While evaluating other works, efforts were made to include the works of all nature,
carried out in the division and to ensure that at least few works were evaluated in each Range.
Sample plots were laid in the plantation randomly by drawing transact from N-W direction.
Distribution of sample plots was done randomly at a predetermined, equal spacing, on the
principal transact (as worked out for the given sampling intensity). In case of more nos., of such
sample plots were required, these were located on subsidiary parallel transact at a predetermined
403
fixed distance from the main transact line. Hence, the sample plots / subsidiary transacts were
fixed on the sketch randomly, as per the extent and shape of plantation area and there-after were
accordingly located on the ground. All the observations of the evaluated works were recorded as
per the guidelines by the Team members in the Form C, F & I.
I) Evaluation of Plantation works.:-

For evaluation of plantations raised during 2003-04 10 spots extending 110-00 ha. in
NAP-FDA were selected. For the plantations of 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07 an extent
375-50 ha(23 spots), 166-00 ha. (12 spots), and 118-00 ha. (10 spots) have been evaluated. The
evaluation work is carried out in more than 10% areas and localities.
Table-(1)
PLANTATIONS EVALUATED IN KARWAR DIVISION.
Sl. Year for which evaluation is Total No.of Area (in No.of Total sampling area
No. being done Locations/ spots Ha.) locations/ selected for
spots selected evaluation.in Ha
for samplings
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
1 2003-04 10 110-00
2 2004-05 29 509-65 23 375-50
3 2005-06 16 290-00 12 166-00
4 2006-07 98 1347-50 10 118-00
Total: 143 2147-50 45 659-50
The scheme-wise survival percentage was worked out on the basis of the evaluated plantation
works. It is found that the overall survival percentage is 57.85%. The survival percentage under
NAP-FDA 48.16%, KFDF Scheme was found to be 68.73% , under DDF 57.50%, under GUA the it is
53.80%, under 11-Forest-COP- 86.86%, under JBIC it is 70.93% and under Compensatory plantation it
is 88.81%. The area under the plantation under various schemes are as follows;
NAP-FDA - 443-00 ha.

KFDF - 60-00 ha.
DDF - 28-00 ha.
GUA - 14-50 ha.
JBIC - 54-00 ha.
Componesatory
Afforestation - 40-00 ha.
12th Fin. - 20-00 ha.
---------------
659-50 ha.
Table-(2)
(SAMPLED PLANTATION MAY BE LISTED SCHEME WISE)
Sl. Year Type of Name of Area Length of Plantation Surv Surv
No. Scheme Scheme (In ha.) in Kms (for roads ival ival%
Plan/ for Block side plantation, %
Non-plan Plantation urban plantation etc.) Area
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
1 2003-04 Plan NAP-FDA 5 86 430
2 2003-04 Plan NAP-FDA 5 10 50
3 2003-04 Plan NAP-FDA 10 90 900
4 2003-04 Plan NAP-FDA 10 5 50
404
5 2003-04 Plan NAP-FDA 10 10 100
6 2003-04 Plan NAP-FDA 10 60 600
7 2003-04 Plan NAP-FDA 20 55 1100
8 2003-04 Plan NAP-FDA 20 55 1100
9 2003-04 Plan NAP-FDA 5 72.5 362.50
10 2003-04 Plan Plan NAP-FDA 15 - -
11 2004-05 Plan NAP-FDA 20 10 200
12 2004-05 Plan NAP-FDA 5 85 425
13 2004-05 Plan NAP-FDA 25 15 375
14 2004-05 Plan NAP-FDA 10 70 700
15 2004-05 Plan NAP-FDA 10 46 460
16 2004-05 Plan NAP-FDA 15 46 690
17 2004-05 Plan NAP-FDA 20 - -
18 2004-05 Plan NAP-FDA 10 10 100
19 2004-05 Plan NAP-FDA 15 10 150
20 2004-05 Plan NAP-FDA 15 10 150
21 2004-05 Plan NAP-FDA 10 88 880
22 2004-05 Plan NAP-FDA 5 5 25
23 2004-05 Plan NAP-FDA 10 55 550
24 2004-05 Plan NAP-FDA 20 60 1200
25 2004-05 Plan NAP-FDA 10 65 650
26 2004-05 Plan NAP-FDA 10 - -
27 2004-05 Plan NAP-FDA 10 55 550
28 2004-05 Plan NAP-FDA 10 75 750
29 2004-05 Plan NAP-FDA 55 65 3575
30 2004-05 Plan NAP-FDA 30 30 900
31 2004-05 Plan NAP-FDA 15 - -
32 2005-06 Plan NAP-FDA 5 60 300
33 2005-06 Plan NAP-FDA 30 80 2400
34 2005-06 Plan NAP-FDA 30 85 2550
Total: 505 22272.50
35 2004-05 Plan KFDF 5 90 450
36 2006-07 Plan KFDF 30 86 2580
37 2006-07 Plan KFDF 20 40 800
38 2006-07 Plan KFDF 5 80 400
Total: 60 4230
39 2004-05 Plan DDF 10 22 220
40 2004-05 Plan DDF 13 80 1040
41 2006-07 Plan DDF 5 70 350
Total: 28 1610
42 2004-05 Plan GUA 7.5 85 637.50
43 2005-06 Plan GUA 3.5 20 70
44 2006-07 Plan GUA 4 25 100
Total: 15 807.50
45 2006-07 Plan JBIC 10 70 700
46 2006-07 Plan JBIC 10 60 600
47 2006-07 Plan JBIC 20 70 1400
48 2006-07 Plan JBIC 4 70 280
49 2006-07 Plan JBIC 10 85 850
Total: 54 3830
50 2004-05 Plan Comp.Pln 20 95.56 1911
51 2005-06 Plan Comp.Pln 13 81.47 1059
52 2006-07 Plan Comp.Pln 7 94.40 661
Total: 40
53 2005-06 Plan 12th Fin 20 -- --
Total: 20
54 2005-06 Plan 11Forest cop 5 86.86
Total: 5
55 2005-06 Plan MFP 20 55 1100
Total: 20 1100
Gr. Total: 769-50 33850
405
Weighted Survival 57.85%
The schemewise survival percent is given in the Table-3 here - below
No. Survival %
1. NAP-FDA 48.16
2 KFDF 68.73
3 DDF 57.50
4 GUA 53.80
5 JBIC 70.93
6 MFP 55.00
7 COMP.PLTN. 88.81%
8 11 FOREST COP. 86.86%
The plantations were evaluated schemewise for their performance, such as, Site selection,
Model selection, choice of species, protection aspects and general conditions. Under various
schemes, it was noticed that the protection aspect needs to be made more effective. However,
the choice of species was broadly found satisfactory.
In certain cases the site and model selection need to be done more carefully. It would be better
to avoid planting of Acacia as under planting.
In about 28% of the cases the general conditions required overall improvement. Under
NAP-FDA programme, the site selection and model selection was found improper in 25.45 %
cases. The Choice of species in certain cases needed more attention. General conditions of
plantation need improvement in 27.27% of the cases. Under Compensatory Afforestation
scheme, plantations were evaluated and its overall condition was found to be satisfactory. In
JBIC and KFDF schemes the survival percentage was found to be good, the other aspects need to
have been given more attention, to get the promising growth. The details of various performance
aspects are given in Table No.4.
Table (4)
PERFORMANCE OF PLANTATION:-
Sl. Name of Site selection Model Choice of Protection General condition
No. the Scheme Selection Species Aspects of plantation
Proper Impro Proper Impr Proper Improper Proper Impr Proper Impro
per oper Oper per
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12)
NAP-FDA
1 Bhaira √ √ √ √ √
(208)
2 Bhaire √ √ √ √ √
(195)
3 Maingani √ √ √ √ √
(56)
4 Bapeli (11) √ √ √ √ √
5 Potoli √ √ √ √ √
(SB-23)
6 Talgadda √ √ √ √ √
(47A)
7 H M Gadda √ √ √ √ √
(39)
8 Hebbol √ √ √ √ √
(FS72)
9 Bidralli √ √ √ √ √
(Bl.XXV,
54 & 55)
10 Hartuga √ √ √ √ √
(21 &22 )
406
11 Honnebail √ √ √ √ √
(178)
12 Hosgadda √ √ √ √ √
(25A1A1)
13 Hadav √ √ √ √ √
(FS88)
14 Neelampur √ √ √ √ √
(FS44)
15 HM Gadda √ √ √ √ √
(Fs39 Bl-
XXIV-36)
16 Kodigadda √ √ √ √ √
(XXIV-6)
17 Kammani √ √ √ √ √
(FS-1)
18 Belur √ √ √ √ √
(FS-49)
19 Shirve √ √ √ √ √
(FS-59)
20 Nage -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
(20-00 ha)
21 Ulaga √ √ √ √ √
(111)
22 Bhaira √ √ √ √ √
23 Maingani √ √ √ √ √
(43)
24 Karanja √ √ √ √ √
(VIII-P)
25 Patoli √ √ √ √ √
(SB-23)
(15-00ha)
26 Hartuga √ √ √ √ √
(48)
27 Balemane √ √ √ √ √
(FS12)
28 Belur (49) √ √ √ √ √
29 Belur √ √ √ √ √
(67 &68)
30 Ulaga √ √ √ √ √
(111)
(15-00 ha)
31 Majali √ √ √ √ √
(1287)
32 Sakalaben √ √ √ √ √
(87A)
33 Belamber √ √ √ √ √
(111
5-00ha)
34 Belamber √ √ √ √ √
(111
30-00ha)
35 Vajralli √ √ √ √ √
(XXIV-11)
02- Compensatory Plantation
1 Shirgunji √ √ √ √ √
(132A)
2 Agsur-118 √ √ √ √ √
(13-00ha)
3 Halgeri-188 √ √ √ √ √
P1
407
11-Forest-COP
1 Agsur-118 √ √ √ √ √
(5-00ha)
DDF
1 Mudgeri √ √ √ √ √
(609
13-00ha)
2 Sulgeri √ √ √ √ √
(FS 4 &5)
3 Joida √ √ √ √ √
(148A1A1)
FDF-03-Others
1 Shirgunja √ √ √ √ √
(FS-132A)
2 Devalamakki √ √ √ √ √
(58A1A1)
3 Bolshitta √ √ √ √ √
123 &125
4 B Madkarni √ √ √ √ √
FS-204
5-00ha.
5 Sulgeri – √ √ √ √ √
4&5
20-00ha.
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12)
GUA
1 Ankola √ √ √ √ √
Town
2 Karwar √ √ √ √ √
Town
3 Karwar √ √ √ √ √
KHB &
Town
KSFMBC-JBIC-II
1 Irphage (55 √ √ √ √ √
Bl-1)
2 Amadalli- √ √ √ √ √
Kantriwada
P-II & IIA
3 Bolshitta- √ √ √ √ √
Chikki
4 Hankon- √ √ √ √ √
Nasapattar
(20-00ha)
5 Heggarni √ √ √ √ √
XXV-60
Grand Total 41 14 41 14 37 18 24 31 40 15
Percentage 74.55% 25.45% 74.55% 25.45% 67.30% 32.70% 43.70% 56.30% 72.30% 27.27%
Sl. Year Total No.of Total No.of No.of locations/ No.of seedlings at
No. seedlings Location/ beneficiaries selected location/
distributed beneficiaries selected for beneficiaries.
(Sold) evaluation
1 2 3 4 5 6
1 2004-05 -- -- -- --
2 2005-06 -- -- -- --
408
3 2006-07 35692 80 07 2475
Total 35692 80 07 2475
Note : - As records of addresses and other details of purchases of seedlings were

not maintained, this could not be evaluated.
III. Other Works.
1) Thinning of Teak Plantation / Logging works
2) Building works
3) SMC works
4) Fire tracing
5) NTFP
Abstract of total number of works and sample size selected for evaluation in each category.
No. of spots
Total no. of
Particulars of work Selected for
No. works
evaluation
1. Thinning of Teak Plantation 43 06
and Logging works
2 Building works 174 21
3 SMC works 110 25
4 Fire Tracing 21 06
5 NTFP 24 03
6 EPA 18
TOTAL 372 79
Thinning of Teak Plantation and Logging works:

Out of 6 samples selected it is observed that in all the cases marking register, conversion/
katch register, register of material transported and register of list of material received at depot
are maintained. The variations in estimated quantities, extracted quantities and billed and sold
quantities are within reasonable limits. In field stumps were cross checked with that of marking
list for species and girth. Felling has been done as per the norms without wastage. Lops and
tops also have been salvaged properly. Perambulation of the logged area did not show any kind
of laxity in the extraction process. The extraction have been carried out as per the prescription of
working plan. However, a general observation is that no regeneration prescriptions have been
followed for protecting and replenishing the stock in the extraction areas. All such areas shall be
ideally covered under intensive management of logged areas.
Buildings:
Out of 21 buildings evaluated, quality of work is good. There is little variation in the
measurement.
Soil and Moisture Conservation Works:
In general implementation of SMC works is satisfactory. Creation of tanks, desilting of
existing tanks and strengthening of bund and waste weirs is an activity not only contributes for
SMC but also earns the goodwill of downstream farmers. In most of the cases even though
nomenclature is check dam in reality in most of the cases gully checks have been created. Most
of the sites selected are good but the calculation of runoff, designing of gully checks needs to be
improved. Often times the purpose of head wall and wing wall are not understood and
constructed without taking support of the terrain. 5% of the gully checks have got breached
due to high velocity of water. This is because of the fact that in a place which deserves a
concrete check dam is treated by the construction of gully check.
409
Entry Point Activities:
Entry point activities have been taken up basically to provide drinking water for
community and cattle. Another major activity is to provide steel plates and tumblers to school
children to be used in mid-day meal. Apart from these works others are in the form of Soil and
Moisture Conservation works for augmentation of water. There are instances of providing
ploughs to farmers and purchase of community utensils to be used in festivals. All the activities
have been carried out after arriving at a consensus between the department and community.
Hence, all these programs are very well received by the people and are used to a possible best
extent. The entry point activities have played a vital role in building a harmonious rapport
between the department and community. It is indeed a big success if we look at the goodwill
earned with a meager investment.
Comments:
(1) Efforts of the department are highly commendable in implementing the schemes.
(2) The schemes are centrally formulated and sent for implementation without looking in
to the requirement of actual forest management.
(3) The schemes are laden with other objectives like, participation of people, equal
distribution of work etc.
(4) The funds available are development oriented and emphasize only afforestation works.
This lopsided stress for developmental schemes deprives availability of funds for
managing the existing natural forests.
(5) This mis-match of non-availability of funds for managing natural forests and surplus
funds available in developmental schemes forces the management to find out ways and
means to bring together plantation works and management of existing forests to achieve
the required objectives. This causes deviation from prescribed espacement, selection of
species, selection of sites etc.
(6) It is desirable to continue with species like Acacia auriculiformis for plantations in
grassy blanks and open forest areas from the point of view of productivity and making
the requirements of the community available from such areas which will reduce pressure
on well stocked virgin forests.
(7) Sufficient training inputs are required to imbibe the culture of water shed management
effectively. While taking SMC works, it is necessary to follow holisitic approach as per
the water shed principle. Design of structure and their selection etc. should be made,
taking into account water shed area and peak discharge into account to ensure the
stability.
(8) Selection of plantation model need to be done carefully. Most of the works have been
taken up in gap planting/ under plantations model. In such cases the Artificial
Regeneration (A.R.) Model should be avoided.
(9) Planting of light demander species under the shade should be completely avoided. Choice
of species for planting in the Division, such as Teak, Acacia etc.may be re-examined . In
minor forest areas the planting of Acacia is necessary in order to fulfill the demand of
firewood of the local communities.
(10)Area taken up for plantation should be properly surveyed and gross and net area should
be marked clearly on the sketch.
(11)As the spacing varies from place to place, assessment of number of seedlings planted,
can only be done if the gross and net area is very clearly marked.
(12)Preference of palatable grass species may also be given, along the tree species at suitable
areas.
(13)Plantation Journals should be written giving complete details of works undertaken.
410
(14) Area with good natural regeneration may be avoided in planting works.
(15)Protection aspects should be given special attention to avoid any damages to the
plantation and to ensure good survival.
(16)People participation should be strengthened, in the conservation efforts by
creating more awareness about such issues.
(17)Effective protection and comprehensive implementation as per the site specific
plan (especially with reference to selection of site and nature of species) will
ensure increased survival percentage and improvement in the condition of
plantations.
DANDELI WILD LIFE DIVISION.
INTRODUCTION:
Dandeli Wild Life Sanctuary (475.01 Sq. Kms) and Anashi National Park
(339.86 Sq.Kms) are contiguous to each other and form a single tract of Protected Area located
in Uttar Kannada District and consequently, Government by its G.O.No.Fee 254 FWL 2006
dated 4-1-07 has declared Dandeli Wild Life Sanctuary and Anashi National Park as a Tiger
reserve. In the entire region of Northern Karnataka, these are the only two Protected Areas
located in lush green and diverse forest area. These two Protected Areas are administratively
unified under Dandeli Wild Life Division, Dandeli. Both Dandeli Wild Life Sanctuary and
Anashi National Park support rich and diverse flora and fauna. The forests of Dandeli Wild Life
Division are of generally moist deciduous and tropical semi- evergreen/evergreen in nature. This
Wild Life division consists of Kulgi, Anshi,Kumbarwada,Pansoli and Gund Ranges. The Dandeli
Wild life Division lies in the North-west part of the district as well as the State. It is the only
Wild Life Division in Kanara Circle. After expiry of the earlier management plan, the revised
management plan, for the period of 2008 to 2018 has now been prepared.
METHODOLOGY:
field work were recorded in the form C, F, & I. All these forms are enclosed in Annexures. The
works were evaluated for the year 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07 under various plan and non-
plan schemes. 10% of all plantation works and about 8% of other works reported were taken
for evaluation. Sampling intensity was kept 2% for the selected plantations. The component of
Public distribution of seedlings was not implemented in the Wild Life Division. While evaluating
other works, efforts were made to include the works of all nature, carried out in the division and
at least few works were evaluated in each Range. Sample plots were laid in the plantation
randomly by drawing transact from N-W direction. Distribution of sample plots was done
randomly at a predetermined, equal spacing, on the principal transact ( as worked out for the
given sampling intensity.) In case of more nos. of such sample plots were required, these were
located on subsidiary parallel transact at a predetermined fixed distance from the main transact
line. Hence the sample plots/subsidiary transacts, were fixed on the sketch randomly, as per the
extent and shape of plantation area and there after were accordingly located on the ground. All
the observations of the evaluated works were recorded as per the guidelines by the Team
members in the Form C, F & I.
411
I. Evaluation of Plantation works.:-
Total number of plantation works undertaken in the Wild Life Division during the period
were 58, covering an extent of 1834 hectares. The works randomly selected for evaluation were
13 in Nos., covering an extent of 360 hectares (which is more than the 10% of works). The
extent and number of plantations raised and evaluated are given in Table-1.
Table-(1)
PLANTATION EVALUATED IN WILD LIFE DIVISION.
Sl. Year for which evaluation is Total No.of Area No.of Total sampling area
No. being done Locations/ spots (in Ha.) locations/ spots selected for
selected for evaluation.in Ha
samplings
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
1 2004-05 11 237 2 45
2 2005-06 13 392 3 60
3 2006-07 34 1205 8 255
TOTAL: 58 1834 13 360
The scheme-wise survival percentage was worked out on the basis of the evaluated
plantation works. It is found that overall survival percentage is 47.74%. The survival percentage
under CSS Scheme was found to be 54.92%, under NAP-FDA Scheme it was 32.70% under the
nature conservation programme it was 74.40% and under the KUDCEMP Scheme it was found
to be 96.04%. The area under these plantation scheme was 125 hectares, 185 hectares, 25
hectares and 25 hectares respectively. The details are given in the Table-2.
Table-(2)
SURVIVAL % (WEIGHED)
Length of Plant
Type o Area Sur
ation in Kms Surv
Scheme Name of (In ha.) ival%
Yea (for roads side planta ival
No. Plan/ Scheme for Block
urban plantation %
Non-pla Plantation Are
etc.)
( (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
1 2004-05 Plan DWS(Central) 20 - 83 1660
2 2004-05 Plan CSS(Central) 25 - 65 1625
3 2005-06 Plan CSS(Central) 10 - 38 380
4 2005-06 Plan CSS(Central) 25 - 25 625
5 2006-07 Plan CSS(Central) 20 - 20 400
6 2006-07 Plan CSS(Central) 25 - 87 2175
125 -
7 2005-06 Plan NAP 25 - 80 2000
8 2006-07 Plan NAP 25 - 22 550
9 2006-07 Plan NAP 50 - 10 500
10 2006-07 Plan NAP 50 - 53 2650
11 2006-07 Plan NAP 35 - 10 350
185 -
12 2006-07 Plan NC 25 - 74.42 1860
25 -
13 2006-07 Plan KUDCEMP 25 - 96.4 2410
Gr.Total: 360 17185
Overall weighted survival % - 47.74%

Planting of miscellaneous seedlings on poor and peached out soils could be reason for low
survival.
The schemewise surivival percent is given in the Table-3 here - below
412
Sl.No. Name of the Scheme Weighted Survival %
1. CSS 54.92
2. NAP 32.7
3. NC. 74.40
4. KUDCEMP 96.40
The schemewise plantations were evaluated for their performance, such as, Site selection,
Model selection, choice of species, protection aspects and general conditions. Under CSS
Scheme, it was noticed that the protection aspect in 28.57% cases, need to be made more
effective However the choice of species, was broadly found satisfactory. In certain cases the
site and model selection need to be done more carefully.
In about 42.84% of the cases the general condition required overall improvement. Under
NAP-FDA programme the site selection and model selection was found improper in 25% cases.
Choice of species in certain cases need, more attention. General condition of plantation need
improvement in 25% of the cases. Under nature conservation scheme one plantation was
evaluated and its overall condition was found to be satisfactory. In KUDCEMP scheme though
the survival percentage found to be good, other aspects need to have been given more attention,
to get the promising growth. The details of various performance aspects are given in Table No.4.
Table (4)
PERFORMANCE OF PLANTATION:-
Sl. Name of Site selection Model Choice of Protection General condition
No. the Selection species aspects of plantation
Scheme
per per per per per
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12)
CSS.
5 2 5 2 7 - 5 2 4 3
NAP
3 1 3 1 3 1 4 - 3 1
NC
1 1 1 1 1
KUDCE
1 1 1 1 1
Total: 10 3 10 3 12 1 11 2 9 4
The details of formation of V.F.C/E.D.C., preparation of micro-plan and entry point
activities were also evaluated as per the form “ C ‘’. It is observed that except in few cases, in
most of the places the process of people’s participation need to be given more attention and is
to be strengthened. Evaluation of formation of E.D.C/V.F.C.during 2004-05,2005-06 & 2006-07
was taken up during the present exercise.
Approval of micro-plan should be completed in a time bound manner. Under entry point
activities, construction of Sababhavan and purchase of Shamiyana -chairs have been taken up
only in two of villages. The details of JFPM activities as per Form “C ’’ are enclosed in Table-
(5).
DETAILS OF FORMATION OF VFC, PREPARATION OF MICRO PLAN AND ENTRY POINT
ACTIVITIES:-
No.of spots for
Sl. which VFC
Micro Plans Entry Point activities. Remarks.
No. have been
informed
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
2 11 2 11 2 11
413
II. Distribution of Seedlings to the Public.
Under this component no work has been taken up in this Division as given in table
below.
DISTRIBUTION OF SEEDLINGS:- DANDELI WILD LIFE DIVISION
No.of locations/
Total No.of Total No.of
Sl. beneficiaries No.of seedlings at selected
Year seedlings Location/
No. selected for location/ beneficiaries.
distributed beneficiaries
evaluation
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
There is no distribution of seedlings.
III. Other Works.

i) S.M.C. Works.
ii) Road Maintenance and Culvert.
iii) Construction and repairs including Watch Tower.
iv) Salt Licks.
v) Clearance of firelines and view lines.
vi) All remaining miscellaneous works.
The details of above given in Table-V here - below
Sl.No. Nature of Other Works. Total number of works No.of Works selected
in the category for evaluation.
1. Soil and Moisture conservation. 122 8
2. Road Maintenance and Culverts. 31 3
3. Construction /Repairs of Buildings. 69 11
4. Salt Licks. 40 3
5. Clearance of View Lines. 59 1
6. Other miscellaneous works 23 -
TOTAL 344 26
IV. COMMENTS.
The observations made during the evaluation are given here below.
1) Selection of plantation model need to be done carefully. Most of the works have been taken up in
gap planting/ under plantations model. In such cases the Artificial Regeneration (A.R.) Model
should be avoided.
2) Planting of light demander species under the shade should be completely avoided. Choice of
species for planting in the Division, such as Teak, Acacia etc.may be re-examined. Further
Bamboo which is already in abundance and now is in flowering stage, may be avoided in the
plantation.
3) Area taken up for plantation should be properly surveyed and gross and net area should be
marked clearly on the sketch.
4) As the spacing varies from place to place, assessment of number of seedlings planted, can only be
done if the gross and net area is very clearly marked.
5) Site specific plan based on the management plan, of the Wild Life Division, incorporating the
components of habitat improvement, soil and moisture conservation & bio-diversity conservation
etc. should be prepared, before taking up the works.
414
6) Preference of palatable grass species may also be given, along the tree species at suitable areas.
7) Plantation Journals should be written giving complete details of works undertaken.
8) Check measurement of works without sanctioned estimate should be avoided.
9) Area with good natural regeneration may be avoided in planting works.
10) Protection aspect should be given special attention to avoid any damages to
the plantation and to ensure good survival.
11) People participation should be strengthened, in the conservation efforts by
creating more awareness about such issues.
12) While taking SMC works, it is necessary to follow holisitic approach as per the water shed
principle. Design of structure and their selection etc. should be made, taking into account water
shed area and peak discharge into account to ensure the stability. Construction of dry stone gully
check in areas requiring cement concrete check dams to be avoided.
13) In case of clearance of fire lines /fire tracing works the estimate may give specific locations
instead of general provision for section and beats.
(14)The clearing of 10mtr width view line may be re-examined to ensure the meeting
of its objective. Around the water bodies minimum clearance should be provided,
especially in tourism zone to insure the better sighting.
(15) Suitable grassy patches of may be identified and may be kept free from weeds etc. Such grassy
blanks should not be planted.
(16) Work of asphalting of approach road and parking area under CSS at Anshi nature camp during
2004-05 was selected for evaluation, but this work was not been carried out.
(17) Bamboo flowering was noticed, progressing from eastern part of division to the westen
part. Already part of Kulgi and Phansoli, it was noticed that bamboo has flowered.
Immediate action has to be taken, as per the prescription of management plan, to address
the issue arising from gregarious flowering.
(18) Effective protection and comprehensive implementation as per the site specific plan
(especially with reference to selection of site and nature of species) will ensure
increased survival percentage and improvement in the condition of plantations.
(19) Both the existing major schemes namely CSS WLS & NP and NAP-FDA may
continue. However NAP-FDA may be modified suitably to include holisitic
management of Wild Life Division as per prescription of management plan.
KARWAR SOCIAL FORESTRY DIVISION
(1) INTRODUCTION : -
The territorial boundaries of this division coincide with that of the district of Uttar
Kannada. The division has one sub-division located in Karwar and seven ranges namely
Sirsi, Karwar, Kumta, Honnavar, Yellapur, Siddapur and Mundagod.
(2) METHODOLOGY:
The evaluation work, was taken up following the methodology, as issued in this
regard, in the evaluation guidelines. The information about the works was obtained in the
form A, D, & G. The list of selected works was received in the form B, E, and H. Further
observation of the field work were recorded in the form C, F, & I. The works were
evaluated for the year 2005-06 and 2006-07 under all schemes. 10% of all the works
reported were taken for evaluation. Sampling intensity was 100% for the selected
plantations. Under the component of sale of seedlings to public, though the seedlings
415
were sold but addresses and details of purchasers (beneficiaries) were not maintained.
Hence no specific methodology was used to evaluate this programme. All the
observations of the evaluated works were recorded as per the guidelines by the Team
members in the Form C.
(I) PLANTATION EVALUATED : -
During the year 2004-05 and 2005-06 an extent of 738.484 ha. of plantations
were raised in 202 different locations in Karwar Social Forestry Division of which an
extent of 148.960 ha. situated in 35 different locations were selected for evaluation
which is more than 10% of the plantation work. Most of the plantations are very small
in size and the details of plantations raised year-wise and the ones the selected for
evaluation are given in Table I below : -
TABLE - I
[[
No. evaluation (in ha.) Locations / spots spots selected area selected
is being done for samplings for evaluation
(ha)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
2004-05 56.000 005 01 10.000

1.
2. 682.484 197
2005-06 34 138.960
TOTAL 738.484 202 35 148.960
As the plantations were very small, sampling intensity was 100% in all the plantations
except 3 plantations which were not evaluated. The total area of plantation evaluated is 126.74
ha. The weighted survival percentage of these 32 plantations is 19.72 % raised under SGRY
scheme. The year-wise details of survival percentage are given in Table – II and III below : -
TABLE – II
At the outset it is clarified that extents of only such plantations are included in computing
the average as could be approached and survival percentage correctly estimated.
Sl. Year Type of Name of Area Name of Survival Survival %
No. scheme Scheme (in ha.) for Block plantation % 8
Plan/ Non- Plantation Area
plan
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
District Murudeshwar
1. 2005-06 SGRY 9.840 0 0
Sector grave yard
Hadi plantation
2. SGRY 8.300 35 291
Gorte
Jali, Jattiudi,
3. SGRY 3.925 0 0
Hartisar road side
Chitrapur to
4. SGRY 3.605 Bappanahalli 0 0
road side
5. SGRY 6.500 Hosakuli 40 260
Kodkani to
6. SGRY 5.250 0 0
Balkur road side
416
There was nobody to show the
plantation on 03-02-2009.
However, on 02-02-2009 the
7. SGRY 9.140 Devgundi motivator Mr. V.G. Naik
informed that the plantation has
been illicitly cut and good
regeneration is coming up.
SKP High
8. SGRY 2.040 60 122
School, Katgal
Plantation could not be
evaluated as there was nobody
Janata Vidyalaya
to show it. In Mirjan
Mirjan, LPS
9. SGRY 3.080 Territorial staff located the
Hattikeri,
school but there were so many
Bogribail
trees in school that the identity
of the plantation was lost.
Nerinalli high
10. SGRY 3.100 70 217
school
Manjavalli
11. SGRY 5.000 07 35
Hutegar roadside
Banvasi to
12. SGRY 3.010 0 0
Kalgod roadside
Bannekatta
Anganwadi
13. SGRY 2.050 20 41
Kolagi school,
Goli temple
HPS Sugavi,
14. SGRY 4.920 High school 65 320
Onikeri
Kangod Canal
15. SGRY 2.809 30 84
bank
Jagadamba high
school Sarkuli,
16 SGRY 2.589 30 78
JanataVidya
Bedkani
SGRY HPS & College
17 1.800 00 00
(GP) Gullapur
SGRY Kundargi to
18 2.000 00 00
(GP) Umachagi R/s.
HPS Andalagi &
19 SGRY (ZP) 1.500 05 7.50
Graveyard
Chigalli to
20 SGRY (ZP) 2.890 00 00
Mudsali R/s
Kavalkoppa to
21 SGRY (TP) 2.000 00 00
Tumbargi R/s
Ayyappa Temple,
22 SGRY (ZP) 3.728 05 18.64
Mundgod
Kusur
SGRY Ichhangimath
23 4.060 15 60.09
(GP) KPS Tattihalla &
Graveyard
SGRY Alalli New plot
24 6.900 00 00
(GP) area
SGRY (ZP) Hapkarni to Bore
25 5.700 00 00
R/s
SGRY (TP) Virje to Mallapur
26 2.800 00 00
R/s.
27 SGRY (ZP) 6.415 Kangil 00 00
SGRY(GP) 3.200 MGS School,
28 77.73 247.36
Shetgeri
SGRY(ZP) 1.000 Veterinary
29 05 05
Hospital
30 SGRY(ZP) 3.571 Jagalpet to 10 35.71
417
Chandewadi
SGRY (ZP) 7.800 Joginkoppa
31 77.34 603.25
Gountan block-17
32 SGRY (TP) 3.590 Joginkoppa R/s. 00 00
SGRY 3.850 Kesrolli R/s
33 00 00
(GP)
34 SGRY (ZP) 1.000 HPS Castlerock 75 75
TOTAL 138.960 19.72 2500.55
Out of 35 plantations 3 planations were not evaluated. The total area of planations
evaluated is 126.74 ha. which should be treated as effective area for calculation of weighted
average. Hence, weighted average- 2500.55/126.74 = 19.72%.
Weighted survival % = 19.72%
TABLE – III
ABSTRACT OF SURVIVAL % OF ALL THE SCHEMES
Sl. Weighted
Name of the Scheme
No. Survival %
(1) (2) (3)
1. SGRY 19.72
The low survival percentage is because of the fact that very poor sites are made available
for planting activity which are under tremendous biotic pressure and similarly the division is
under staffed with poor human resource.
The performance of plantations based on other parameters was also evaluated and it is
found that choice of species, protection aspects and general conditions are bad in more than 50%
of the plantations where as site selection and model selection were proper in nearly 80% of the
cases. The details of these performance are given in Table – IV below : -
TABLE – IV
Name of
Sl. Protection General condition of
the Site selection Model selection Choice of species
No. aspects plantation
Scheme
per per per per per
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12)
1 SGRY 29 5 28 6 22 12 16 18 6 28
(II) DISTRIBUTION OF SEEDLINGS : -

There was no target of distribution of seedlings in the years 2004-05 and 2005-06.
However during 2006-07, 3,60,275 seedlings were distributed to 64 beneficiaries of which
6 beneficiaries were selected for evaluation. Details of this component are given in Table –
V below : -
418
TABLE – V
Sl. Year Total no. of Total no. of No. of location / No. of seedlings at
No. seedlings location / beneficiaries selected for selected location /
distributed beneficiaries evaluation beneficiaries
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
1. 2004-05 NIL
2. 2005-06 NIL
3. 2006-07 3,60,275 64 6 18,442
Non-availability of information regarding beneficiaries and the location where these

seedlings were planted made evaluation of this work extremely difficult.
SURVIVAL STATUS OF SEEDLINGS DISTRIBUTION : -
The work could be evaluated because
not
1. In case of Sirsi Range, 4150 seedlings were sold at the rate of Rs. 1.50 for 5”x8” and at
Rs. 4.00 for 8”x12” to 16 beneficiaries (including 3 institutions). The location where the
seedlings were expected to be planted is not properly recorded. Hence, the work was not
evaluated. When the element of subsidy in sale of seedlings is either very meager or
missing as is the case here, the logic behind evaluation of such a work itself needs a re-
look.
2. In case of Kumta Range, the 150 seedlings shown as distributed are actually planted in a
demonstration plot in the lands of beneficiaries. Thus, this is not a work of distribution of
seedlings, but raising a demonstration plot. Hence, this work was not evaluated.
3. In case of Siddapur Range, 10175 seedlings in 2006-07 were given to KFDC, who have
used it in their plantations. Thus, the work could not be evaluated.
4. In case of Joida & Haliyal Range, 1734 seedlings were sold but because of non
availability of list of beneficiaries it was not possible to evaluate.
5. In case of Ankola Range because of non availability of information this work could not
be evaluated.
Only one work of maintenance of building in the year 2005-06 was selected out of
a total of 5 works and this work also could not be evaluated because of non-
availability of records.
1. The success of the plantations in terms of survival as well as growth is very poor. The
cause for this lies in the fact that the worst possible (outside forest areas) sites are made
available and that all these sites are under tremendous biotic pressure. Also, the number
of staff is very less and human resource not very good.
2. There is not a simple instance where the plantation journal has been written. This is a
serious draw back and needs to be corrected. Even in case of distribution of seedlings
record keeping could have been better.
3. Selection of plantation model need to be done carefully. Most for the works have been
taken up are road side plantation, institutional land and block plantation models.
4. In block plantations Acacia auriculiformis has been planted.
5. Causes for failure of roadside plantation is attributed for not providing maintenance in
subsequent years of plantation.
419
6. In general in Zilla Panchayat schemes assured continuity of financial support from the
day of creation of plantation to last year of maintenance is not forthcoming and even if it
is provided, it is given at the end of financial year after a period of total uncertainity.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The help and support received from the other members of the team viz., Sri. Ajay Misra,
Conservator of Forests(Research), Dharwad, Sri. Nagaraja Hampole, Conservator of Forests,
Kanara Circle, Sri. Vijay Kumar Gogi, Conservator of Forests, Dharwad Circle, Sri. B.K.
Dikshit, Conservator of Forests(Research), Bangalore, Sri. K.S. Nayak, Deputy Conservator of
Forests,
Sri. Jagadish, Deputy Conservator of Forests, Sri. O. Palaiah, Deputy Conservator of Forests,
Sri. Vijay Lal Meena, Deputy Conservator of Forrests, Sri. R.N. Nayak, Assistant Conservator of
Forests, Zilla Panchayat and all officers and staff of Kanara Circle is hereby placed on record.
The services rendered by Smt. Prameela, P.A. to The Chief Conservator of
Forests(Communication and Information) in preparing this report is greatly appreciated.

(Communication and Information)
and Team Leader
Kanara Circle, Evaluation Team
420
Annexure-X-Detailed Cirlce Reports
8.10 KODAGU CIRCLE

DISTRICT SUMMARY:
Kodagu, situated on the eastern slopes of the Western Ghats is on the south west tip of
Karnataka state and lies between 11055’ to 12050’ North Latitude and 75020’ to 760 15’ east
Longitude. It occupies about 4100 square kilometers of land in the Western Ghats. The
population was 5, 48,561, as per 2001 census.
The district is bordered by the Dakshina Kannada District to the Northwest, the Hassan
District to the North, the Mysore District to the East, the Kannur District of Kerala State to the
South west, and the Waynad district of Kerala to the South.
The tract comprises of hilly terrain with Grand Panorama of Valleys, ravines, peaks and
spurs. The tract becomes undulating and plain towards east while west rises to high peaks
measuring from 1600 to 1900 mtrs. Brahmagiri hill range has an elevation up to 1500m.
It is hilly district with lowest elevation at 900 m. The highest peak, Tadiandmol, rise to
1750 m, with Pushpagiri, the second highest, at 1715m.
The climate is characterized by high rain fall, cold nights, and windy days. The average
rainfall is 2725 mm. Rainfall decreases from west to east and 80% of the rainfall is received from
the south west monsoon from June to end of September. Kodagu has an average temperature of
150c, ranging from 11 to 28, with the highest temperature occurring in April, and May.
The main River in Kodagu is the Cauvery. The Cauvery starts at TalaKaveri, and with its
principal tributaries, Hemavathi, Lakshmanthirtha, Kakkabe and Harangi, drains the greater part
of Kodagu. The drainage of all rivers is towards east and joins the Bay of Bengal.
Kodagu is a rural region with most of the economy based on agriculture, plantations, and
forestry, and it is one of the prosperous parts of Karnataka. This is primarily due to coffee
production and other plantation crops. Rice and other crops are cultivated in the valleys. In
recent years tourism has begun to play a role in the economy. Eco-tourism, such as walking and
trekking tours, take advantage of plantations and buildings converted into guest houses.
The forests are mostly confined to hilly regions in the Western Ghats; there are pockets
with some of the best tropical rain forests of luxuriant vegetation with a very wide diversity of
species. The forest types range from tropical evergreen to dry deciduous. There are also valuable
forests of teak and its associates.
Kodagu circle comprises of following functional wings of the department spread over the
three taluks of the district Viz. Madikeri, Somvarpet and Virajpet.
¾ Madikeri division with head quarters at Madikeri.
¾ Virajpet division with head quarters at Virajpet
¾ Madikeri wild life division comprising Brahmagiri wild life sanctuary, Pushpagiri
wild life sanctuary and TalaCauvery wildlife sanctuary, with head quarters at
Madikeri and
¾ Madikeri Social forestry division with head quarters at Madikeri.
control of Conservator of Forests, Kodagu circle, Madikeri.
The Social forestry division functions in the district headed by the Deputy Conservator of
Forests under the administrative control of the Zilla panchayat Kodagu. His jurisdiction is
outside the forestry areas of the district. There is one subdivision headed by Assistant
Conservator of Forests with head quarters at Madikeri.
421
dated:12.102007 has constituted evaluation teams and issued guidelines for evaluation.
The evaluation team for Kodagu circle is
2. Conservator of Forests (B&A) Bangalore : Member
3. Conservator of Forests, Hassan : Member
4. Deputy Conservator of Forests (HQ) : Member
5. Deputy Conservator of Forests (ZP) Mandya : Member
To begin with, list of all works carried out during 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07 in plan,
seedling distributed were obtained in the Formats A,D and G from the concerned Deputy
Conservator of Forests from all the divisions of the circle and work spots were selected
randomly. The method followed for selection of spots is,
A minimum of 10% of the works in each scheme and in each model implemented in the
division selected by random sampling for evaluation.
In each plantation spot, 2% of the plantation area was selected for sampling intensity and
for every 5ha of plantation area one sample plot of 2% area (1000sq.mts) was selected for
evaluation.
route map.
MADIKERI FOREST DIVISION:
Madikeri Forest division, extends on either side of River Cauvery, is bounded on the
north by Hassan district, on the east by Mysore district, on the west by Mangalore district, all in
Karnataka state, and on the south by Cannanore district of Kerala state. The inter-state border is
11 kms long.
The division has a mountainous configuration presenting a grand panorama of valleys,
ravines, peaks, and spurs. Madikeri division comprises of Madikeri, Bhagamandala, Sampaje,
Somvarpet, Kushalnagar and Shanivarasanthe ranges coming under Madikeri and Somvarpet
taluks of Kodagu districts.
PLANTATIONS:
Evaluation including seed sowing in all schemes excluding FDA : 35 (904.27
ha)
Total Number of the plantation visited by the Team : 11 (255.86 ha)
422
Details of afforestation works including seed sowing selected randomly for evaluation in all
schemes except FDA_NAP.
Extent (in
Ha/ km)
PLANTING
2005- Yadavanadu
1 DDF Somwarpet Kasaba Yalakanur 53.00
06 Cpt-6
2006-
2 TFC Somwarpet Kushalnagara Siddalingapura Cpt-5 15.00
07
2006-
3 KSFMBC Kushalnagara Kushalnagara Chikkathur Cpt-7 20.00
07
2006- Malambi RF
4 DDF Shanivare santhe Shanivare santhe Gonimorur 20.00
07 cpt-3
2004- PattighatRF
5 KFDF03-OP Sampaji Madikeri Bettathur 8.00
05 Cpt-80
2006- PattighatRF
6 TFC Sampaji Sampaji M.Chembu 20.00
07 Cpt-77
2004-
7 KFDF03-OP Madikeri Madikeri Galibeedu 7/7 20.00
05
2004-
8 GUA Madikeri Madikeri Karnangeri Town 10.00
05
2004-
9 KFDF03-OP Bhagamandala Bhagamandala Kundacheri Cpt-73 11.86
05
SEED SOWING
2005- Yadavanadu
1 KSFMBC Somwarpet Kasaba Yadavare 70.00
06 Cpt-6
2005-
2 KSFMBC Kushalnagara Ammathi Maldare Cpt-21 50.00
06

Extent
(in Pit/ Spp. Mainte- Status Micro Plnt
S.No Year Village Model Spacing
Ha/ Trench planted nance of VFC plan Journal
km)
PLANTING
1 2005-06 Yalakanur 53.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No VFC -- Up dated
2 2006-07 Siddalingapura 15.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No VFC -- Up dated
3 2006-07 Chikkathur 20.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Up dated
4 2006-07 Gonimorur 20.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Up dated
5 2004-05 Bettathur 8.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No VFC -- Up dated
6 2006-07 M.Chembu 20.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No VFC -- Up dated
7 2004-05 Galibeedu 20.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No VFC -- Up dated
8 2004-05 Karnangeri 10.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No VFC -- Up dated
423
9 2004-05 Kundacheri 11.86 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No VFC -- Up dated
SEED SOWING
1 2005-06 Yadavare 70.00 Yes -- -- Yes Yes Yes Yes Up dated
2 2005-06 Maldare 50.00 Yes --- --- --- Yes Yes Yes Up dated

Se;ection Survival General
Extent Choice
Selection of Protection percentatge condition
of site Plantation aspects
km) Species
model
PLANTING
2005-
1 Yalakanur 53.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 97.0 Good
06
2006-
2 Siddalingapura 15.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 91.0 Good
07
2006-
3 Chikkathur 20.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 95.1 Good
07
2006-
4 Gonimorur 20.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 94.0 Good
07
2004-
5 Bettathur 8.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 92.0 Good
05
2006-
6 M.Chembu 20.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 90.0 Good
07
2004-
7 Galibeedu 20.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 77.0 Good
05
2004-
8 Karnangeri 10.00 Proper Proper Proper Improper 60.0 Average
05
2004-
9 Kundacheri 11.86 Proper Proper Proper Proper 90.0 Good
05
SEED SOWING
2005-
1 Yadavare 70.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper Good
06
2005-
2 Maldare 50.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper Good
06
The division has raised 574.27 ha plantation excluding FDA_NAP scheme during the
period of 3 years under evaluation, out this 135.86 ha was selected for evaluation which
carried out seed sowing/ dribbling in trenches, pits and bushes in an extent of 330 ha, out
of which 120 ha evaluated covering 36% area.
35 plantations raised in Madikeri division from 2004-05 to 2006-07, out of which 11
plantations including 2 spots of seed dribbling done under KSFMBC were evaluated.
All the plantations were raised in Reserve forest areas.
424
The team inspected 2 plantations raised under 12th Finance commission aided project.
The plantations were raised in areas prone to encroachment and logged areas fulfilling
the objectives of the scheme.
The plantations raised under KFDF and DDF schemes are planted with species like
Mahogony, Kiralbogi, Hebbalusu, Dhupa etc., which have the potential to grow into
trees. The areas are rich in natural growth with steep slopes and these can be protected
from fire and by involving local villagers through the formation of Village Forest
Committees.
In KSFMBC scheme the team visited 3 plantations in Kushalnagar and Somvarpet
ranges. Under model 1, area has been closed and protection has been given and the
results are encouraging. Visible improvement of existing natural vegetation was observed
in these areas. Under model 4, fuel wood and small timber species have been planted.
The results are promising as the villagers have been involved in protection and
maintenance of the plantations.
Plantation raised under GUA scheme during 2004-05 requires maintenance like
brushwood fencing and soil working. The survival and growth of plants is satisfactory but
due to lack of maintenance operations the plantation has suffered. The maintenance
operations may be provided for 5 years for plantations raised in urban areas.
Extent
S.
Year Range Hobli Village Sy.No (in Ha/ Model
No
km)
1 2004-05 Somwarpet Kasaba Kusubur Cpt-6 30.00 ANR
2 2004-05 Somwarpet --- Siddalingapura Cpt-4 30.00 AR
3 2005-06 Somwarpet Kasaba Adinadoor Cpt-4 20.00 Bamboo
4 2004-05 Kushalnagar Kushalnagar Basavanahalli Cpt-23 10.00 Mixed
2004-05 Kushalnagar Kushalnagar Basavanahalli Cpt-23 10.00 AR
Valnur-
5 2004-05 Kushalnagar Kushalnagar Cpt-22 10.00 Mixed
Thyaganur
Valnur-
2004-05 Kushalnagar Kushalnagar Cpt-22 10.00 Bamboo
Thyaganur
Koodloor
6 2004-05 Kushalnagar Kushalnagar Cpt-22 10.00 AR
chettalli
Koodloor
2004-05 Kushalnagar Kushalnagar Cpt-22 6.00 Mixed
chettalli
7 2004-05 Kushalnagar Kushalnagar Andagove Cpt-7 10.00 AR
2004-05 Kushalnagar Kushalnagar Andagove Cpt-7 6.00 Mixed
8 2004-05 Bhagamandala Bhagamandala Kundacheri Cpt-73 15.00 Cane
425
Devarak
9 2004-05 Bhagamandala Bhagamandala Kopatti 5.00 Mixed
adu 2/5
Devarak Medicin
10 2004-05 Bhagamandala Bhagamandala Kopatti 5.00
adu 2/5 al
Devarak
11 2004-05 Bhagamandala Bhagamandala Kopatti adu 2/5, 25.00 Cane
2/1
Thodika
12 2005-06 Bhagamandala Bhagamandala Thavoor na Cpt- 5.00 Mixed
76
Kariki
13 2005-06 Bhagamandala Bhagamandala Kariki 15.00 Cane
Cpt-70
Kariki
14 2005-06 Bhagamandala Bhagamandala Kariki 15.00 Mixed
Cpt-70
15 2006-07 Shanivare santhe Shanivare santhe Kattepura RF 235 10.00 Mixed

Extent
Status
VFC
km)
2004-
1 Kusubur 30.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Up dated
05
2004-
2 Siddalingapura 30.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Up dated
05
2005-
3 Adinadoor 20.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Up dated
06
2004-
4 Basavanahalli 10.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Up dated
05
2004-
Basavanahalli 10.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Up dated
05
2004- Valnur-
05 Thyaganur
2004- Valnur-
10.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Up dated
05 Thyaganur
2004- Koodloor
6 10.00 Yes -- -- Yes No Yes Yes Up dated
05 chettalli
2004- Koodloor
6.00 Yes -- -- Yes No Yes Yes Up dated
05 chettalli
2004-
7 Andagove 10.00 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
05
426
2004-
Andagove 6.00 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
05
2004-
8 Kundacheri 15.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Up dated
05
2004-
9 Kopatti 5.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Up dated
05
2004-
05
2004-
05
2005-
12 Thavoor 5.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Up dated
06
2005-
13 Kariki 15.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Up dated
06
2005-
14 Kariki 15.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Up dated
06
2006-
15 Kattepura 10.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Up dated
07

Exten Survival General
Selectio Se;ection of
S. t (in Choice of Protection % condition
Year Village n of Plantation
No Ha/ Species aspects
site model
km)
2004-
1 Kusubur 30.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 75.0 Good
05
2004- Siddalingap
05 ura
2005-
3 Adinadoor 20.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 74.0 Good
06
2004- Basavanaha
05 lli
2004- Basavanaha
10.00 Proper Proper Proper Improper 74.0 Satisfactory
05 lli
2004- Valnur-
5 10.00 Proper Improper Proper Improper 54.0 Satisfactory
05 Thyaganur
2004- Valnur-
10.00 Proper Improper Proper Improper 50.0 Satisfactory
05 Thyaganur
2004- Koodloor
05 chettalli
427
2004- Koodloor
6.00 Proper Proper Proper Improper 77.0 Satisfactory
05 chettalli
2004-
7 Andagove 10.00 -- -- -- -- -- Plantation Burnt
05
2004-
Andagove 6.00 -- -- -- -- -- Plantation Burnt
05
2004-
8 Kundacheri 15.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 74.0 Good
05
2004-
9 Kopatti 5.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 82.2 Good
05
2004-
05
2004-
05
2005-
12 Thavoor 5.00 Proper Proper Proper Improper 44.0 Average
06
2005-
13 Kariki 15.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 70.0 Good
06
2005-
14 Kariki 15.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 48.0 Good
06
2006-
15 Kattepura 10.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 80.00 Good
07
Madikeri division has raised 982.50 ha of plantations under NAP_FDA scheme during
2004-05 to 2006-07, out of which the team selected 247 ha of plantations for evaluation,
covering 25.12% of the area. The plantations were raised under various models such as
Aided natural regeneration, artificial regeneration, cane plantation, mixed plantation, and
medicinal plantation.
Under aided natural regeneration model, area has been closed and planted with 200
plants per hectare and the results are encouraging.
In artificial regeneration model, mainly planted with Acacia auriculiformis and other
miscellaneous species in the open areas. The results are good.
In cane model different species of cane, such as Calmus thwaitesii, Calamus nagbethai
and Calamus psedotenacis have been planted and are doing well.
One plantation raised at Andagove in Kushalnagar range during 2004-05, has been burnt
down by the forest fire occurred during March 2008 and the same has been recorded in
plantation journal.
The local officers informed that under FDA, one major hurdle is the limited cost norms
and very less amount provided for maintenance operation in subsequent years. As a
428
result, weeding and other cultural operations could not be carried out resulting in heavy
weed growth and lantana in open areas of Kushalnagar and Somvarpet ranges. They
justifiably suggest that under FDA, cost norms should be revised so that the plantations
could be maintained properly in the subsequent years.
OTHER WORKS:
Name of the
Work
Creation of
2004- CSS Integrated
1 Somvarpet --- --- Huduguru New fire line 15
05 FP
km
2.875 km solar
2004- FP Machinery & Gonimanoor
2 Somvarpet Kasaba Gonimanoor fence
05 equipment to Morikal
maintenance
Construction of
2005-
3 KSFMBC Madikeri Madikeri Galibeedu Vanachalu 642.9 cmt of
06
Gully checks
2005- Communication Maintenance of
4 Madikeri Madikeri Karnangeri Madikeri
06 & buildings Staff qtrs.
06 & buildings 2 Staff qtrs.
06 & buildings 2 Staff qtrs.
Kudur
2004- Kushalnaga Kudur Erection of 3km
7 Project Elephant Kushalnagar Chettalli to
05 ra Chettalli of Solar fencing
Valnur
2005- Kushalnaga Cauvery Construction of
8 Eco-Tourism Kushalnagar ---
06 ra Nisargadama Cottage
2005- Kushalnaga Extraction of
9 01-Timber Kushalnagar --- ---
06 ra Teak
2005- Construction of
10 KSFMBC Kushalnagar Ammathi Maldare Dubare RF
06 Check-dam
2005- Communication Kushalnaga Maintenance of
11 Kushalnagar Anekadu Anekadu
06 and Buildings ra Staff qrts.
2006- Kushalnagar Kushalnaga Nanjaraya Chiklihole Erection of EPT
12 KSFMBC
07 a ra patna road gate
Meenukolly
2006- Kushalnaga to Chettalli Clearance of
13 Project Elephant Kushalnagar Chettalli
07 ra road patrolling road
Extraction of
2005- Shanivaresa Kattepura RF
14 01-Timber Kodlipet Kattepura Eucalyptus
06 nthe cpt-1
1971plantation
Bettathur to Formation of
2004- 01-Timber WP Bhagamanda Bhagamand
15 Kolagodala Tavvur 9.6kms new ‘D’
05 organisation la ala
village lines
2004- 01-Timber WP Repairs Forest
16 Sampaje Sampaje Sampaje Sampaje
05 organisation guest house
The team visited 16 other works carried, during the year 2004-05 to 2006-07.
Construction of buildings and building maintenance works are good and generally
satisfactory.
429
Team visited newly created EPT in Kushalnagar range. Though the quality of the work is
good but the work is done in patches and hence is not effective. The team also found that
the EPT work that has been done during the past years has not been maintained and has
become ineffective. Local officers informed that there is no provision for maintenance of
old EPT. Hence, the team suggests that suitable rate in the SSR may be approved and
sufficient funds be provided every year for the regular and effective maintenance of old
EPT.
The team visited erection of Solar power fence and maintenance of old solar fence in
Kushalnagar and Somvarpet rages. The works are satisfactory, but that the work is
scattered and done in patches. No adequate funds have been provided for regular
maintenance of solar fence work completed in previous years and as a result it has
become ineffective in most of the places. The team recommends that adequate funds
should be provided for the maintenance of the same.
The soil and moisture conservation works evaluated in Kushalnagar and Madikeri ranges
are found to be satisfactory. But the team suggests that these works are carried out on
micro- watershed basis, and to be effective a series of soil and water harvesting structures
have to be constructed on ridge to valley basis.
The logging works, maintenance of ‘D’ lines, fire lines, and maintenance of patrolling
paths are generally satisfactory.
The department supplies the seedlings either free of cost by some wings or at subsidized cost
by other wings, to the interested farmers and others for planting. Apart from farmers,
seedlings are supplied to institutions like schools, colleges, other Government departments,
and NGOs.
Madikeri forest division has distributed 3, 79,694 seedlings during 2006-07 in
Madikeri and Somvarpet taluks; however no seedlings were distributed during 2004-05 and
2005-06. The team had visited the following spots to assess the performance of various
species and to know the interest of farmers in the Farm forestry.

S.No Hobli Village Number Remarks
1 Somvarpet Kushalnagar Valnoor Valnoor estate Silver Oak 3350 90 Good
2 Somvarpet Kushalnagar Athur Ganesh Silver Oak 100 95 Good
Kumari
4 Somvarpet Somvarpet Kusubur Silver oak 600 90 Good
siddanna
Shanivare Moideen
5 Somvarpet Malambi Silver oak 975 85 Good
santhe Kutti
Shanivare Silver oak 585

6 Somvarpet Mulluru Vasantha 90 Good
santhe Balanji 45
7 Madikeri Kasaba Makkandur Srinivas Silver oak 975 90 Good
8 Madikeri Kasaba Karnangeri Pradeep Silver oak 240 95 Good
430
9 Madikeri Bhagmandala Kopatti Vittala Silver oak 500 95 Good
10 Madikeri Bhagmandala Kopatti Lingappa Silver oak 500 90 good
11 Madikeri Bhagmandala Kopatti Nagesh Silver oak 500 80 Good
12 Madikeri Bhagmandala Kundacheri Radhakrishna Silver oak 500 95 Good
Ayyappa/
13 Madikeri --- --- Silver oak 4160 90 Good
Ganesh
Majority of the seedlings distributed are Silver Oak, though other species were
distributed but in less numbers. The seedlings mainly purchased by coffee planters @
Rs.2.50, and planted them on bunds and in gaps of the coffee estates.
All the spots visited by the team, the survival is good and the beneficiaries are taking
good care of them.
The seedlings have attained 6 to 10 feet height.
The beneficiaries requested for supply of seedlings of other species, apart from Silver
Oak.
Requested for supply of seedlings at subsidized rates and nearer to their villages.
MAIDKERI SOCIAL FORESTRY DIVISION:
Madikeri social forest division under the administrative control of Zilla Panchayat
Kodagu is headed by Deputy Conservator of forest with head quarters at Madikeri, and assisted
by Asst. Conservator of Forests. This division has jurisdiction over the entire district consisting
of 3 ranges of Madikeri, Virajpet, and Somvarpet. Its mandate is out side the notified forest
areas.
PLANTATIONS:
Total area of plantations raised in the division during the period under Evaluation
318.00 ha.
Total area of the plantations visited by the Team : 43.75 ha
Details of afforestation works visited by the team:

Extent (in
Ha/ km)
Kanur high
1 2004-05 SGRY Virajpet Ponnampet Kanur 2.75
school
2 2004-05 IDWG Madikeri Bhagamandala Yavakpadi 250/4 10.00
3 2004-05 SGRY Somvarpet Kushalnagar Kudige 13&14 12.50
4 2005-06 SGRY Madikeri Galibeeedu Vanchil 7/2 15.00
Ponnathmotte
5 2006-07 SGRY Somvarpet Kushalnagar Chettalli Govt. primary 1.50
school
6 2006-07 KSFMBC Somvarpet Kushalnagar Hosalli 2 2.00
431
Extent Plnt
S.N Mode Pit/ Spa Spp. Mainte- Status Micro
Year Village (in Ha/ Journa
o l Trench cing planted nance of VFC plan
km) l
2004-
1 Kanur 2.75 Yes Yes No yes Yes -- -- Partial
05
2004- Up
2 Yavakpadi 10.00 Yes Yes No No Yes -- --
05 dated
2004- Up
3 Kudige 12.50 Yes -- -- Yes Yes -- ---
05 dated
2005- Up
4 Vanchil 15.00 Yes Yes No No Yes -- --
06 dated
2006- Up
5 Chettalli 1.50 Yes -- -- Yes Yes --- ---
07 dated
2006-
6 Hosalli 2.00 Yes -- -- Yes Yes -- -- --
07

Extent Se;ection of Choice Survival General
Selection Protection
S.No Year Village (in Ha/ Plantation of percentatge condition
of site aspects
km) model Species
1 2004-05 Kanur 2.75 Proper proper proper proper 46.00 Good
2 2004-05 Yavakpadi 10.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 10 Dried
3 2004-05 Kudige 12.50 Proper Proper Proper Proper 90.0 Good
4 2005-06 Vanchil 15.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 91.0 Good
5 2006-07 Chettalli 1.50 Proper Proper Proper Improper 50.0 Good
6 2006-07 Hosalli 2.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 88.0 Good
The division has raised 318 ha of plantations in three taluks of the district during
the period under evaluation. The plantations are raised mostly in village forest,
District forest areas, and other community lands. The team evaluated 43.75 ha of
plantations at 6 spots raised under SGRY and IDWG schemes.
The species planted are mainly Casurina, Acacia, and Silver Oak.
The farm forestry demonstration plot raised under KSFMBC scheme at Hosalli
has come well with 88% survival. Teak and silver oak seedlings planted on bund
as a demonstration plot to raise tree crops on farm lands.
The two spots of school forestry one at Kanur High school in Virajpet and
Ponnathmotte Govt. primary school in Somvarpet ranges are visited by team. The
survival is 46 and 50% respectively, but the condition of existing plants is good.
In Vanchil, 15.00 ha plantation raised on grass lands. The survival is good with
91%, and Casurina is showing promising result.
The 10 ha of plantation raised at Yavakpadi in Madikeri range has dried due to
fire occurrence during March 2008.
432
Madikeri Social Forestry division has distributed 13,05,293 seedlings in 3 taluks
of division during the period under evaluation. The team had visited the following spots to
assess the performance of various species and to know the interest of farmers in the Farm
forestry.
S.No Hobli Village Number Reamrks
1 Virajpet Virajpet Mugggula Appaiah S.Oak 500 90 Good
2 Virajpet Virajpet Kukkalur PS Pinto S.Oak 750 90 Good
Subash
3 Virajpet Ponnampet Thitimathi S.Oak 750 67 Good
Muttappa
4 Virajpet Virajpet Halugunda MS.Rani S.Oak 175 85 Good
5 Virajpet Virajpet Kukkalur SR.Jagadish S.Oak 400 90 Good
6 Virajpet Ponnampet Thitimathi Kariyappa S.Oak 750 85 Good
Kakottu
7 Virajpet Virajpet MS.Subbaiah S.Oak 500 90 Good
porambu
8 Virajpet Ammathi Ammathi C.Kariyappa S.Oak 1050 67 Good
9 Virajpet Virajpet Aramari Nanaiah S.Oak 500 75 Good
10 Virajpet Ammathi Halugunda TM.Kariyappa S.Oak 500 80 Good
11 Virajpet Virajpet Aramari Thangamma S.Oak 500 90 Good
Silver oak 800

Halasu 50
Somavar Somavar
12 Tannirhalla Vinod Kr Athi 50 80 Good
pet pet
Nelli 50
Acacia 50
13 Madikeri Kasaba Galibeedu Keshavananda Silver oak 95 95 Good
Somavar Somavar
14 Koodigi Shivarudrappa Silver oak 200 90 Good
pet pet
Somavar Somavar
15 Hudugur Basappa Silver oak 1000 85 Good
pet pet
16 Madikeri Kasaba Haragodu MA.Vittal Silver oak 470 90 Good
17 Somvarpet Somvarpet Yedavanad Smt. Balaki Silver oak 950 88 Good
Free distribution as well as sale of seedlings at subsidized rates as fixed by Zilla

Panchayat Kodagu was done by the division.
433
Mainly Silver oak, teak, Balanji and other species distributed to the beneficiaries.
The team visited several spots in all the three ranges to assess the performance of the
programme and species.
The silver oak which constitutes more than 90% of the seedlings distributed is
performing well. Because of assured rainfall the survival and performance is good. Some
estate owners expressed that planting of silver oak is like planting of gold, as it yields 3-4
cft of wood at the end of 10 year, which gives returns of Rs.1000 at present market rates.
MADIKERI WILD LIFE DIVISION:
Madikeri wildlife division located in Kodagu district comprises of Pushpaagiri wildlife
sanctuary, Talacauvery wildlife sanctuary and Brahmagiri wildlife sanctuary.
Brahmagiri (181.29 sq.kms) was declared a sanctuary on 5th June 1974. Being part of the
Western Ghats, it has evergreen and semi-evergreen forests, as well as shola grass land habitat.
The sanctuary surrounded by agricultural fields and coffee plantations. The eastern tip of the
sanctuary almost touches the northwest edge of Rajiv Gandhi National park, separated by a
narrow strip of coffee plantations. The southern boundary adjoins Kerala state. It is located
between latitudes 11055’ to 12009’ north and longitudes of 75044’ to 76004’ east. Altitude varies
from 65 to 1607 m, the highest point being the Brahmagiri peak on the southeastern boundary of
the sanctuary. Temperatures vary from 5 to 320C and mean annual rainfall varies from 2500 to
6000 mm.
Pushpagiri sanctuary (102.59 sq. kms) located in Somvarpet taluk of Kodagu district lies
between 12029’ to 12042’ north latitudes and 75038’ to 75042’ east longitudes. Situated in the
Western Ghats, the area has thick evergreen and semi-evergreen forests and shola grassland
habitat in the higher areas. Altitude varies from 160 to 1712 m, the highest point being the
Pushpagiri peak in the north of the sanctuary. Temperatures range from 10 to 380C and annual
rainfall is above 6500mm.
Talacauvery (105.59 sq.kms) was declared a wildlife sanctuary on 13th June 1994.
Situated in the Western Ghats, it is mostly covered with tropical evergreen forests. It was named
after Talacauvery, the origin of River Cauvery, which lies on the eastern edge of the sanctuary.
The division is headed by Deputy Conservator of forests and for administrative and
management purposes divided into 4 ranges namely Pushpagiri wildlife range, Talacauvery
wildlife range, Srimangala wildlife range and Makut wildlife range.
PLANTATIONS:
Evaluation: 2 (70.00 ha)
Total Number of the plantation visited by the Team : 2 (70.00 ha)
Extent (in
Ha/ km)
2007- Pushagiri Kadamkal
1 Shanthihalli Kumbaragadige 50.00 Bamboo
08 WL RF Cpt-94
2006- TalaCauvery
2 Napoklu Iyengeri Cpt- 53 20.00 Bamboo
07 WL
434
S. (in Pit/ Spp. nance of plan Journal
Year Village Model Spacing
No Ha/ Trench planted VFC
km)
2007- No
1 Kumbaragadige 50.00 Yes No No Yes Yes --- Partial
08 VFC
2006- No Up
2 Iyengeri 20.00 Yes No Yes Yes Yes ---
07 VFC dated

Extent Se;ection of Choice Survival General
S. Selection Protection
Year Village (in Ha/ Plantation of percentatge condition
No of site aspects
km) model Species
2007-
1 Kumbaragadige 50.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 77.3 Good
08
2006-
2 Iyengeri 20.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 73.0 Good
07
Wild life division has raised 70 ha of Bamboo plantation at two spots during the period
under evaluation and the team visited both the spots.
The plantations are raised in open gaps having bamboo growth and other woody
vegetation.
Both the plantations are promising with more than 70% survival, and the choice of
species apt for such areas frequented by wild elephants. Ideally, rising of more such
bamboo and other fodder plantations would help in increasing the availability of fodder
in the habitat of wild elephants and thus prevent their straying into the human habitations.
OTHER WORKS:
S.
Year Scheme Range Hobli Village Location Name of the Work
No
2005- CSS Pushpagiri Lingadahalli Improvement to
1 Shantihalli Kumarahalli
06 Puspagiri WL river hanging bridge
Construction of
2006- CSS Eco- Pushpagiri
2 Madikeri Hammiyala Mandalpatti Paragola in
07 tourism WL
pushpagiri
Improvements to
2006- CSS Pushpagiri Mandalpatti
3 Madikeri Hammiyala the existing water
07 Puspagiri WL kere
tank
Improvements to
2006- CSS Pushpagiri
4 Shanthihalli Kumarahalli Beedahalli the existing water
07 Puspagiri WL
tank
Improvements to
5 Madikeri Hammiyala Kothanadka the existing water
07 Puspagiri WL
tank
Mandalpatti Improvements to
6 Madikeri Hammiyala Koppadada the existing water
07 Puspagiri WL
kere tank
Kothandka to
2004- CSS Pushpagiri Maintenance of
7 Madikeri Kalur Kuyimale(4km)
05 Puspagiri WL Road
cpt-93
Marigundi to
2004- Puspagiri Pushpagiri Maintenance of
8 Shanthihalli Kumbaragadige Bakthi (6km)
05 (state) WL Road
cpt-94
435
Uppangala to
2004- Puspagiri Pushpagiri Maintenance of
9 Madikeri Hammiyala mandalpatte
05 (state) WL Road
(15km)
EPT to
2004- TalaCauvery
10 DPA Napoklu Bhagamandala Nishanibetta Nishanibetta anti-
05 WL
poaching camp
Moolemath
2006- TalaCauvery Maintenance of
11 PADF Bhagamandala Talacavery Cpt- 60,59,58,
07 WL view lines
54
2006- CSS TalaCauvery Construction of
12 Bhagamandala Talacavery Moolemath
07 TalaCauvery WL resting place
Construction of
2004- Makutta
13 BWS ( C) Makutta WL Kasaba Makutta low-level cause
05 sothekolli road
way
2005- Maintenance of
14 BWS (S) Makutta WL Kasaba Makutta Makutta
06 RFO office and qtrs
Construction of
2006- Makutta to
15 BWS ( C) Makutta WL Kasaba Makutta high level
07 solekatti road
causeway
2004- Srimangal Construction of
16 BWS ( C) Hudukeri Aabailu Nepalli section
05 WL cairns 100nos
2006- Srimangal Nathangala Erection of 5kms of
17 BWS ( C) Kutta Kutta
07 WL section Cpt-8 Solar fencing
Hanging bridge across the Lingadahally stream is in good condition and very much
useful to the forest staff to enter into the sanctuary during the rainy season and also to
trekkers. The site selected for the bridge is ideal, and maintenance work carried out is
good.
The Paragola constructed in ideal location and the quality work is good. It would be a
good resting place for tourists and other visitors.
Maintenance of existing natural water ponds and their de-silting works would
definitely help the wild animals in summer season and the quality of the works and
selection of such tanks for de-silting is ideal for wild animals.
Maintenance of sanctuary roads generally satisfactory and would help movement of
the staff inside the sanctuary and also helps the visitors to view the wild life. But due
to heavy rainfall and steep slopes of the area they are in need of maintenance at
regular intervals.
Maintenance of view lines is satisfactory.
The civil works and building maintenance carried out as per the sanctioned plan and
estimates and the quality of works is good.
VIRAJPET FOREST DIVISION:
Virajpet division was formed in 1992 by including the areas of the present Virajpet,
Ponnampet, Makut and Mundrote ranges from the former Madikeri division and of the
Thitimathi range from the erstwhile Hunsur division.
The boundary of the division lies between latitudes 11055’ to 12020’ north and longitudes
75 25’ to 76005’ east. The total geographical area of the division is 1410.48 sq. kms. The
0
division is bounded on the north by Madikeri forest division and TalaCauvery wild life
sanctuary, on the south by Kerala state, on the east by Hunsur wildlife division and on the west
by Kerala state and Madikeri forest division. The total length of the forest boundary is 350 kms
of which 72 kms is inter-state boundary between Karnataka and Kerala. The division has a
mountainous configuration with rivers, valleys, ravines, spurs and peaks. It becomes undulating
436
and a plain towards east, while towards west, attains greater heights with precipitous slopes. The
general elevation of the division varies from 1000 m to 1745 m. The area is drained primarily
towards east by number of streams forming tributaries of important rivers like Cauvery and
Lakshmanthirtha.
Evaluation including seed sowing in all schemes excluding FDA : 15 (594.83 ha)
Details of afforestation works including seed sowing selected randomly for evaluation in all
schemes except FDA_NAP.
Extent (in
Ha/ km)
PLANTING
2004-
1 KFDF Mundrote Bhagamandala Naladi Cpt-45 50.00
05
2004-
2 KFDF Makut Virajpet Heggala Cpt-30 25.00
05
SEED SOWING
2005-
1 KSFMBC Mundrote Bhagamandala Mundrote Cpt-55&56 130.00
06
2006-
2 KSFMBC Makut Virajpet Heggala Cpt-30 20.00
07
2006- Devamachi
3 KSFMBC Thithimati Ammathi Channangi 20.00
07 RF Cpt-18

Extent
Status
VFC
km)
PLANTING
2004- No Up
1 Naladi 50.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes ---
05 VFC dated
2004- No Up
2 Heggala 25.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes ---
05 VFC dated
SEED SOWING
2005- Up
1 Mundrote 130.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
06 dated
2006- Up
2 Heggala 20.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
07 dated
2006- Up
3 Channangi 20.00 Yes -- -- -- Yes Yes Yes
07 dated
437
Se;ection
Extent Survival
S. Selection of of Choice of Protection General
Year Village (in Ha/ Percent
No site Plantation Species aspects condition
km) age
model
PLANTING
1 2004-05 Naladi 50.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 96.8 Good
2 2004-05 Heggala 25.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 93.3 Good
SEED SOWING
1 2005-06 Mundrote 130.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 92.6 Good
2 2006-07 Heggala 20.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 95.8 Good
3 2006-07 Channangi 20.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper --- Satisfactory
The division has raised 246.83 ha plantations excluding FDA_NAP plantations during the
period of 3 years under evaluation, out this 75.00 ha was selected for evaluation which
works out to be 30.4% of the area.
In addition to afforestation works the division has carried out seed sowing in trenches,
pits and bushes in an extent of 330 ha, out of which 170 ha evaluated covering 51% area.
All the plantations were raised in Reserve forest areas
The team visited 2 plantations raised under KFDF scheme during 2004-05. The areas
planted with local species, and the plants have attained height of 2ft to 2.5 ft with more
than 90% survival.
In KSFMBC scheme the team visited 3 plantations in Mundrote, Makut and Virajpet
ranges. Under model 1, area has been closed and protection has been given and the
results are encouraging. Visible improvement in existing natural vegetation is observed in
the model 1 areas.
In Channangi area of Devamachi RF, out of 800 ha of compartment area, 20 ha is
selected for model-1 in KSFMBC scheme and area is closed along the out side boundary
only. Closure of the area inside the compartment with bamboo or brushwood fencing
would help the young regeneration from browsing by the wild animals. The soil and
moisture conservation works done are satisfactory.
Extent (in
Ha/ km)
2004- 264, 395, 50
1 Virajpet Ammathi Halugunda 11.00 ANR
05 24/20
2004- Arapatta
2 Virajpet Cheyyandane 94 2.00 AR
05 podavada
2004- 170,98/3, 34ha mixed
3 Virajpet Virajpet Palangala 48.00
05 19/2 14ha cane
2004-
4 Virajpet Virajpet Betoli 92/1,145 10.50 ANR
05
438
2004-
5 Ponnampet Ponnampet Aravathoklu 103,135 9.00 ANR
05
2004-
6 Ponnampet Ponnampet Mugutageri 122/1 1.00 Bamboo
05
2004-
7 Ponnampet Hudikeri Konageri 90/1 12.00 ANR
05
2004-
8 Ponnampet Ponnampet Aravathoklu 103 1.00 Cane
05

(in Pit/ Spp. nance of plan Journal
S.No Year Village Model Spacing
Ha/ Trench planted VFC
km)
2004-
1 Halugunda 11.00 ANR Yes --- --- --- --- Yes Yes
05
2004- Arapatta
2 2.00 AR Yes --- --- --- --- Yes Yes
05 podavada
34ha
2004- mixed
3 Palangala 48.00 Yes --- --- --- --- Yes Yes
05 14ha
cane
2004-
4 Betoli 10.50 ANR Yes --- --- --- --- Yes Yes
05
2004-
5 Aravathoklu 9.00 ANR Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
05
2004-
6 Mugutageri 1.00 Bamboo Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
05
2004-
7 Konageri 12.00 ANR Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
05
2004-
8 Aravathoklu 1.00 Cane Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
05

Extent Selection Survival General
Choice
(in Selection of Protection percentatge condition
Species
km) model
1 2004-05 Halugunda 11.00 Improper Proper Proper Proper ---- ----
Arapatta
2 2004-05 2.00 Improper Improper Proper Proper --- ---
podavada
3 2004-05 Palangala 48.00 Improper Improper Improper Proper --- ----
4 2004-05 Betoli 10.50 Improper Improper Improper Proper ---- ----
5 2004-05 Aravathoklu 9.00 Proper Proper Improper Proper 37.0 Poor
6 2004-05 Mugutageri 1.00 Improper Improper Improper Proper 8.3 Poor

7 2004-05 Konageri 12.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 23.9 Poor
8 2004-05 Aravathoklu 1.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 15.7 Poor
439
Virajpet division has raised 373.68 ha of plantations under NAP_FDA scheme from
2004-05 to 2006-07, out of which the team selected 94.5 ha of plantations covering an
area of 25.28% for evaluation. The plantations were raised under various models such as
Aided natural regeneration, artificial regeneration, cane plantation, mixed plantation, and
medicinal plantation.
FDA plantations were raised in Devarakadu areas in assisted natural regeneration,
artificial regeneration, mixed, cane, and Bamboo models.
The Deverakadu areas selected for treatment under FDA scheme are either dense
evergreen forest or open areas. The open areas are at many places where plantations were
raised covered with lantana and other weeds due to lack adequate funds to carry
maintenance operations.
In Halugunda VFC, 11 ha of mixed model, in Betoli VFC, 10.53 ha of Aided natural
regeneration model and in Palangal VFC, 34 ha of cane and ANR model plantations
were raised in dense evergreen forest areas of Devarakadu. The area is so thick, with out
cutting the natural vegetation it is very difficult to enter or lay the sample plots, and
hence it could not be ascertained about the species, spacement, or survival percentage.
In Arapattu Padavada, 2 ha of AR model plantation was raised in Hookadu devarabane.
The plantation area is covered with lantana and other weeds and hence sample plots could
not be laid to ascertain the survival percentage or species planted.
The local officers informed that under FDA, one major hurdle is the limited cost norms
and very less amount provided for maintenance operation in subsequent years. As a result
weeding and other cultural operations could not be carried out resulting in heavy weed
growth and lantana in open areas, and suggests that under FDA cost norms should be
revised so that the plantations can be maintained properly in the subsequent years.
OTHER WORKS:
Project
1 2004-05 Thithimathi Ammathi Chennangi Channangi Erection of Solar Fence
Elephant
Project
2 2004-05 Thithimathi Ammathi Chennangi Channangi Erection of Solar Fence
Elephant
Project
3 2004-05 Virajpet Virajpet ---- ----- Elephant scaring camp
Elephant
Project
4 2004-05 Virajpet Virajpet ---- ----- Elephant scaring camp
Elephant
Project
5 2004-05 Thithimathi Ponnampet ---- ----- Elephant scaring camp
Elephant
Project
6 2004-05 Thithimathi Ammathi ---- ----- Elephant scaring camp
Elephant
7 2005-06 TFC Thithimathi Ponnampet Nokhya Thithimathi Maintenance of FRH
8 2005-06 TFC Thithimathi Ponnampet Nokhya Devamachi Anti poaching camp
9 2005-06 TFC Thithimathi Ammathi Channangi Channangi Anti poaching camp
10 2006-07 TFC Makuta Virajpet Heggala Makuta Anti poaching camp
440
Maintenance of Anti
11 2006-07 TFC Makuta Virajpet Heggala Makuta
poaching camp
Maintenance of Anti
poaching camp
Maintenance of Anti
poaching camp
Maintenance of Anti
poaching camp
Maintenance of Forest
15 2005-06 TFC Thithimathi Ammathi Channangi Channangi
road
Makut Maintenance of Forest
16 2005-06 TFC Makut Virajpet -----
range road
Makut Maintenance of Forest
17 2005-06 TFC Makut Virajpet Heggala
range road
Mundrote to Maintenance of Forest
18 2005-06 TFC Mundrote Bhagamandala Mundrote
Nadumale road
Project Maintenance of Beat
19 2004-05 Mundrote Bhagamandala ---- Mundrote
Elephant path
Project Makut Maintenance of Beat
20 2004-05 Makut Virajpet ----
Elephant range path
Roads and Makut Construction of
21 2006-07 Makut Virajpet ----
Bridges range Temporary Bridge
Roads and Construction of
22 2006-07 Makut Virajpet ---- Cpt-41
Bridges Temporary Bridge
23 2006-07 Makut Virajpet ---- Cpt-36
24 2006-07 Makut Virajpet Makut Cpt-40
25 2006-07 Makut Virajpet Makut Makut
Bridges Temporary Bridges
26 2006-07 Makut Virajpet --- Cpt-39
27 2006-07 Makut Virajpet --- Cpt-44
28 2006-07 Makut Virajpet --- Makut
Comm& Construction of
29 2006-07 Mundrote Bhagamandal Naladi Angarakolly
Buildings Temporary Bridge
30 2006-07 Mundrote Bhagamandal Naladi Baikabbey
31 2006-07 Mundrote Bhagamandal Naladi Mundare
32 2006-07 Mundrote Bhagamandal Naladi Munanchary
• The team visited 32 spots in the division to evaluate the quality of other works.
• In Devamachi RF area, 4.8km of solar fence erection work was carried during 2004-05.
MOU was signed with Channagi EDC to maintain the fence subsequently. But due to non
cooperation of EDC the fence is not maintained thus making it ineffective.
441
• The location and maintenance of anti-poaching camps is satisfactory.
• Construction of temporary bridges in Makut and Mundrote ranges is satisfactory and very
much useful to the staff to perambulate the forest areas in rainy season as all the streams
would flow to the brim during this time.
• The maintenance of forest roads and beat paths works are satisfactory.
The department supplies the seedlings either free of cost by some wings or at subsidized cost
by other wings, to the interested farmers and others for planting. Apart from farmers,
seedlings are supplied to institutions like schools, colleges, other Government departments,
and NGOs.
Virajpet forest division has distributed 1,22,262 seedlings covering the 48 villages
in 3 hoblis of Virajpet taluk during 2006-07, however no seedlings were distributed during
2004-05 and 2005-06. The team had visited the following spots to assess the performance of
various species and to know the interest of farmers in the Farm forestry.
Name of
Taluk/ Species Survival
S.No Hobli Village the Number Reamrks
Range received %
Farmer
1 Virajpet Ponnampet Nokhya Vinay Silver Oak 2500 50.00 Good
2 Virajpet Ponnampet Devarapura V.C.Raju Silver Oak 3000 66.00 Good
Vinod
3 Virajpet Ammathi Siddapura Silver Oak 2500 50.00 Good
Roy
4 Virajpet Balale Rudrabeedu Siddique Silver Oak 1000 70.00 Good
5 Virajpet Ammathi Ammathi Johny Silver Oak 1850 68.00 Good
Ashok
6 Virajpet Ponnampet Hebbale Solver Oak 1000 85.00 Good
Monnappa
Mainly Silver Oak seedlings were distributed. The seedlings mainly purchased by coffee
planters @ Rs.2.50, and planted them on bunds and in gaps of the estates.
All the spots visited the survival is good and the planters are taking good care of them.
The seedlings have attained 6 to 12 feet height.
Requested for supply of seedlings of other species, apart from Silver Oak.
Requested for supply of seedlings at subsidized rates and nearer to their villages.
General Observations and Suggestions:
All on going schemes may be continued. It is desirable to evaluate only those plantations
whose maintenance is already completed in order to get a realistic picture.
Regarding compliance report, the CF Kodagu circle has instructed the DCFs to comply
with the observations made by the evaluation team in respect of works pertaining to 2002-03 and
2003-04. However no compliance report is received from the DCFs.
Sd/-
(Evaluation)
& Team Leader
442
Annexure- XI-Detailed Circle Report
8.11 MANGALORE CIRCLE

MANGALORE DIVISION
The limits of Mangalore forest division are almost the same as those of Mangalore
revenue district. This district was earlier a part of the erstwhile South Canara District. Prior to
1956, South Canara was in the then Madras State. During the reorganization of States in 1956, it
was separated from Madras State and transferred to Karnataka State.
Till 1966, one forest division with headquarters at Mangalore administered the forests of
the entire South Canara District. Thereafter the division was split into North and South
Mangalore divisions with headquarters at Mangalore and Kundapur respectively.
Mangalore Division was reorganized vide G.O.No: AFD-80-FEG-66, Bangalore dated:
13-9-1966 by creating two new ranges, namely: Subramanya and Panja ranges with the already
existing four ranges of Mangalore.Puttur, Uppinangadi and Sullia. Again vide G.O.No: AFD-
328-FNG-73, Bangalore Dated the 27/28-9-1973 Belthangadi range was transferred to
Mangalore division from Kundapur division. Again Vide G.O.No: A3(AI)MISC-CR-1: 87-88
Dated: 18-4-88 of the Chief Conservator of Forests (General) Bangalore, a new range, namely,
Bantwal range was created. Mangalore forest division at present consists of eight ranges,
namely: Mangalore, Bantwal, Belthangadi, Uppinangadi, Puttur, Sullia, Panja and Subramanya
spread over 5 revenue taluks of Mangalore, Bantwal, Belthangadi, Puttur and Sullia. The
division comprises of three sub-divisions namely, Mangalore, Puttur and Sullia.
Forests account for about 23% of the total land area in this division. The forest types
found in the division vary from coastal scrub type to wet evergreen Chat forests. They unevenly
distributed, being mostly confined to a continuous stretch of area along the western slopes of the
ghats and being scarce in the densely populated areas towards the coast. The productivity per
hectare is very low which is inherent due to heterogeneous character of the forests where only
certain species are valuable. The actual production of the forests of the division is low compared
to its potential judged from the climatic factors viz., precipitation warmth and light which mainly
govern plant growth and the past results. Hence, it would desirable to plan to achieve this
objective.
Setting up of giant industrial projects like Kudremukh Iron Ore Plant and the Chemical
and Fertilizer Factory and Mangalore, rapid industrialization of Mangalore city and around, the
opening of Mangalore Harbor and laying of Hassan-Mangalore Railway line have all contributed
to greater stress on the environment of the area. Forests play a very important role in mitigating
the harmful effects of environmental degradation.
Mangalore is a versatile division. Various types of plantations have been experimented.
Plantations of Rubber, Cashew, Cocoa, Casuarina, Ailanthus, Hopea, Acacia auriculiformis,
Nutmeg, Clove, Red oil palm, Teak, Cane, Mangrove species, etc., have been raised
successfully. All the rubber and Cashew plantations are handed over to KFDC and KCDC
respectively. For Management of Acacia and Casuarina, Teak, Cane and MFP separate working
circles are created. However, the cultivation of Clove, Red Oil Palm, Cocoa and Nutmeg has
been given up at present. If the combined activity of KFDC, KCDC and Mangalore division is
considered, this division stands out in the State.
The committee was entrusted to evaluate 35 plantation works in Mangalore division. The
committee has evaluated 45 plantations (Details @ Annexure 1) as the list provided was not
inclusive of the plantations raised under FDA scheme. All these plantations evaluated were
raised under 11 Schemes, namely KUDCEM, D.D.F., GREENING OF URBAN AREA, CULTURAL
443
OPERATION, AFFORESTATION IN OTHER AREA, KSFMBC, F.D.F, 12th FINANCE, F.D.A, KANDLA
VANA & TSP (State).
1. KUDCEM: One Fuel wood plantation is raised under this head. The plantation is good with
73 percent survival rate. The main species used is Acacia springwell with Teak, Honne and
Vateria etc.
2. D.D.F: This is a pit planting model. The main species being Teak along with Vateria, Kiral
bogi Mahogony etc. Though the survival rate in this plantation is 50-55 percent the plantation is
rated as satisfactory. The protection given to the plantation is resulted in good natural
regeneration of Mitragyna species.
3. GREENING OF URBAN AREA: The plantations are raised in three spots. These plantations
are good with 72 percent of survival rate. The main species planted are Honne, aveteria,
Mahagani, Halasu, Peltaforum etc. In some places Halasu, Basavanapada was replaced with
Honne, Hebbalasu and Mango.
4. CULTURAL OPERATION: This is a fuel wood plantation raised in reserve forest area
using Acacia species. Though the plantation is good with 77 percent of survival, the committee is
of the view that it is not necessary to raise the Acacia plantation under this scheme in Reserve
Forest as there are many schemes to raise fuel wood plantations. The same may be used for
maintenance of older plantations where there is no provision in other schemes.
5. AFFORESTATION IN OTHER AREA SCHEME: This is pit plantation raised on either
side of the railway track. The species planted are Halasu, Hebbalasu, Mahagani, Sampige etc.
with 80 percent of survival rate. The committee is of the view that this is a good attempt, which
should be encouraged.
6. FOREST DEVELOPMENT FUND: There are 8 plantations raised under this scheme. Of
which 1 is road side plantation, which is almost like block plantation on either side of the road.
The species used are mainly Acacia followed by Honne and Honge. The plantation is good with
75 percent of survival. The committee is of the view that since there are other schemes for
raising road side plantations this fund may be used for other works.
Other 7 plantations are block plantations. Of which 3 are with mainly Acacia springwell
with Mahagani, Nelli etc. These plantations are very good with more than 90 percent survival
rate, but the miscellaneous species planted are either struggling or suppressed by the main
species.
In another four spots Honge has been raised as main crop. Of these, in three plantations
75-90 percent survival rate is there, but in another one plantation survival rate is about 40
percent. The condition of the plantation is good in places where soil depth is good, where soil is
lateritic the growth and survival is also poor. In the lateritic area only Acacia is a suitable
species. Selection of species and selection of site is improper in three cases.
7. F.D.A.-N.A.P: Under this scheme, 6 plantations have been raised. Two plantations are raised
under sub head Assisted natural regeneration-Fuel wood plantations. The main species planted is
Acacia. Though survival percentage is good in both the plantations with more than 75, in one of
the plantations growth is average.
In one Road side plantation the major species planted is Acacia with Mahagani and
Mango. This is good plantation with 80 percent survival.
There are two plantations under M.F.P. Both the plantations are good with more than 70
percent survival rate. The species used are Beete, Honne, Teak, Mahagani, Hebbalasu and
Vateria.
One is BAMBOO plantation which is good with 80% survival rate, but the committee
feels that the spacing is too close for Bamboo. Further, this area is allotted to L.A.M.P. society
444
for collection of NTFP, but the VFC is demanding right for the same. Size of the pit approved is
also too small for Bamboo seedlings planting.
8. 12th FINANCE: Under this scheme eight plantations were evaluated by the committee. There
are FIVE plantations raised as gap / pit plantations during the year 2006-2007. The main
composition of the plantation is Mahagani, Mango, Nelli, Honne, Rose wood etc. Of these three
plantations are rated as good to very good with survival rate of 73-83 percent. The other two
plantations are rated as satisfactory with survival rate of 60-70 percent may be because of
improper protection.
The other three plantations are FUEL wood model raised during the year 2006-2007.
The main species is Acacia with Casuarina and other miscellaneous species. One of the
plantations is considered as FAILED plantation because of the improper protection. In another
two plantations the average survival rate is 93 percent, where Acacia is coming up well but rest
of the species are struggling as they are not able to compete with main species.
9.K.S.F.M.B.C: The committee evaluated 8 plantations in this scheme. Under model-1 of the
scheme four forest areas are taken up. The C.P.T excavated in these areas is serving the purpose
of consolidation of boundaries only. In these areas soil work done to the existing natural
regenerations is coming up well rather than sowings. In one of the sites planting is the only
option as the soil is laterite and there is no soil. Under model 2, one plantation in Subramanya
Range is raised during 2007-2008 but recorded as 2006-2007 which is a good plantation with
Cane, Honne, Honge, Mahagani, Nelli etc. with survival rate of 88%.
Under Model-IV, three Fuel wood plantations are raised using mainly Acacia seedlings
with Honge, Nelli, Mahagani etc. The survival rate is more than 95 percent which is rated as very
good.
10. KANDLA VANA SCHEME: In this scheme four plantations are raised. The species
planted are Avicennia, Rhizophora and Kandelia candel. One plantation was visible which was
good but in other three plantations were submerged either partly or fully under high tide of the
sea. It was not possible to estimate the survival percentage or extent of the area.
11. T.S.P. (State): The list of plantations to be evaluated as provided shows only on TSP
plantation of 2.00 Hectares, but in the field it is 4 beneficiaries plantation of 0.5 hectares each.
The survival rate is 81%. The species planted are Cashew, Halasu, Mango etc.
In general, 8 plantations are having more than 90% survival, 16 plantations are between
70-90%, 6 plantations are between 50-70% and 2 plantations are having less than 50% survival
rate. But in 9 plantations it was not able to assess the survival rate.
Out of the 41 plantations visited by the committee, V.F.C. was formed only in TEN
plantations, in other 31 plantations either NO VFC is formed or it was not applicable.
Distribution of seedlings
As per the ‘D’ form submitted by the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Mangalore, 64000
seedlings have been sold/distributed during the year 2004-05. No seedlings were distributed
during 2005-06. During the year 2006-07, the total number of seedlings sold/distributed was
162678. The main species distributed was Teak, Mahagani, Cashew, Nelli, Antwal etc.
The committee was able to see only 2 spots (Details @ Annexure 2). The species used in
both the farmers land were mainly Teak. The average survival rate is 70% but in one of the
farmers land, the Teak was planted in Areca graden and because of over shade the seedlings
were lean and lanky. The farmers were of the opinion that the seedlings should be supplied at
concessional rate and requested for grafted seedlings.
445
Other Works
As per the ‘G’ form submitted by the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Mangalore, there
are 199 works for the year 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07. Of these 41 works pertains to fireline,
D’line clearance. 24 works are part of the KSFMBC plantation works. The committee was able
to evaluate 10 works. All the works are good and are as per procedure (Details @ Annexure 3).
KUDREMUKH WILD LIFE DIVISION
Kudremukh wildlife division comprises of Kudremukh National Park, Someshwara
Wildlife Sanctuary and Mookambika Wildlife Sanctuary.
Kudremukh National Park is located at the tri-junction of Dakshina Kannada, Udupi and
Chikmagalur district. It falls approximately at the middle of Mid-Western Ghats (the stretch
between Goa and Nilgiris). It lies to the south – west of Karnataka. The National Park is a part
of Sahyadri hill ranges and constitutes a geographic barrier between the coastal areas and the
hinterland. For ages this has segregated people and gave protection to the coastal areas, its
wealth, its culture and traditions from casual invasion by the strong ruling polity of the maiden
areas.
The park derives its name from the highest hill peak known as the Kudremukh Peak
having an altitude of 1892 meters from the sea level. It is the queen of many fascinating hill
peaks in Karnataka. The name of the peak, meaning horse-face, is descriptive of its appearance
seawards, whence it was a well-known mark for navigators of yore. Such an appearance is
hardly evident from anywhere on the land surface. It is a popular peak and its name has become
an acronym from whatever important landmarks that springs up around this place. So are the
names Kudremukh town and the Kudremukh National Park born. This industrial-cum-mining
township is now tucked into the national park. The township is entirely owned by the
Kudremukh Iron Ore Company for housing its staff. Due to the prominence of mining related
activities, the region did not develop into a hill resort, which otherwise it is fully qualified to be.
The national park is rosetted by a host of holy places such as Dharmasthala, Udupi and Sringeri,
best known not only in Karnataka but the whole of South India.
The park was initially notified in G.O.No: AHFF.42 FWG.87, Dt: 2nd September 1987.
Five reserved forests, viz., Naravi, Andar, South Bhadra, Tunga Bhadra and Narasimhaparvatha
were brought together to constitute the national park. All the five reserved forests themselves
were constituted very early in the 20th century as under:
These forests were settled providing for a good number of revenue enclosures and
honoring a variety of rights and privileges for the local people.
Final declaration of the national park was issued in G.O.No: FEE.270.FWL.99, Dt: 16th
June 2001 wherein all rights and privileges except the right of way and water came to be
extinguished. Human settlements in revenue enclosures have also been kept outside the preview
of the national park. Consequently, a hundred human enclaves pigeonhole the entire national
park. More was added by deleting a portion of South Bhadra state forest over 35 sq kms in
favour of the Kudremukh Iron Ore Company. Consequently at the time of final constitution, the
extent of the national park was reduced to 563.29 sq kms from the original 600.32 sq.kms.
Remote sensing images indicate that the park is wider than declared. Orthogonally (two
dimensional scale) it measures 736.28 sqkms. In addition to the reserved forest areas, there are a
few well-wooded gomal and unassigned government lands, which naturally add up to the
national park. Kudremukh town ship spread over 20 kms and Kerekatte spread over 21 kms are
the largest enclosures within the national park.
446
Someshwara Wildlife Sanctuary has been named after Lord Someshwara, the presiding
deity of the famous Someshwara temple located within the limits of the Sanctuary. It was
notified as Wildlife Sanctuary by Government of Karnataka Vide Notification No: AFD-51-
FWL: 74, Dated: 5-6-1974 and confirmed Vide Government Notification No: FFD-51-FWL: 76
Dated: 12-10-1979.
Someshwara Wildlife Sanctuary is situated in Karkala and Kundapur taluk of Udupi
district in Karnataka State. It lies between 130 29’ and 130 36’ north latitude and 740 50’ and 750
05’ east longitude. The Sanctuary is spread over 86.99 Sq. Kms. The sanctuary is constituted by
eight reserved forests and district forests.
Mookambika Wildlife Sanctuary has been named after goddess “Mookambika” the
presiding deity of the famous Mookambika temple at Kollur located at the heart of the sanctuary.
It is situated in Kundapur taluk of Udupi district in Karnataka State. It lies between 130 59’ east
longitudes. The Government of Karnataka in its notification No: AFD.48: FWL: 74, Dt: 17-6-
1974 declared its intention to constitute Mookambika Wildlife Sanctuary and confirmed the
formation of sanctuary vide notification No: AFD.48.FWL.74, Dt: 22-5-1978. The sanctuary is
spread over 247 sq. kms.
To begin with, the sanctuary was under the control of Kundapur Forest Division. As per
the Government of Karnataka order No: AHFF.83.FNG.92, Dt: 8-5-1992, administration of the
sanctuary was brought under the newly constituted Kudremukh Wildlife Division, Karkala.
As per the ‘G’ form submitted by the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Kudremukh
Wildlife division, Karkala, totally there are 851 works carried out during 2004-05 (281), 2005-06
(243) and 2006-07(327). The committee evaluated 84 works in the division. Apart from these
works, 3 plantations raised in the Kudremukh wildlife division under FDA scheme were also
evaluated (Details @ Annexure 11). Of the three plantations evaluated, 2 plantations planted
with cane are good and another plantation, artificial regeneration model is not up to the mark.
The committee is of the opinion that the seedlings is being raised in 5 x 8“ bags in this scheme
and planted in the wildlife area, that to without protection may not serve any purpose. Even cane
seedlings should be of 2 year old before planting.
Remarks of the Committee:
The committee evaluated 84 works carried out (Details @ Annexure 12) during 2004-05,
2005-06, and 2006-07 in Kudremukha Wildlife Division. Most of the works are of good quality
and as per procedure except few works in Kollur Wildlife Range. The committee is of the
opinion that the quality of fire line clearance under Nature Conservation is average quality and in
the same range CPT suitability is good but quality of work is average.
In Kollur range, providing water supply to the beneficiaries of the Kollur village through
a tank and gravitational force with a tap to each ST houses of 9 families under Mookambika
(Central) scheme is a commendable work. Such works should be encouraged. The staff deserves
appreciation in this regard.
In Kudremukha Wildlife division, the culverts constructions (Sl.No. 7 & 8) are of average
quality and also it is not as per the sanctioned estimates. In the same range, stone pitching &
Toilet and bathroom construction works entirely differ from sanctioned estimate. It looks as if
the estimates are in the FNB without application of mind. On completion of works re-estimate
should have been sanctioned as per the work executed.
The special feature of the division is construction of cairons which are very good and
permanent concrete structures.
447
KUNDAPURA DIVISION
The Evaluation committee was entrusted to evaluate 27 plantation works in the division.
The committee has visited 28 plantations (Details @ Annexure 8). These plantations are raised
under 7 schemes namely SCP (state), TSP (state), KSFMBC, cultural operation, KUDCEM,
FDA and 12th finance schemes.
SCP and TSP Plantations:-
The committee has evaluated the plantations raised in the patta land under SCP scheme
(3) and TSP scheme (1). Under TSP scheme, the plantation is rated as good with 90% stocking.
The species planted are Teak, Cashew and Rampatre. In this case, the farmer has opined that the
fruit yielding seedlings should be supplied so that his annual earning can be enhanced. Selection
of site, Model, Choice of species and Protection of species is proper.
The social security plantations raised under SCP scheme are 3, of which one beneficiary
has maintained it very well with 100% stocking. The seedlings planted here are Grafted Cashew.
In two more cases, performance of the plantations is very poor with stocking of around 22%
only. In one case, the seedlings have died because of the submersion of the seedlings during
rainy season. The species planted in these 2 plantations are Teak, Rampatre, Mahagani, Cashew,
Halasu, Soap nut etc. In SCP scheme, the choice of species, selection of site, selection of model
and protection is good in case of 2 beneficiaries. Whereas, in one case it is improper.
KSFMBC Scheme:-
The committee has evaluated 8 plantations under KSFBMC scheme. Of which 5
plantations are raised in Model (1), 2 in Model (4) and 1 in Model (8).
Model 1: The seeds sown in this Model are Dhoopa, Maavu, Taare, Mathi, Cashew, Hebbalasu
etc. The survival percentage in these plantations ranges from 20% to 65%. The staggered
trenches are excavated within the plantations as soil conservation measures. The cattle proof
trench and trenches dug in these Models are serving the purpose of demarcation of the boundary.
The performance of the plantations in this Model is evaluated by the committee as poor to
average. The committee is of the opinion that the existing natural regenerations be protected
with soil working coupled with complete protection to the area from the biotic interference.
In one of the plantations, selection of site is poor and in one of the plantations protection
aspect was improper.
Model IV: These plantations are good as the species planted are Acacia auriculiformis and
Casuarina which are ideal for the coastal climate and for the Laterite soil. Miscellaneus species
planted in the pits have failed because of suppression.
Model VII - This plantation is raised in the back water of Chakra river using Rhizophora,
Candelia and Avicennia. The survival is 65 percent, but noted as average plantation.
CULTURAL OPERATION:
This plantation is done in encroachment evicted area. The species planted are Mahagani,
Dhoopa, Maavu etc. Though there is no protection the plantation is good with more than 80%
survival rate. The committee is of the view that it requires further maintenance for another 3
years.
KUDCEM: This plantation is fuel wood plantation with more than 90 percent stocking. The
species used are Acacia and Casuarina, which are doing well.
F.D.A: Six plantations are evaluated in this scheme, with two plantations under ANR, two
plantations with Cane and other two with MFP.
In general there are 13 VFCs out of 28 plantations visited by the committee. In the rest
of the plantations, it is either not applicable or not formed.
448
Selection of site is proper in all plantations except one.
Selection of model in proper in 26 plantations and improper in 2 plantations.
Selection of species is improper in 3 plantations and proper in rest of the plantations.
Protection aspect is improper in 5 plantations and proper in 23 plantations.
Distribution/Sale of Seedlings:-
As per the ‘D’ form submitted by the DCF, Kundapura, 32801 seedlings were
distributed/sold during the year 2004-05. In the year
2005-06, only 9105 seedlings and during 2006-07, 76504 seedlings were sold to the
beneficiaries. The main species raised and sold are Teak, Acacia, Halasu, Mahagani, Hebbalasu,
Casuarina and Cashew etc. The committee was able to evaluate 12 spots (Details @ Annexure
9) of which 4 are irrigated, 7 are dry and 1 is plantation. The average survival percentage of these
is 73.5%. Some of the farmers have opined that the seedlings should be free of cost to the poor.
The demand for Teak, Acacia, Casuarina and Cashew is high.
Other Works:-
As per the form ‘G’ submitted by the DCF, Kundapura there are 357 works. These works
were carried out during the year 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07. The list includes 67 works of
KSFMBC and 12th Finance soil conservation works which are the part of the plantation. Apart
from this, the list also includes maintenance of Fireline, enumeration and marking of the trees
which cannot be evaluated. The committee was able to evaluate 25 number of works (Details @
Annexure 10) and also able to verify the records pertaining to extraction of dangerous trees with
reference to orders issued by DCF and depot receipts. Overall, all these works are good and are
as per the procedure laid down.
MANGALORE SOCIAL FORESTRY DIVISION.
The committee was entrusted to evaluate 34 plantations in Mangalore Social Forestry
Division. The evaluation committee has visited 34 locations (Details @ Annexure 4) in
Mangalore Social forestry Division and the works can be divided under 5 heads based on the
nature of work:
1) School Plantation – 6
2) Roadside Plantation – 4
3) TSP Beneficiary oriented Plantation – 3
4) Demonstration Plots. – 7
5) Block Plantation– 14.
School Plantation: - The Committee evaluated 6 school plantations in Mangalore Social
Forestry Division. The percentage of the success in these school plantations ranges from 66 to
88 except in one school in Puttur Kasaba where 40% of the seedlings planted are removed by the
school authorities for development of playing ground and for other development activities. The
species planted in these school premises are Acacia, Casuarina, Mahagani, Halasu, Cashew,
Mango etc., the overall performance of these school Plantations are good.
Roadside Plantation: - The Committee has visited 4 roadside plantations for evaluation
purpose. The percentage of success of these plantations is from 58 to 80. The species planted in
these road plantations are Mahagani, Veteria, Mango, Peltaforum.etc. In general the condition of
these roadside plantations are good.
TSP Beneficiary oriented Plantation: - The Committee evaluated 3 plantations raised in
Mangalore Social Forestry Division, under tribal sub plan (state). The area under each plantation
is ranging from 0.5 Ha to 1 Ha. All these beneficiary oriented plantations are planted mainly with
grafted Cashew, followed by small quantity of Mango, Halasu etc. Stocking of these plantations
449
is around 80% in one beneficiary’s land. In one case the stocking is around 65% and in another
case the stocking is around 17% only as the beneficiary has converted land for rubber cultivation.
In general the conditions of 3 plantations are good, but these plantations need further
maintenance by the beneficiaries.
Demonstration plots (7 No’s):-
These demonstration plots are raised in the farmers land under Model 8 in KSFMBC
scheme. Out of 7 demonstration plots, 6 plots are ranging from good to very good. Only in 3
plots farmers have not shown any interest in maintenance of the plots, of which one plot is poor
with stocking of 28%. The rest of the plots are having 65-95% of survival. All the plots are
mainly planted with grafted cashew, followed by either Teak, Casuarina, Mahagani, Halasu etc.
In general, plantations are good but it requires further maintenance by the owners of the land.
Distribution of seedlings:-
The committee could inspect only one farmer’s land(Details @ Annexure 5). He has
planted 210 plants on the boundary of his land and has planted Mahagani, Nelli and Bevu. The
farmer opined that the seedlings should be supplied free of cost.
UDUPI SOCIAL FORESTRY DIVISION, UDUPI.
Udupi district came in to existence on 15-08-1997. Though the district was in existence,
the Udupi social forestry was part of Mangalore Social Forestry Division till 1998. On posting of
a separate Deputy Conservation Forests to Zilla Panchayit, Udupi, the division became
independent on 21-08-1998. This division comprises of three taluks with a Range Forest Officer
to each taluk.
The committee was entrusted to evaluate 23 plantations raised from 2004- 05 to 2006-07
in social forestry division, Udupi. The committee has evaluated 23 plantations (Details @
Annexure 6) in Udupi Social Forestry division. Out of this, 12 are block plantations, 6 are raised
under Model 8 of KSFMBC scheme, 3 plantations are raised under TSP (State) scheme in the
beneficiaries land and 2 plantations are on the roadside.
Block Plantation:-
Of the 12 Plantations evaluated by the committee, 8 plantations are rated as good and 4
plantations as very good based on the performance of the species in the field. The survival rate in
these plantations ranges from 85–100%. The soil being laterite, the performance of the Acacia
which is the major species is good. In some of the plantations, Mahagani, Nelli, Teak etc., are
being mixed with the Acacia. But, these miscellaneous species are being suppressed by the
Acacia. In some of the plantations, the miscellaneous species are planted on either side of the
inspection path. These species are performing better.
Demonstration Plots:-
The committee has evaluated 6 plantations raised in the farmers land as demonstration
plots. The committee has rated 1 plot as very good, 4 plots as good and 1 as an average. The
composition of these plantations are Grafted Cashew, Casuarina, Halasu, Teak, Grafted Mango
etc. The survival rate of the 5 plantations is between 80-95%, one plantation which is rated as
average is having 60% of the survival rate. In general, the conditions of the plantations are good,
but the future these plantations depends on the maintenance of the same by the farmers.
TSP Plantation:-
Of the 3 plantations visited by the committee, 1 plantation is good with 95% stocking.
Other 2 plantations though having survival rate of 60%-88%, the performance is average as the
beneficiaries have not shown much interest to maintain these plants. The species planted are
mainly Acacia, Casuarina and Cashew.
450
Roadside Plantations:-
The committee has visited two roadside plantations. The performance of the species is
rated as average though survival percentage is 60-70%. The reason is that the selection of area
for roadside plantation is not satisfactory. The species planted in the roadside are Mahagani,
Honne, Dhoopa, Rain tree, May flower etc. Of these species, performance of the Mahagani is
better.
In general, the selection of site is proper in all except one road side plantation, selection
of Model and selection of species is proper in all Plantations visited by the committee. As far as
protection is concerned except in one farmer land, the rest is proper.
Distribution of Seedlings in Zilla Panchayaths:-
The committee was able to evaluate only one plantation (Details @ Annexure 7) raised
by a school where seedlings were purchased from Social Forestry Range during the year 2006.
The species planted is Teak which is coming up well with 80% survival rate.
OBSERVATIONS OF THE EVALUATION COMMITTEE
1. There is not much variation in the survival percentage in block plantations raised during
2004-05 to 2006-07, since the major species planted is Acacia. There is a reduction in
percentage of success in road side plantations since miscellaneous species being planted
coupled with selection of area is not proper.
2. There is no plantation board or GPS reading on record in any of the plantations visited by
the committee.
3. In the mixed plantations Acacia has suppressed all other miscellaneous species other than
Casuarina.
REMARKS AND SUGGESTIONS OF THE COMMITTEE
1. Evaluation of the plantations should be after 5 years as it can give correct picture of the
plantation without maintenance beyond 3 years.
2. Sale of seedlings shall be continued not the free distribution. Location of the “farmers” land
is very difficult as the staffs are being changed during the general transfers.
3. Works like maintenance, fire tracing, salt licks, desilting, ‘D’ line maintenance, patrolling
track maintenance should be avoided from evaluation. Otherwise these works should be
evaluated on the same year or just before the onset of monsoon of the subsequent year.
Works like removal of dangerous trees to public property, roadside extraction should also be
avoided from evaluation.
4. Planting works under FDA scheme in sanctuaries and national parks should be avoided as
protection of plantations from the wild animals is not feasible.
5. In FDA models protection aspect is neglected. It is much of planting and forgetting.
Provision for fencing, providing watch and ward should be given importance.
6. Under FDA scheme, in case of bamboo and cane models, the seedlings should be raised in 8”
x 12” bags and of 2 years old.
7. In Mangalore circle, labour problem is a big issue because of the cashew and beedi industry
and also the migration of labourers to Gulf countries. The local officer’s demand was for the
revision of SSR with reference to PWD-SSR and with area weightage etc.
8. There are many schemes to raise plantations. Therefore it is suggested to avoid raising of
plantations in cultural operation schemes. It can be used to maintain the older plantations
which require maintenance beyond 3 years.
9. Planting of miscellaneous species should be avoided in acacia plantations. Acacia being fast
growing, suppresses other species.
451
10. In social forestry divisions the plantation boards should be fitted or GPS readings shall be
recorded in the journals.
11. Remarks of ACF and above ranked officers are not recorded in the journals in more than
95% cases. Hence, the committee suggests to make it mandatory.
12. In JBIC Model 1, the area should be protected from all the biotic interference at least for 7
years or till the root stock and natural regeneration establishes well. It is also proposed that
Model 1 should site specific with either seed sowing or maintenance of root stock or
maintenance of existing natural regeneration.
13. In Coastal areas wherever acacia plantations are being extracted, the planting should be
taken up after 1 year. The area can be fenced up and based on the natural regenerations,
planting can be done if necessary or regulate the natural regeneration.
Annexure 1
Evaluation of Plantation - Mangalore Division
VFC Status
the Range
Nature of
Survi-val
Remarks
Location
Planting
Name of
Planted
Scheme
Year of
Species
Model
Sl.No.
Land
Area
%
1 Panja Nellyady Reserved 2006- KFDF Pit 6.0 70 NA Acacia, Only Acacia
beat 07 -03- Planti Hect Mahagani, has come up
Other ng . Other well,
Plantat Local sps. Mahagani
ion and other
local species
are not faring
well. Lot of
damage by
the spotted
deer.
2 Panja Yedaman Reserved 2005- FDA Artific 20.0 95 NA Acacia, Good
gala beat 06 NAP ial Hect Mahagani,
Regen . Casurina,
eration Honge
3 Panja Yedaman Reserved 2005- KFDF Pit 6.0 97 NA Acacia, Very Good
gala beat 06 -03- Planti Hect Mahagani
Other ng .
Plantat
ion
4 Panja Yenmoor Reserved 2006- 12th Pit 10.0 73 NA Mahagani, Good
beat 07 Financ Planti Hect Mango,
e ng . Benga
Comm
ission
5 Panja Dolpady Reserved 2006 KSFM Model 21 Mango, Good,
beat BC -1 Hect Seege, Vateria sps.
Projec . Vateria sps. regenerated
t well. Halasu,
(JBIC) Mavu
browsed by
porcupine.
6 Subram Muchirod Reserved 2006- 12th Pit 3.0 100 N Acacia Very Good
anya u- 07 Financ Planti Hect A auriculifor
Konaje e ng . mis
RF Comm
ission
7 Subram Bengatha Reserved 2006- 12th Pit 20.0 78 NA Nandi, Very Good
anya dka - 07 Financ Planti Hect Mahagani,
452
Konaje e ng . Honne
RF Comm
ission
8 Subram Venkatap Reserved 2005- KFDF Pit 5.0 77.41 NA Honge, Good
anya ura-Kidu 06 -03- Planti Hect Holedasava
RF Other ng . la, Mathi
Plantat
ion
9 Subram Kedila Reserved 2007- KSFM Pit 20.0 88 NA Cane, Good
anya 08 BC Planti Hect Honge,
Projec ng . Nelli,
t Honne
(JBIC)
10 Belthan Ujire beat District 2004 KUD Fuelw 6.0 73.43 NA Acacia, Good
gady Forest CEM ood Hect Honne,
Plantat . Kaidoopa
ion
11 Belthan Kapina Reserved 2004 2406- MFP 6.0 69.09 Active Beete, Good
gady bagilu CSS Mixed Hect Benga,
(NAP) Plantat . Teak,
FDA ion
12 Belthan Belthanga Governm 2004 2406- Greeni 2.0 60 NA Halasu, Good
gady dy beat ent land 01- ng Hect Hebbalsu,
in 101-2- Urban . Mango
Belthanga 10- Area
dy city Greeni
area ng
Urban
Area
13 Belthan Nada beat Reserved 2006 12th Gap 20.0 83 Mahagani, Very Good
gady Financ Plantat Hect Honne,
e ion . Rosewood
Comm
ission
14 Belthan Chibidre Reserved 2006 KSFM Model 12.0 96.3 Active Acacia, Very Good
gady beat BC -4 Hect Mahagani,
Projec . Nelli,
t Honne.
(JBIC)
15 Belthan Odilnal Beneficia 2004 2406- Social 0.50 85 NA Cashew, Good
gady SF village ry land 01- Securi Hect Halasu,
796-0- ty . Mango
00- Plantat
TSP ion
(State)
16 Belthan Indabettu Beneficia 2004 2406- Social 0.50 79 NA Cashew, Good
796-0- ty . Mango
00- Plantat
TSP ion
(State)
17 Belthan Machina Beneficia 2004 2406- Social 0.50 82 NA Cashew, Good
796-0- ty . Mango
00- Plantat
TSP ion
(State)
18 Belthan Odilnal Beneficia 2004 2406- Social 0.50 80 NA Cashew, Good
796-0- ty . Mango
00- Plantat
TSP ion
(State)
453
19 Sullia Mudangal Reserved 2005- 2406- Pit 10.0 50-55 Yes Teak, Satisfactory,
li 06 01- Planti Hect Kiralbogi, Protection
101-1- ng . Mahagani helped the
5- naturally
DDF grown savalli
and
mitragyna
sps.
20 Sullia Kudrepay Reserved 2006- KSFM Model 21.0 Yes Mathi, This model
a 07 BC -1 Hect Honne serves the
Projec . purpose of
t consolidation
(JBIC) of boundary
22 Puttur Periyadka Reserved 2006- 2406- Pit 10.0 90 NA Acacia, Acacia has
- 07 01-10- Planti Hect Katechu, come up
Bajathoor 1-03- ng . Mahagani well. But
Area Other other species
Plantat are
ion struggling
23 Puttur Kakkue- Reserved 2005- KSFM Model 13.0 20 Yes Mango, This is a
Pundikai- 06 BC -1 Hect Doopa model-1
Narimoge Projec . plantation.
r t Natural
(JBIC) seedlings
with soil
working has
come up
well.
Sowing for
seeds is a
poor work as
this area has
no soil. Only
laterate soil.
Only
planting is
ideal in this
type of area.
24 Puttur Anaje of Reserved 2006- 12th Pit 10.0 50 NA Acacia, This
Narimogl 07 Financ Planti Hect Casurina, plantation
ru RF e ng . Acacia can be
Comm katechu considered as
ission a failed
plantation
25 Puttur Anadka Reserved 2004- FDA Pit 10.0 75 NA Mahagani, Halasu
in 05 NAP Planti Hect Kaidoopa grown and
Bettampa ng . Halasu being
ry village replaced by
Hebbalasu,
Mahagani,
Antuwal,
Veteria
plantation is
good
26 Puttur Nellithad Reserved 2005- 2406- Pit 10.0 75 NA Honge Soil is
ka- 06 01-10- Planti Hect laterate.
Netknoge 1-03- ng . Planting is
madnoor- Other done in the
Padvanoo Plantat valley of the
r block ion area.
27 Puttur Koudicha 2006- 2406- Pit 2 90 NA Honne, Halasu,
r to 07 01- Planti Km. Doopa, Basavanapad
Sulliapad 101-2- ng Badami a is replaced
avu road 10- with Honne
454
side Greeni
plantation ng
Urban
Area
28 Bantwal Municipal NH 48 2004- 2406- Pit 2 66 NA Halasu, Good
ity Area Road 05 01- Planti Km. Mavu,
Side 101-2- ng Nerale
10-
Greeni
ng
Urban
Area
29 Bantwal Kuppila Railway 2006 2406- 2 80 NA Halasu, Good
Track 01- Km. Hebbalasu,
Side 101-2- Badami
21-
Affore
station
in
other
area
30 Bantwal Sangabett Reserved 2006 12th 5.0 87 NA Acacia, Acacia is
u Financ Hect Mahagani, coming very
e . Beete, well. Rest of
Comm Honne the species
ission are
struggling
and cannot
compete with
Acacia
31 Bantwal Kadabettu Section 4 2005 2406- 18.0 93 NA Honge, This is a
Notified 01- Hect Honne, laterite area.
area 102-1- . Nerale Only Acacia
03- is ideal.
Other Selected
Plantat wrong
ion species
32 Bantwal IRA Reserved 2006 KSFM Model 8.0 90 Yes Acacia Good, It is
BC -4 Hect fully laterite
Projec . area. Acacia
t is the only
(JBIC) best species.
It has come
up very well.
33 Bantwal Rayee Road side 2004- NAP Artific 10.0 80 Yes Acacia, Acacia
(Road 05 ial Hect Mango, auriculiformi
side Regen . Mahagani s is doing
plantation eration very well.
)
34 Mangal Polali Road side 2005- 2406- Fuelw 2.25 75 NA Acacia, Block
ore dwara to 06 01- ood Hect Honne, plantation on
Puduperar 102-1- Plantat . Honge the road side
Panchayat 03- ion in 15
Other patches.
Plantat FDA Scheme
ion may not be
suitable to
these works
35 Mangal Delanthab A.W.Lan 2006- KSFM Model 8.50 98 Yes Acacia, Very Good
ore ettu d 07 BC -4 Hect Mixed
Projec . Plants
t
(JBIC)
455
36 Mangal Near IOC River 2006- 2406- Mangr 25.0 - NA Avicenia, Good
ore terminal, Side 07 01-2- oves Hect Rhizophora
Kudremu 19- . , Kandelia
kha Kandl candel
terminal, a vana
Ashokana
gar
Bridge,
Bangra
Kuloor,
Nayee
Kudru,
Thanniru
bhavi
37 Mangal Ulliyarku Nethravat 2006- 2406- Mangr 5.0 - NA Rhizophora Plantation is
ore dru i River 07 01-2- oves Hect , Kandelia submerged in
Side 19- . candel the high tide
Kandl but few
a vana plants are
seen here and
there.
38 Mangal Atrolikud Gurupura 2006- 2406- Mangr 8.0 - NA Rhizophora Plantation is
ore ru - River side 07 01-2- oves Hect , Kandelia submerged in
Kunjataba 19- . candel the high tide
il Kandl but few
a vana plants are
seen here and
there.
39 Mangal Ullala - Nethravat 2006- 2406- Mangr 10.0 - NA Avicenia, The
ore Alekala i River 07 01-2- oves Hect Rhizophora plantation
Side 19- . , Kandelia completely
Kandl candel submerged in
a vana High tide.
40 Uppinan Shishila Reserved 2005- KSFM Model 33.0 - NA - 2.7 Km of
gadi beat 06 BC -1 Hect CPT has
Projec . been dug. It
t serves the
(JBIC) purpose of
prevention of
encroachmen
t only.
Emphasis is
given for the
existing
natural
seedling
rather than
sowing.
Maintenance
of natural
seedlings is
good.
41 Uppinan Shibaje 1 Reserved 2006- 12th Gap 10.0 70 NA Mahagani, Satisfactory,
gadi beat 07 Financ Plantat Hect Sterculia, Plantation is
e ion . Aini okay but
Comm protection
ission aspect is
poor.
42 Uppinan Hathyadk Reserved 2006- 12th Gap 10.0 60 NA Mahagani, Satisfactory.
gadi a beat 07 Financ Plantat Hect Sterculia,
e ion . Aini
Comm
ission
456
43 Uppinan Shishila Reserved 2004- FDA Fuelw 5.0 83 Yes Acacia Though
gadi beat 05 NAP ood Hect survival is
Plantat . good the
ion growth is
average.
44 Uppinan Kaniyoor Reserved 2006- 2406- Fuelw 6.0 77 NA Acacia Good, there
gadi beat 07 101-2- ood Hect is no point in
cultura Plantat . spending the
l ion money under
operati this head for
on-11 this type of
Forest work.
protect
ion
45 Uppinan Bandaru Reserved 2005- 2406- Fuelw 10.0 40 NA Honge Soil is
gadi 06 01- ood Hect laterite and
102-1- Plantat . not fit for
FDF- ion honge
03-OP plantation.
Annexure 2
Evaluation of distribution of Seedlings - Mangalore Division
Nameof the
Survival %
the Farmer
Nature of
Remarks
Planting
Planting
Name of
seedling
Scheme
Type of
planted
village
Range
No. of
Sl.No.
Land
Year
of
1 Ubbaradka Sullia Pradyumna Dry & 2003-04 Strip 800 55- Concession
Mithur Wet 60 charge is
required for
the seedlings.
Supply of
grafted
seedlings is
advisable
2 B muda Bantwal Sanjeeva Irrigated 2006-07 Pit 25 80 Planted only
Poojari Teak in the
Areca
Garden.Becaus
e of the over
shade the
seedlings are
lean and lanky.
Annexure 3
Evaluation of Other Works - Mangalore Division
Amount in
the Range
Nature of
Remarks
Name of
Name of
Name of
Division
Scheme
Works
Sl.No.
Land
Year
Rs.
the
1 Mangalore Belthan Construction of Village 2005-06 NAP-FDA 150000 Good

gady Anganvadi School Panchayath Land
Building
2 Mangalore Sullia Construction of Bus Village 2006-07 NAP-FDA 35000 Good
stop building
3 Mangalore Puttur Work for Patta 2005-06 2406-01- 41518 Good
compound wall 070-0-01-
457
Road Bridge
& Buildings-
139-Major
Works
4 Mangalore Puttur Open stage for Govt. School 2004-05 NAP-FDA 25000 Good
Govt. Higher Premises
Primary School
5 Mangalore Puttur Public Toilet AW Land 2002-03 NAP-FDA 52000 Good
6 Mangalore Bantwal Extension of School 2004-05 NAP-FDA 40000 Good
Ground
7 Mangalore Mangal Construction of 2006-07 Kandla Vana 799826 Good
ore Interpretation Development
Centre Scheme
8 Mangalore Uppinan Removal of dead Reserved 2005-06 2406-01- 9203851
gadi and fallen 105-0-01-
Timber
9 Mangalore Uppinan Digging Open Well Reserved 2006-07 2406-01- 28000 Good
gadi 102-2-25-
Eco-Tourism
10 Mangalore Uppinan Construction of Reserved 2006-07 2406-01- 50000 Good
gadi Over head tank @ 102-2-25-
Jundia Eco-Tourism
Nisargadhama
Annexure 4
Evaluation of Plantation - Mangalore Social Forestry Division
VFC Status
Survival %
the Range
Nature of
Remarks
Location
Planting
Name of
Planted
Scheme
Year of
Species
Model
Sl.No.
Land
Area
1 Belthanga Mundaje School 2005- SGRY Fuel 4.0 85 NA Casuraina, Good

dy SF village Premises 06 (T.P) wood Hect. Cashew,
Honge
2 Belthanga Koyyur Private 2005- TSP 0.725 25 Grafted Good
dy SF village Land 06 (State) Hect. Cashew
3 Belthanga Mundaje Private 2006- KSFMB 0.614 Grafted
dy SF village Land 07 C Hect. Cashew,
(JBIC) Teak
4 Belthanga Charmady Private 2005- KSFMB 0.722 95 NA Grafted Very Good
dy SF Land 06 C Hect. Cashew,
(JBIC) Teak
5 Belthanga Koyyur Private 2004- SGRY Fuel 5.0 98 NA Acacia Very Good
dy SF village Land 05 (Z.P) wood Hect. Auriculifor
mis
6 Belthanga Koyyur School 2006- Social Fue 2.00 80 NA Acacia, Good
dy SF village Premises 07 Forestry lwood Hect. Halasu,
Mahagani
7 Belthanga Malady Parampok 2006- SGRY Fuel 10.0 89. No Acacia, Very Good
dy SF village e 07 (TP) wood Hect. 5 Casuraina,
Honge
8 Belthanga Mundaje School 2005- Social Miscella 3.0 65 No Dhoopa, Moderately
dy SF village Premises 06 Forestry neous Hect. Mahagani, Good
Plantati Halasu
on
9 Mangalor Gkala Private 2005- JBIC Demons 0.5 28 NA Cashew, The condition
e SF village Land 06 tration Hect. Teak is average, the
Plot plants are not
properly
maintained by
458
the beneficiary
10 Mangalor Kadandale Gomal 2004- SGRY . 10.0 95 No Acacia Very Good
e SF village 05 (ZP) Hect
11 Mangalor Kandavara Communi 2006- SGRY Cashew 3.0 81 No Cashew Good
e SF village ty land 07 (TP) Plantati Hect.
on
12 Mangalor Kallamund Govt. 2006- SGRY 4.0 88 NA Acacia Good
e SF koor village Land 07 (ZP) Hect.
(School)
13 Mangalor Shirthady- Road side 2006 SGRY 1 Km. 80 No Halasu, Good
e SF Mantrady (TP) Mahagani,
Dhoopa
14 Puttur SF Ramakunja Village 2006- SGRY 4.0 95 NA Grafted Plantation is
village 07 (TP) Hect. Cashew good but the
treatment for
cashew
plantation is
not given to
this plantation
15 Puttur SF Puttur 2006- SGRY 1.5 60 NA Mahagani, Good, 40% of
kasaba 07 (ZP) Hect. Halasu, the plants have
Badami been removed
by the school
authorities
while making
up
development
works like
creation of
play ground,
construction of
compound
wall etc.
16 Puttur SF Punchappa 2004- A.W. 1.0 85 NA Grafted The
dy village 05 land Hect. Cashew beneficiary has
taken Rs. 1500
for
maintenance
but he has not
utilised the
amount for the
maintenance.
17 Puttur SF Mundoor District 2005- SGRY 5.0 91 NA Acacia Very Good
village Forest 06 (ZP) Hect.
18 Puttur SF Mundoor 2006- Village 5.0 80 NA Mahagani, Good
village 07 Panchay Km Halasu,
at fund Badami
19 Puttur SF Bellarpady 2005- KSFMB 1.0 77 NA Grafted It is a
village 06 C Hect. Cashew, demostration
(JBIC) Teak plot under
KSFMBC
where in only
planting and
other
maintenance
work is carried
out in the first
year. Then it
is left to the
farmer to look
after. Here the
farmer has not
shown much
interest.
459
20 Sullia SF Balila Private 2005- KSFMB 0.5 65 NA Grafted This is a
village Land 06 C Hect. Cashew, demonstration
(JBIC) Mahagani, plot.
Halasu Seedlings are
planted in the
farmers land
and maintained
in the planting
year. Further
the farmer has
not done
anything.
21 Sullia SF Kalanja Village 2004 SGRY 3.7 95 NA Acacia, Good.
village (ZP) Hect. Cashew Introduction of
cashew is not
advisable as it
can't compete
with the fast
growing
Acacia.
22 Sullia SF Nalukuru Gomal 2005- SGRY 5.0 90 NA Acacia, Good,
village 06 (TP) Hect. Mahagani Mahagony is
suppressed by
the Acacia
species
23 Sullia SF Nettar Village 2006 SGRY 2.0 90 NA Acacia Acacia has
village (ZP) Hect. come up very
well.
24 Sullia SF Jalsoor Village 2005 Social 4.73 95 NA Acaia Good, Acacia
village Forestry Hect. mongium is
not advisable
in this area.
25 Bantwal Gadigara- Road side 2004 3.0 58 NA Mahagani, Good
SF Kadeshwal Km Halasu,
aya Badami
26 Bantwal Thenkallaje A.W. 2004 SGRY 10.0 78 No Acacia Very Good
SF kar village Land (ZP) & Hect.
Gram
Panchay
at Nidhi
27 Bantwal Kadeshwal Patta 2005- TSP 1.0 65 No Grafted Good
SF aya village Land 06 (State) Hect. Cashew
28 Bantwal Kavopady Patta 2005- JBIC 1.0 68 No Grafted Good
SF village Land 06 Hect. Cashew
29 Bantwal Kavopady A.W. 2006 Social 10.0 80 No Acacia, Very Good
SF village Land Forestry Hect. Jetropha
30 Bantwal Kanyana Patta 2006- Social 0.96 67 No Grafted Good
SF village Land 07 Forestry Hect. . Cashew,
Teak
31 Bantwal Balthida A.W. 2006 SGRY 5.0 65 No Acacia Very Good
SF village Land (ZP) Hect.
32 Bantwal Kanyana Patta 2006- SGRY 2.5 No Casuraina, Good
SF village Land 07 (TP) Hect. Grafted
Cashew
33 Bantwal Polali - Road side 2006- Gram 3.0 72 No Halasu, Good
SF Kaikamlan 07 Panchay Km Mahagani,
ath Mango
Nidhi
34 Bantwal Kepu School 2006 Gram 1.0 78 No Halasu, Good
SF village Premises Panchay Hect. Mavu,
ath Mahagani
Nidhi
460
Annexure 5
Nameof the
Evaluation of distribution of Seedlings - Mangalore Social Forestry Division
Survival %
the Farmer
Nature of
Remarks
Planting
Planting
Name of
seedling
Scheme
Type of
planted
Year of
village
Range
No. of
Sl.No.
Land
1 Kuvettu Belthangady Vasudeva Irrigated 2006-07 Boundary 210 71 Moderately
SF Rao M. Good.
Annexure 6
Evaluation of Plantation - Udupi Social Forestry Division
VFC Status
Survival %
the Range
Nature of
Remarks
Location
Planting
Name of
Planted
Scheme
Year of
Species
Model
Sl.No.
Land
Area
1 Karkala SF Nallur Patta 2006-07 JBIC 1.00 85 NA Acacia, Good.
land Ha. Grafted
Cashew,
Halasu
2 Karkala SF Miyar Patta 2006-07 JBIC 1.00 90 NA Acacia, Very good,
land Ha. Grafted Cashew is good
Cashew, followed by
Halasu Acacia
3 Karkala SF Vanchar, 2005-06 WGDP 10 80 NA Acacia Good
Mangalan Ha.
agara
4 Karkala SF Adkarapal Waste 2004-05 SGRY- 8 80 NA Acacia Very good
ke, Miyar land 20% Ha.
5 Karkala SF Adkarapal Patta 2005-06 JBIC 2.5 85 NA Grafted Good. Instead of

ke land Ha. Cashew, planting 100
Grafted grafted plants,
Mango 550 grafted
seedlings have
been planted.
6 Karkala SF Bolapada 2004-05 WGDP 7 85 No Acacia Good
v Ha. VFC
7 Karkala SF Kurdelu Govt. 2006-07 Deposit 5.25 85 No Acacia Good
Land of Work Ha. VFC
contribut
ion
8 Karkala SF Palli Patta 2005-06 TSP 1 60 No Acacia, It is social
land (State) Ha. VFC Cashew, security
Teak plantation. The
beneficiary has
not shown much
interest.
9 Kundapur Heranjal Gram 2005-06 WGDP Block 7 98 No Acacia Good
SF Pancha Plantat Ha. VFC
yath ion
461
Revunu
e Land
10 Kundapur Badakere Pancha 2006-07 SGRY- 7 100 No Casurin Good
SF yath 20% Ha. VFC a
Land
11 Kundapur Halady Private 2006-07 TSP 0.5 88 No Acacia Average
SF Harkadi Land (State) Ha. VFC
12 Kundapur Hedadi- Gram 2005-06 SGRY- 3 98 No Acacia Good

SF Malyadi Pancha 20% Hectar VFC
yath es
Land
13 Kundapur Harkur Gram 2004-05 WGDP Block 6 99 No Acacia Good
SF (Asoor Pancha Plantat Hectar VFC
GP) yath ion es
Land
14 Kundapur Ampar Private 2006-07 JBIC Block 1 60 No Acacia, Average
SF Land Plantat Hectar VFC Casurin
ion es a, Teak
15 Kundapur Hamparu Road 2006-07 WGDP 3.5 70 No Rain Average
SF - Byluru Side Km VFC Tree,
Cross Doopa,
Road Side Honne
16 Kundapur Ajare Private 2006-07 JBIC Model 1 70 No Acacia Good
SF Land -9 Hectar VFC Springw
e ale,
Teak
Honge,
Cashew
grafted
17 Udupi SF Suralu C&D 2005-06 SGRY- Pit 3 90 No Acacia, Very Good.
village 20% and Hectar VFC Casurin Acacia,
land Planti es a, Nelli Casurina are
ng doing well.
(Block Species like
) Honge, Guava,
Bamboo have
dried and
replaced with
Acacia and
Casurina.
18 Udupi SF Pernonkil C&D 2006- SGRY- Block 10 100 No Acacia, Very Good.
a village 07* 20% Plantat Hectar VFC Casurin Acacia Catechu
land ion es a, which were
(Pit Honge planted earlier is
and coming up well.
Planti
ng)
19 Udupi SF Kokkarni Road 2005-06 SGRY- Road 4 Km 60 No Netra Average.
- Side 20% Side VFC Honne, Selection of area
Voddomb Plantat Mahago is poor.
i ion ny, May
flower
20 Udupi SF Bellu Gomala 2007- WGDP Block 6 100 No Acacia, Very Good.
08* Plantat Hectar VFC Casurin
ion es a,
Mahago
ny
21 Udupi SF Tenka, Private 2006-07 JBIC 1 95 No Acacia, Good. Acacia in
Yermalu Land Hectar VFC Mahago border, rest of
e ny the species in
block.
22 Udupi SF Aroor Private 2006-07 TSP Block 1 95 No Acacia, Good.
462
Land Plantat Hectar (State) VFC Casurin
ion e a
23 Udupi SF Kunjalu Gomala 2007- SGRY- Block 4.5 100 No Acacia, Good, Reboised
08* 20% Plantat Hectar VFC Casurin area
ion es a, Teak
* In Udupi Social Forestry Range, in some of the plantations the year of advance work is taken as year of planting.
Annexure 7
Evaluation of distribution of Seedlings - Udupi Social Forestry Division
Nameof the
Survival %
the Farmer
Nature of
Remarks
Planting
Planting
Name of
seedling
Scheme
Type of
planted
Year of
village
Range
No. of
Sl.No.
Land
1 Perdoor Udupi SF Govt. School Dry 2006 Block 360 80 Good, Teak is
doing well.
Annexure 8
Evaluation of Plantation - Kundapura Division
VFC Status
Survival %
the Range
Nature of
Remarks
Location
Planting
Name of
Planted
Scheme
Year of
Species
Model
Sl.No.
Land
Area
1 Mood Thodaru Protecte 2006 JBIC Mo 36 95.04 Yes Acacia, Miscellaneous sps.
abidre Hosabetta d -07 del Ha. Mango, planted in pits have
IV Cashew, failed 25% is the
Dalchini survival, Acacia
seedlings are good.
Area of plantation of
each block not
mentioned.
2 Mood Mantradi Reserve 2006 12th Fu 15 No Acacia, Dibbling of saldhupa on
abidre d -07 Financ el Ha. VFC Karmara, trench mound digged as
e wo Doopa, s Germination and
od Cashew growth is good.
3 Mood Nallur Reserve 2006 FDA- A. 20 76.25 Yes Doopa, Very Good
abidre d -07 NAP N. Hect Mango,
R. ares Ramapatr
e,
Dalchini
4 Venoo Nalkur District 2005 FDA- A. 20 90 Yes Doopa, Satisfactory, Acacia
r Forest -06 NAP N. Hect Dalchini, catechu, Dalchini,
R. ares Catechu Halasu sps. planted
originally has
completely failed then it
has been replaced with
cashew, vateria and
Hopea sps.
5 Venoo Karambar Reserve 2005 12th Ga 20 90 NA Doopa,
r d& -06 Financ p Hect Mahagon
District e Pla ares y, Aini
Forest nta
tio
n
6 Mood Maala Patta 2004 TSP Be 0.5 90 NA Teak, The farmer opines that
abidre land -05 nef Hect Cashew, fruit yielding plants
icia ares Ramapatr should be supllied which
ry a can enhance his
Pla economic condition.
463
nta
tio
n
7 Mood Nallur Patta 2004 SCP Be 0.5 22 NA Teak, Very Poor
abidre land -05 nef Hect Ramapatr
icia ares a,
ry Badami,
Pla Soapnut
nta
tio
n
8 Mood Nallur Patta 2004 SCP Be 0.5 23 NA Mahagon The plants have died
abidre land -05 nef Hect y, because of submersion
icia ares Cashew, during rainy season.
ry Halasu
Pla
nta
tio
n
9 Karkal Kervashe District 2006 12th Fu 7 100 Not Acacia, Very good.
a Forest -07 Financ elw Hect form Kuntalu,
e oo ares ed Hopea,
d Yare,
Dalchini
10 Karkal Hirgana Reserve 2006 FDA- MF 25 94 Yes Cashew, Very good.
a d -07 NAP P Hect Nelli,
Mi ares Dalchini,
xed Kuntalu,
Hopea
11 Karkal Padukudo Reserve 2006 12th Ga 15 100 NO Doopa, Good
a or d -07 Financ p Hect VFC Mango,
e Pla ares Nerale,
nta Beete,
tio Nelli,
n Honge,
Mahagon
y
12 Udupi Pilar Reserve 2006 JBIC Mo 25 Yes Good
d -07 & del Hect
KSFM -I ares
BC
13 Byndo Guruvank Reserve 2006 JBIC Mo 25 60 Yes Matti, Average condition
or ote d -07 del Hect Mango,
-I ares Doopa
14 Kunda Harkur 2006 FDA A. 25 65 Yes Mahagon Average condition
pura -07 N. Hect y,
R. ares Cashew,
Hebbahal
asu
15 Kunda Kasankatt Reserve 2006 KSFM Mo 36 50 Yes Acacia, Good
pura e d -07 BC del Hect Cashew
- ares
IV
16 Kunda Karkunje Reserve 2005 KSFM Mo 29 20 Yes Mango, Very poor. Instead of
pura d -06 BC del Hect Doopa, this work complete
-I ares Halasu protection to this area
would have given better
results
17 Kunda Hemmadi Chakra 2006 JBIC Mo 10 65 NO Rhizopho Average
pura River -07 del Hect VFC ra,
backwat - ares Candelia,
er VII Avicemia
464
18 Hebri Bukigudd Reserve 2006 FDA Ca 15 Yes Cane This is a FDA
e d -07 ne Hect plantation. Seedlings
Pla ares planted are very small. 2
nta year old seedlings
tio should have been
n planted but the model is
not permitting. Cane
should be planted in 0.6
x 0.6 x 0.6 m pit with 2
year old seedlings
19 Hebri Nanchar 2005-06 03- Pit 3.5 46 No Mahagon Very poor, Evictors
OP 0 y, Honne, damaged the plantation.
He Mavu
cta
res
20 Hebri Ollehond 2006 JBIC Mo 26 - No Acacia, Good.
a -07 del Hect Mahagani
-III ares , Mavu
21 Hebri Shivaupra 2004 KUD 10 96 No Casuarina Good.
(Soorima -05 CEM Hect , Honne,
nnu) ares Hebbalas
u
22 Shank Shyamiha Reserve 2006 FDA Ca 10 76 Yes Handi Poor, The main reason
aranar kkalu, d -07 ne Hect Betha, for this condition is the
ayana Kelasunk Pla ares Onti type of the model. 2
a nta Betha year old cane plants
tio should be planted in the
n pit of the size 0.6 x 0.6 x
0.6 m and maintained by
giving soil work,
manuring it till 7-8
years. Otherwise the
model becomes a
infraction expendtiure
23 Shank Kullunje, Reserve 2006 KSFM Mo 25 60 Yes Doopa, This serves only
aranar Bakudiho d -07 BC del Hect Mavu, boundary consolidation,
ayana la -I ares Jumma rigid protection from
biotic factor is more than
enough rather than this
model. Under SMC
works staggered
trenches of size 2m x
0.6 x 0.6 m is dug work
to stop and it is a good
work for soil and
moisture conservation.
24 Shank Hallady - Patta 2004 SCP So 0.5 100 No Grafted The beneficiary has
aranar Harkady land -05 cial Hect Cashew maintained it very well.
ayana Sec ares Good Plantation.
urit
y
Pla
nta
tio
n
25 Shank Hengavall Reserve 2004 11- En 0.20 80 No Mahagon Good. This plantation
aranar y d -05 Cultur cro 2 y, Doopa, requires furthers
ayana al ach Hect Mavu maintenance for another
Operat me ares 3 years atleast.
ion nt
Evi
cte
d
Ar
465
ea
26 Shank Bagimane Reserve 2005 KSFM Mo 28 60 Yes Doopa, Not good. Even though
aranar d -06 BC del Hect Muriya, survival is 60%, the
ayana -I ares Tare seedlings are not healthy
and they may not
survive more than
another 2 years. Full
protection to this area is
the ideal programme
instead of this model.
This model serves only
the consolidation of
boundary.
27 Shank Ajri, Reserve 2004 CUD Fu 5 90 No Casurina, It is a fuel wood
aranar Ramanak d -05 CEM el Hect Acacia plantation both Acacia
ayana odlu wo ares and Casurina are doing
od well.
28 Shank Jarkalane, Reserve 2006 12th Ga 15 90 No Mahagon Good. But it requires
aranar Nadoor d -07 Financ p Hect y, Nerale, maintenance operation
ayana e Pla ares Doopa for atleast 7-8 years to
nta assure the establishment
tio of seedlings to pole size.
n
Annexure 9
Evaluation of distribution of Seedlings - Kundapura Division
Nameof the
Survival %
the Farmer
Nature of
Remarks
Planting
Planting
Name of
seedling
Scheme
Type of
planted
Year of
village
Range
No. of
Sl.No.
Land
1 Badagakar Venur Prakash Hegde Dry 2006-07 Pit, 75 90 Satisfactory. Has not
andur Block maintained.
2 Thenka Venur Prashanth Dry 2006 Bund, 100 70 Poor. Has not
Karandur Shetty Pit maintained properly.
Seedling distribution
should be continued and
free of cost for poor and
for it should not be free.
3 Hebri Hebri Lakshmananai Dry 2006 Block 300 90 He is a progressive
ka farmer and he opines
that more information
about the planting
technique and marketing
about various species
should be made
available to the farmers.
4 Aaroor Udupi Ganesh Pai Dry 2004-05 Block 500 68 Good, Teak is doing
well, provided with drip
irrigation and manure.
5 Aaroor Udupi Ganesh Pai Dry 2005-06 Block 800 68 Good, Teak is doing
well, provided with drip
irrigation and manure.
6 Aaroor Udupi Ganesh Pai Dry 2006-07 Block 800 68
7 Aaroor Udupi Vittal Das Kini Dry 2005-06 Block 2000 90 Good, Acacia and
Casurina is doing well.
8 Varanger Karkala Suju Irrigat 2006-07 Strip/Pit 1500 Very good, Sought free
ed seedlings.
9 Padumam Moodabidr Rajesh Irrigat 2005-06 Pit 50 80 Very good, Teak and
ad e ed Halasu are doing well.
466
The farmer has
requested to provide
techniques for raising
different species and to
provide the seedlings
free of cost.
10 Beluvai Moodabidr Laxman D. Plantat 2006-07 Pit 50 90 Very good, The farmer
e Shetty ion is expecting free
seedlings and protection.
11 Siddapura Shankara Manjunath Dry 2006-07 Pit 10000 90 Good
narayana Kamath
12 Siddapura Shankara Ananda Rama Dry 2006-07 Pit 2500 80 Good
narayana Udupa
Annexure 10
Evaluation of Other Works
Amount in
the Range
Nature of
Remarks
Name of
Name of
Name of
Division
Scheme
Works
Sl.No.
Land
Year
Rs.
the
1 Kundapura Udupi SMC Reserved 2006-07 JBIC 39620

2 Kundapura Udupi SMC Reserved 2005-06 KSFMBC 25960
3 Kundapura Udupi Extraction of dangerous Road side 2004-05 01-Timber 12282
trees Plantation
4 Kundapura Karkala Building repair Reserved 2006-07 01-Timber 10000 Good
5 Kundapura Karkala Building repair Reserved 2006-07 01-Timber 10000 Good
6 Kundapura Karkala Extraction of dangerous Govt. Land 2006-07 01-Timber 2556
trees
7 Kundapura Karkala Extraction of dangerous A.W. Land 2006-07 01-Timber 3607
trees
trees
trees
trees
trees
trees
13 Kundapura Moodab Repair and maintenance Moodabidre 2006-07 01-Timber 24000
idre of ACF Quarters RFO
Compound
14 Kundapura Moodab Maintenance of Forest 2006-07 01-Timber 5492
idre Guards quarters
15 Kundapura Moodab Maintenance of Forest Moodabidre 2006-07 01-Timber 3308
idre Guards quarters RFO
Compound
16 Kundapura Moodab Maintenance of Forest Moodabidre 2005-06 01-Timber 50000
idre rest house and Purchase
of materials
17 Kundapura Moodab Renovation of attached Moodabidre 2006-07 12th Finance 4000
idre toilet and Kitchen of
Forest Rest House
18 Kundapura Moodab Extraction of dead and Batteyadda 2005-06 01-Timber 6700
idre wind fallen trees Idu village
19 Kundapura Moodab Extraction of dangerous Borugudde 2006-07 01-Timber 534
idre standing trees of Nellikar
village
20 Kundapura Moodab Extraction of dangerous Pai 2006-07 01-Timber 711
467
idre standing trees Compound,
Kallabettu
village
21 Kundapura Moodab Extraction of dangerous Moodabidre 2006-07 01-Timber 3065
idre standing trees Municipalit
y area
22 Kundapura Moodab Development works at Hariyappan 2007-08 FDA 95000
idre Hariyappa Kere Tourist a kere,
spot at Nallur Nallur
23 Kundapura Moodab Construction of Bus 2007-08 FDA 145000
idre Shelter
24 Kundapura Byndoo Extraction of dangerous 2004-05 01- 9216
r trees Timber
25 Kundapura Byndoo CPT Kurshijude 2006-07 FDA 10000 CPT dug to

r RF 0 evict/prevent
encroachment,
Quality of work
good.
26 Kundapura Venoor Logging works Govt. Land 2004-05 01-Timber 2311
29 Kundapura Venoor Logging works A.W. Land 2004-05 01-Timber 50750
31 Kundapura Hebri Repair of Forester and Reserved 2004-05 01-Timber 10900 Quality of the
Forest Guards quarters 0 work is
satisfactory
32 Kundapura Hebri Road Development Reserved 2004-05 01-Timber 22000 Work is good.
33 Kundapura Hebri Extraction of Dangerous Govt. Land 2005-06 01-Timber 18679
trees
trees
trees
36 Kundapura Hebri Extraction of Dangerous Govt. Land 01-Timber 5581
trees
37 Kundapura Shankar Digging of staggered Reserved 2005-06 12th Finance 49500 Good
anaraya trench and brushwood
na fencing
38 Kundapura Shankar Extraction of dead and Govt. Land 2005-06 01-Timber 18747
anaraya wind fallen trees
na
39 Kundapura Shankar Extraction of wind fallen Kumki land 2006-07 01-Timber 2963
anaraya trees
na
40 Kundapura Shankar Extraction of wind fallen 2004-05 01-Timber 4500
anaraya trees
na
41 Kundapura Shankar Maintenance and repair 2006-07 Building 20000
anaraya work in Amasbail Forest Maintenance
na Guards Quarters
42 Kundapura Shankar Construction of Pipe Govt. Land 2006-07 FDA 27800 Good
anaraya culvert
na
43 Kundapura Shankar Digging of staggered Reserved 2005-06 KSFMBC 25060 Good
anaraya trench and brushwood
na fencing
44 Kundapura Shankar Construction of bus Govt. Land 2006-07 FDA 35000 Good, Work very
anaraya stand much useful for
na public
45 Kundapura Shankar Construction of shop Govt. Land 2006-07 FDA 35000 Good. This shop
anaraya building building gives
na revenue to the
468
VFC
46 Kundapura Shankar Digging of staggered Reserved 2006-07 KSFMBC 73200 Good
anaraya trench
na
47 Kundapura Shankar Extraction of road side Govt. Land 2006-07 01-Timber 278855
anaraya trees
na
Annexure 11
Evaluation of Plantation -Kudremukh Wildlife Division
VFC Status
Survival %
the Range
Nature of
Remarks
Location
Planting
Name of
Planted
Scheme
Year of
Species
Model
Sl.No.
Land
Area
1 Kerettate Kerekat Reserved 2005-06 FDA Cane 10 89 Moderate Cane – Very good
WL te Model Hecta Halabetta,
res Handi betta
2 Kollur Madiba Reserved 2006-07 FDA Artific 15 50 Yes Nandi, Under FDA,
WL re north ial Hecta Mathi, raising of spp
Range beat Regen res Mahagony, in 5 x 8"
eration Honge bags and
planting that
to in Wildlife
area will not
serve any
purpose.
Acacia,
Casurina Old
plantation
under
planting.
3 Kerettate Gulaga Reserved 2005-06 FDA Cane 15 96 Yes Cane
WL njuman Model Hecta
e beat res
Annexure 12
Evaluation of Other Works - Kudremukh Wildlife Division
Amount in
the Range
Nature of
Remarks
Name of
Name of
Scheme
Works
Sl.No.
Land
Year
Rs.
1 Kudremukh Permanent Cairns Reserved 2006-07 Nature Conservation 11400

2 Kudremukh Desilting of Tanks Reserved 2004-05 PADF 19000
3 Kudremukh Stone Pitching Reserved 2005-06 PADF 55000
4 Kudremukh Toilet and Reserved 2005-06 PADF 100000
bathroom
Construction
5 Kudremukh Stone Pitching Reserved 2004-05 PADF 196000
6 Kudremukh Contour bunding Reserved 2005-06 PADF 183000
7 Kudremukh Culvert Reserved 2006-07 Nature Conservation 30000
8 Kudremukh Culvert Reserved 2006-07 Nature Conservation 30000
9 Kudremukh Gully Check Reserved 2004-05 PADF 52497
10 Kudremukh Gully Check Reserved 2006-07 Nature Conservation 138618
11 Kudremukh Gully Check Reserved 2005-06 CSS KNP(C) 124785
12 Kudremukh Gully Check Reserved 2004-05 CSS KNP(C) 47797
13 Kollur WL Formation of CPT Reserved 2004-05 MKB (State) 64532 Good. CPT suitable to
the area.
469
14 Kollur WL D'Line Clearance Reserved 2004-05 PADF 20235 D' Line is maintanined
between Sanctuary and
Buffer Area. D' Line
has no significance
since both side
sanctuary area in these
D' line should have
been cleared all along
the sanctuary border.
15 Kollur WL Fireline clearance 2006-07 Nature Conservation 14900 Firelines cleared, fire
tracing work taken up.
Average quality, work
suitable to site.
16 Kollur WL Formation of CPT Reserved 2006-07 MKB (Central) 54700 CPT suitable along the
boundary. Quality is
average.
17 Kollur WL Formation of Reserved 2005-06 MKB (Central) 48000 It is suitable to the site.
Gully Checks Quality is good.
18 Kollur WL Formation of 2006-07 MKB (Central) 19000 Cairns quality is good.
Cairns Strong too. The cairns
should have been
constructed all along
the boundary but they
are constructed within
the forest area along D
line. This may
encourage
encroachment of
buffer area.
19 Kollur WL Construction of Reserved 2006-07 MKB (State) 50000 Work is good.
compound wall to
the Range office
building
20 Kollur WL Formation of CPT Reserved 2005-06 MKB (Central) 68375
around the
Hallibevu
enclosure
21 Kollur WL Excavation of Reserved 2006-07 MKB (Central) 100000 Quality of work is
Staggered good.
trenches in 1985
Acacia Plantation
22 Kollur WL Extension of RFO Reserved 2004-05 PADF 90000 Good in both the
office building respects
23 Kollur WL Construction of Reserved 2006-07 MKB (Central) 19000 In both the respect it is
cairns in Sampre good.
D'Line
24 Kollur WL Construction of Reserved 2004-05 MKB (Central) 200000 The work is good in
foot bridge both the respects and
serves very good
purpose.
25 Kollur WL Construction of Reserved 2006-07 MKB (Central) 19000 It is a good work.
cairns in
Mavinakaru
26 Kollur WL Desilting of old Reserved 2004-05 PADF 12000 Good in both the
tank near Anejari respects
27 Kollur WL Construction of Reserved 2004-05 MKB (Central) 147000 It is good both in
paragola at qualitative &
Anejari suitability
28 Kollur WL Fixing stone slabs Reserved 2006-07 MKB (Central) 15000 Qualitative &
to the pathway of suitability is good.
dormitory at
Anejari nature
camp
470
29 Kollur WL Stone Pitching in Reserved 2004-05 PADF 14000 Good both in
front of the qualitative &
paragola at suitability
Anejari nature
camp
30 Kollur WL Construction of Reserved 2004-05 PADF 150000 It is good both in
Tent base and qualitative &
toilet No.2 at suitability
Anejari nature
camp
31 Kollur WL Formation of Reserved 2004-05 MKB (Central) 100000 Good
check dam
32 Kollur WL Culvert Reserved 2005-06 MKB (State) 75000 Good
33 Kollur WL Maintenance of Reserved 2006-07 Nature Conservation 3000 Good
Trekking path
34 Kollur WL Desilting of tank Reserved 2005-06 PADF 11200
35 Kollur WL Providing water Village 2005-06 MKB (Central) 100000 Very Good work
supply to the
beneficiaries
36 Kollur WL Construction of Reserved 2005-06 MKB (State) 190000
CPT
37 Kollur WL Construction of Reserved 2006-07 MKB (Central) 100000
new tank at
Nandimane kodlu
38 Kollur WL Staggered Reserved 2006-07 MKB (Central) 100000 Mound sown seeds are
trenches failed.
39 Karkala WL Desilting of water Reserved 2006-07 Nature Conservation 23239 Good in both respects
tank
40 Karkala WL Repainting works 2005-06 PADF 97000 Good in both respects
41 Karkala WL Cow catch 2006-07 Nature Conservation 33932 Good in both respects
formation
42 Karkala WL Construction of Reserved 2006-07 Nature Conservation 26625
Permanent Cairns
43 Karkala WL Formation of Reserved 2005-06 KNP (State) 50000
water tank
44 Karkala WL Construction of Reserved 2005-06 PADF 100000
contour bunding
45 Karkala WL Maintenance of Reserved 2006-07 KNP (State) 25000
existing patrolling
path
46 Karkala WL Formation of Reserved 2005-06 KNP (Central) 30000
culvert
47 Someshwara Desilting of water tank 2004-05 PADF 8000 It is good both in
WL Hebri qualitative &
suitability
48 Someshwara Constructing of toilet bathroom 2004-05 PADF 181500 Good in both respects
WL Hebri
49 Someshwara Formation of CPT Reserved 2005-06 PADF 64000 Good, it serves the
WL Hebri purpose of boundary
demarcation and also
prevention of cattle
entering the sanctuary
50 Someshwara Construction of Reserved 2005-06 PADF 16500 Good in both respects
WL Hebri road
51 Someshwara Desilting of water tank 2005-06 PADF 13068 Good both
WL Hebri qualitatively and
suitability. The
expenditure incurred
less than the estimate
as it is equivalent to
the work executed.
52 Someshwara Repairs of watcher quarters 2006-07 Someshwara 40000 Good
WL Hebri (Twin) (Central)
471
53 Someshwara Construction of platform to 2005-06 PADF 24000 Good in both respects
WL Hebri tentbase
54 Someshwara Construction of tent base - I with 2004-05 PADF 147000 Good in both respects
WL Hebri toilet cum bathroom
55 Someshwara Construction of Reserved 2004-05 PADF 150000 Good in both respects
WL Hebri tent base - II
56 Someshwara Stone pitching work 2006-07 Someshwara (State) 25000 Good in both respects
WL Hebri
57 Someshwara Stone pitching work around the 2005-06 PADF 39000 Good in both respects
WL Hebri tent
58 Someshwara Formation of CPT 2006-07 Someshwara 24987 Good. Hedge plants
WL Hebri (Central) could have planted.
Only Agave is planted.
59 Someshwara Construction of Platform 2006-07 Nature Conservation 50000 Good in both respects
WL Hebri
60 Someshwara Construction of cairns 2006-07 Someshwara 22800 Good in both respects
WL Hebri (Central)
61 Belthangady Patrolling path maintenance 2006-07 KNP (State) 20000 The path is
WL maintained. This path
is also used for
trekking to
Kudremukh from
Navoor. Quality is
good.
62 Belthangady Construction of Gully Check 2006-07 Nature Conservation 83970 Gully checks are
WL effective and work in
good condition.
63 Belthangady Repairing, Cleaning and 2005-06 KNP (State) 5013 The quality of work
WL Desilting of Open Well seems to be good.
Water was clean in the
well and at the time of
inspection, the water
was being used for
Forest Rest House.
64 Belthangady Patrolling path maintenance 2005-06 12th Finance 20000 This path maintenance
WL necessary and the
work is good.
65 Belthangady Desilting of tank 2005-06 KNP (Central) 20000 Quality of good.
WL Water in the tank was
at 1/2 Mt. height.
66 Belthangady Asphalting of road 2005-06 KNP (State) 40000 The quality of road is
WL good. The road was
necessary.
67 Belthangady Formation of permanent Cairns 2005-06 Nature Conservation 11413 Cairns were necessary
WL for demarcation of
boundary. The quality
of construction of
good.
68 Belthangady Construction of bridge 2003-04 FDA 240000 This work was
WL necessary and the
quality of work is
good. Site is suitable.
69 Belthangady Maintenance of Reserved 2005-06 PADF 10851 The site is suitable and
WL Trekking path the quality of work is
good.
70 Belthangady Maintenance of District 2006-07 Nature Conservation 20000 The quality of works is
WL RFO Office Forest good. The repairs
were necessary.
71 Belthangady Maintenance of Reserved 2005-06 Nature Conservation 9900 Painting works, small
WL gates repairs done to gate.
Quality of works is
good.
72 Belthangady Maintenance of Forest Rest 2005-06 PADF 50000 The quality of work is
472
WL House very good. The repairs
were necessary.
73 Belthangady Formation of Gate Reserved 2005-06 KNP (State) 15500 The quality of work is
WL & Gate Pillar at good and the site is
Jamalabad suitable.
74 Belthangady Desilting of tank 2004-05 PADF 9936 The quality of work is
WL good. It is constructed
at suitable and good
site. There was more
than 1/2 Mtr. Water in
the pond at the time of
inspection.
75 Kerekatte Formation of Gully Checks 2004-05 KNP (Central) 48000
WL
76 Kerekatte Formation of Cairns 2004-05 PADF 14600
WL
77 Kerekatte Formation of chainlink mesh 2004-05 PADF 22850
WL
78 Kerekatte Formation of water tank 2004-05 PADF 50000
WL
79 Kerekatte Desilting of water tank 2005-06 KNP (Central) 20000
WL
80 Kerekatte Construction of culvert 2005-06 KNP (Central) 20000
WL
81 Kerekatte Construction of Contour bunds 2005-06 PADF 143838
WL
82 Kerekatte Formation of Gully Checks 2006-07 Nature Conservation 93300
WL
83 Kerekatte Construction of culvert 2006-07 Nature Conservation 30000
WL
84 Kerekatte Construction of Orchidorium 2006-07 Nature Conservation 200000
WL
473
Annexure- XII-Detailed Circle Report
8.12 MYSORE CIRCLE

Mysore Circle has the jurisdiction of the following divisions
1. Mysore Division
2. Social Forestry Division, Mysore
3. Hunsur Division
4. Mandya Division
5. Social Forestry Division, Mandya
6. Wildlife Division, Mysore
The Additional principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Evaluation Working plan, Research and
Training, Bangalore under his letter No.APCCF (EWPRT)/I-32/Eval./07-08 dated:12.10.2007
has constituted evaluation teams and issued guidelines for evaluation.
The evaluation team for Mysore Circle is as hereunder:
2. Conservator of Forests, Working Plans, Chickmagalur : Member
3. Conservator of Forests, Kodagu Circle, Madikeri : Member
4. Deputy Conservator of Forests (ZP), Kolar : Member
5. Deputy Conservator of Forests (ZP) Tumkur : Member
A minimum of 10% of the works in each scheme and in each model implemented in the
division selected by random sampling for evaluation.
In case of CSS NAP (FDA) scheme 25% of plantations raised during 2004-2007 were
taken at random for evaluation purpose.
In each plantation spot, 2% of the plantation area was selected for sampling intensity and
for every 5ha of plantation area one sample plot of 2% area (1000sq.mts) was selected for
evaluation.
routemap.
Certain observations common to all the divisions in Mysore Circle:
• Plantations raised in earlier planted & failed areas are not performing well. Unless the
reasons for earlier failure are analyzed and addressed, it may not advisable to go for
further afforestation in the area.
• Eucalyptus plantations, that used to be very successful earlier, are struggling because
of gall formation. We may have to consider planting of clones resistant to gall
formation in all these areas in the years to come.
• Area closure, SMC works like Nala bund, Check dam, Gully checks etc and
afforestation is to based on a catchment basis in an integrated manner, to be covered
in a 5 year period preferably, to have a desirable affect on the site rather than
attempting them in isolated manner in space and time
474
• Records regarding seedling distribution are inadequate to trace them back for
monitoring/evaluation. At least whereever more than 100 seedlings are distributed to
individual/institutions, proper register with details is to be maintained range wise.
• The demonstration plots on farmers’ lands raised under KSFMBC are of very poor
performance in most of the cases without addressing the objective of acting as further
focal point for the dissemination of a variety/technique. This should be relooked into.
Forest Department may not take up grafted mango for demonstration purpose under
KSFMBC project.
• Afforestation should not be carried out unless funds are certain for maintenance after
planting year. It is found that under National Food for Work Programme ,
maintenance was not taken care of in case of plantations raised under the scheme.
• Roadside plantations in rural areas are failing because of intensive cattle damage and
hence better not to go for roadside plantations in rural areas unless the individual trees
are protected with tree guards.
• Miscellaneous seedlings like Nelli, Tamarind, Honge etc are struggling on degraded
lands and hence site fertility and rain fall distribution pattern may please be kept in
mind while going for miscellaneous species.
MYSORE FOREST DIVISION, MYSORE:
Mysore Forest Division has Mysore, Nanjanagud, Sargur, H.D.Kote territorial ranges in
its jurisdiction.
The sample included 24 plantations raised under various schemes with an extent of
769.20 ha. One plantation is under KSFMBC model 1, with an extent of 130 Ha, where sowing
alone was resorted to.
List of plantations taken up for evaluation
Area Survival
(Ha) %
1 2004-05 JBIC-EKAP Mysore Elawala Maidanahalli Roadside 2.5 0.00

RMC to
2 2004-05 COP-MUDA Mysore Mysore Srirampura Roadside 2.5 36.00
3 2005-06 KSFMBC-M1 Mysore Jayapura Kohalla 45,48 100 40.00
Nanjangud Road to
4 2005-06 COP-MUDA Mysore Mysore Central silk farm Roadside 4.5 91.80
Jayapura
5 2006-07 KSFMBC-M1 Mysore Jayapura (Chittanahalli) 98 50 27.50
Greening Outer ring

6 2005-06 COP-MUDA Urban Mysore City road 9.5 45.00
Greening
7 2006-07 GUA Urban Mysore City 4.5 66.66
8 2004-05 NAP (FDA) Mysore Varuna Chittanahallipallya 45 20.86
9 2004-05 NAP (FDA) Mysore Jayapura Gummachanahally 30 6.50
10 2004-05 NAP (FDA) Mysore Jayapura Gujjegowdanapura 25 24.11
11 2004-05 NAP (FDA) Mysore Elawala Bommanahalli 118 25 0.00
12 2005-06 NAP (FDA) Mysore Jayapura Soligara colony 43 20 75.90
Boodanur
13 2004-05 CO H.D. Kote Kasaba (Sollepura RF) 53 20 67.00
475
N.N. Halli
14 2005-06 KSFMBC-M1 H.D. Kote Kasaba (Sollepura RF) 27 130 sowing
15 2006-07 KSFMBC-M1 H.D. Kote Kasaba Bommalapura 13 42 62.00
Hampapur
16 2004-05 NAP (FDA) H.D. Kote a Bettada Bedda 72 25 18.00
N.N. Halli
17 2005-06 NAP (FDA) H.D. Kote Kasaba (Sollepura RF) 27 25 9.00
Boodanur
18 2006-07 NAP (FDA) H.D. Kote Kasaba (Sollepura RF) 53 50 65.00
Allaiahnapura
19 2004-05 NAP (FDA) Saragur saragur (jaladakore) 30 25.00
Allaiahna Allaiahnapura
20 2004-05 NAP (FDA) Saragur pura (Lanke munty) 25 24.00
Allaiahna Allaiahnapura
21 2005-06 NAP (FDA) Saragur pura (Gavisiddanabetta) 30 27.00
Chikkaiah
Nanjanagu na Hulimavugudda
22 2005-06 DDF d Chathra location 9.65 90.00
Nanjanagu
23 2006-07 NAP (FDA) d Kaulande Chunchanahally 308, 312 30 57.00
T.Narsipur
24 2005-06 NAP (FDA) a Muguru Adibettahalli 186 34 85.00

Planta
Extent
S. Pit/ Spac Spp. Mainte Status Micro tion
Year Village (in Ha/ Model
No Trench ing planted -nance of VFC plan Journ
km)
al
2004 No Up
1 -05 Maidanahalli 2.5 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes VFC -- dated
2004 RMC to No Up
2 -05 Srirampura 2.5 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes VFC -- dated
2005 No Up
3 -06 Kohalla 100 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes VFC -- dated
Nanjangud Road
2005 to Central silk No Up
4 -06 farm 4.5 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes VFC -- dated
2006 Jayapura No Up
5 -07 (Chittanahalli) 50 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes VFC -- dated
2005 No Up
6 -06 Mysore City 9.5 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes VFC -- dated
2006 No Up
7 -07 Mysore City 4.5 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes VFC -- dated
2004 Chittanahallipall Up
8 -05 ya 45 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes yes yes dated
2004 Gummachanahal Up
9 -05 ly 30 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes yes yes dated
2004 Gujjegowdanap Up
10 -05 ura 25 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes yes yes dated
2004 Up
11 -05 Bommanahalli 25 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes yes yes dated
476
2005 Up
12 -06 Soligara colony 20 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes yes yes dated
2004 Boodanur No Up
13 -05 (Sollepura RF) 20 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes VFC -- dated
2005 N.N. Halli No Up
14 -06 (Sollepura RF) 130 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes VFC -- dated
2006 No Up
15 -07 Bommalapura 42 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes VFC -- dated
2004 Up
16 -05 Bettada Bedda 25 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes yes yes dated
2005 N.N. Halli Up
17 -06 (Sollepura RF) 25 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes yes yes dated
2006 Boodanur Up
18 -07 (Sollepura RF) 50 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes yes yes dated
2004 Allaiahnapura Up
19 -05 (jaladakore) 30 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes yes yes dated
2004 Allaiahnapura Up
20 -05 (Lanke munty) 25 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes yes yes dated
Allaiahnapura
2005 (Gavisiddanabet Up
21 -06 ta) 30 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes yes yes dated
2005 Hulimavugudda No Up
22 -06 location 9.65 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes VFC -- dated
2006 Up
23 -07 Chunchanahally 30 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes yes yes dated
2005 Up
24 -06 Adibettahalli 34 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes yes yes dated

Selection
Extent Choice
S. Selection of Protection Survival General
No of site Plantatio aspects percentage condition
km) Species
n model
2004-
1 05 Maidanahalli 2.5 proper proper proper proper 0.00 failure
2004- RMC to
2 05 Srirampura 2.5 proper proper proper proper 36.00 poor
2005-
3 06 Kohalla 100 proper proper proper proper 40.00 fair
Nanjangud
Road to
2005- Central silk
4 06 farm 4.5 proper proper proper proper 91.80 very good
Jayapura
2006- (Chittanahalli
5 07 ) 50 proper proper proper proper 27.50 poor
2005-
6 06 Mysore City 9.5 proper proper proper proper 45.00 fair
2006-
7 07 Mysore City 4.5 proper proper proper proper 66.66 good
2004- Chittanahallip
8 05 allya 45 proper proper proper proper 20.86 poor
2004- Gummachana
9 05 hally 30 proper proper proper proper 6.50 failure
10 2004- Gujjegowdan 25 proper proper proper proper 24.11 poor
477
05 apura
2004- Bommanahall
11 05 i 25 proper proper proper proper 0.00 failure
2005- Soligara
12 06 colony 20 proper proper proper proper 75.90 good
Boodanur
2004- (Sollepura
13 05 RF) 20 proper proper proper proper 67.00 good
N.N. Halli
2005- (Sollepura
14 06 RF) 130 proper proper proper proper sowing good
2006-
15 07 Bommalapura 42 proper proper proper proper 62.00 good
2004- Bettada
16 05 Bedda 25 proper proper proper proper 18.00 failure
N.N. Halli
2005- (Sollepura
17 06 RF) 25 proper proper proper proper 9.00 failure
Boodanur
2006- (Sollepura
2004- Allaiahnapura
19 05 (jaladakore) 30 proper proper proper proper 25.00 poor
Allaiahnapura
2004- (Lanke
20 05 munty) 25 proper proper proper proper 24.00 poor
Allaiahnapura
2005- (Gavisiddana
21 06 betta) 30 proper proper proper proper 27.00 poor
2005- Hulimavugud
22 06 da location 9.65 proper proper proper proper 90.00 very good
2006- Chunchanahal
23 07 ly 30 proper proper proper proper 57.00 fair
2005-
24 06 Adibettahalli 34 proper proper proper proper 85.00 verygood
Summary of evaluation:
1. The Weighted average of survival percentage for 23 palntations (excluding one
plantation with only sowing) raised on 639.20 ha is 39.67%. Hence over all
assessment for the division is poor
2. Out of 23 plantations, 5 plantations are of failure category with less than 20%
survival rate.
Village/ Quality of
S.No Year Scheme Range Hobli Work
Location work
Chattanahallyp
1 2004-05 NAP (FDA) Mysore alya Percolation tank good
Maddurmanti Soil & Moisture
2 2005-06 KSFMBC Mysore Block-I Conservation good
H.D.
3 2006-07 NAP (FDA) Kote Kasaba Boodanur EPA-Purchase of floormill good
In complete.
Contractor
4 2006-07 KSFMBC Sargur Kasaba Hunaganahalli Twin quarters black listed
478
01-Roads,
Bridges, Nanjana Nanjanagud Special repairs - forest guard
5 2006-07 Buildings gud Kasaba town quarters good
T.Narsip
6 2005-06 NAP (FDA) ura Magur Adibettahalli Desilting of tank good
T.Narsip
7 2006-07 NAP (FDA) ura Magur Adibettahalli VFC building good
Sample of other Works selected randomly for evaluation were found to be good in terms
of quantity and quality.
Distribution of Seedlings:
S. Taluk/ Name of the Species Num Survival
year Hobli Village
No Range Farmer/Benificiary received ber %
L&T Company,
1 2006-07 Mysore Mysore City Hebbal, Mysore 600 82
2 2006-07 T.Narsipura Mogoor Neelsoge Smt Jayamma Casuarina 2000 89
Silver Oak,
3 2005-06 T.Narsipura Talkadlu Hemmige Smt Sowbhagya Teak 5500 17
Eucalyptus,
4 2005-06 T.Narsipura Mogoor Chowhally Smt Indramma Teak 2750 84
Social welfare Honge, nelli,

5 2004-05 T.Narsipura Talkadlu Talkadlu hostel teak 380 89
Eucalyptus,
6 2006-07 T.Narsipura Sosale Doddabagilu Mallikarjuna swamy Teak 6200 39
7 2005-06 T.Narsipura Kasaba Gargeswari Mahadevaswamy Eucalyptus 600 92
Chikkaiahna Teak, Silver
8 2005-06 Nanjangud chatra Basavanapura Babu Oak 350 83
Eucalyptus,
A.auriculifor
9 2005-06 Nanjangud Kasaba Vidyapeetha Jemini Distillaries mis 8241 55
Chandrasekhra
10 2005-06 Nanjangud Kasaba Kalale reddy Eucalyptus 3000 60.7
Teak, Silver
11 2004-05 Nanjangud Hullalahalli Hullalahalli Chamunda naik Oak 850 82
Teak, Silver
12 2004-05 H.D.Kote Kasaba H.Matgere Rahamath Oak 450 90
13 2004-05 H.D.Kote Hampapura Hampapura Marigowda Teak 300 95
14 2004-05 H.D.Kote Sargur Mullur Jayanna Teak, Nugge 600 78
15 2004-05 H.D.Kote Hampapura Hatwal Subbakrishna Teak 2500 92
Teak, Silver
16 2005-06 H.D.Kote Kasaba Yerehalli Jayaprakash Oak 700 90
Teak,Silver
Oak,
17 2005-06 H.D.Kote Sargur Dadadahalli D.P.Prakash Casuarina 1220 77
18 2006-07 H.D.Kote Kasaba Chakkur Prakash Nilgiri 1350 91
19 2006-07 H.D.Kote Hampapura Hampapura H.M.Ramu Teak 1000 93

Teak,
Eucalyptus,
20 2006-07 H.D.Kote Hampapura Pura Rajanna & Nandish Silver Oak 995 85
21 2006-07 H.D.Kote Hampapura Hampapura Marigowda Nilgiri 500 44

Gajjappana
22 2006-07 H.D.Kote Hampapura hundi Puttadase Gowda Teak, Nilgiri 400 90
479
Summary: 22 locations selected at random, where seedlings were distributed to
individuals/institutions were evaluated. The weighted average survival rate is 61% (good).
Eucalyptus, Teak, Silver Oak, Honge are the preferred species.
SOCIAL FORESTRY DIVISION, MYSORE:
Social Forestry Division Mysore has Mysore, Periyapatna, K.R.Nagara, Hunsur,
Nanjanagud, T.Narsipura social forestry ranges in its jurisidiction.
Total 8 plantations raised under various schemes, with an extent of 92 Ha, were
evaluated.
List of plantations taken up for evaluation
Area Survival
S.No Year Scheme Range(SF) Hobli Village Sy.No
(Ha) %
1 2004-05 KSFMBC Periyapatna Ravandur Malaganakere 52,45,46,40 10 18.46

2 2005-06 KSFMBC Mysore Jayapura Harohalli 61 22 7.14
3 2005-06 SF-MFP K.R.Nagara Saligrama Hebbsur 67 10 70.4
4 2006-07 SGRY Mysore Elawala Halladamanahalli 10 77
Social Kallahally School

5 2005-06 Forestry Hunsur Hunsur (Aspatrekaval) plantation 10 22
25, 26
(private land -
6 2006-07 KSFMBC Hunsur Hunsur Madallimatta Demo plot) 10 57.5
7 2005-06 SGRY T.Narsipura Moogur Moogur vatalu 192 10 61.00
8 2005-06 SGRY Nanjangud Hullahalli Nallitalapura 108 10 83
Plant
Extent Spp.
S. Mod Pit/ Spac Mainte Status Micro ation
Year Village (in Ha/ plant
No el Trench ing -nance of VFC plan Journ
km) ed
al
Malaganak up
1 2004-05 ere 10 yes yes yes yes yes yes yes dated
up
2 2005-06 Harohalli 22 yes yes yes yes yes yes yes dated
up
3 2005-06 Hebbsur 10 yes yes yes yes yes no VFC ---- dated
Halladama up
4 2006-07 nahalli 10 yes yes yes yes yes no VFC ---- dated
Kallahally
(Aspatreka up
5 2005-06 val) 10 yes yes yes yes yes no VFC ---- dated
Madallimat up
6 2006-07 ta 10 yes yes yes yes yes yes dated
Moogur up
7 2005-06 vatalu 10 yes yes yes yes yes no VFC ---- dated
Nallitalapur up
8 2005-06 a 10 yes yes yes yes yes no VFC ---- dated
480
Selection
Extent Choice Protecti
S. Selection of Survival General
Year Village (in Ha/ of on
No of site Plantatio % condition
km) Species aspects
n model
1 2004-05 Malaganakere 10 proper proper proper proper 18.46 failure

2 2005-06 Harohalli 22 proper proper proper proper 7.14 failure
3 2005-06 Hebbsur 10 proper proper proper proper 70.4 good
Halladamanaha
4 2006-07 lli 10 proper proper proper proper 77 good
Kallahally
5 2005-06 (Aspatrekaval) 10 proper proper proper proper 22 poor
6 2006-07 Madallimatta 10 proper proper proper proper 57.5 fair

7 2005-06 Moogur vatalu 10 proper proper proper proper 61.00 good
8 2005-06 Nallitalapura 10 proper proper proper proper 83 very good
Summary: The Weighted average of Survival percenatage in case of 8 randomly selected

plantations is 44% (fair category). Two plantations have failed (Survival % less than 20).
Name of the Quality

S.No Year Scheme Range(SF) Hobli Village Location
Work of work
Rainwater
2006- harvesting
1 07 SJRY Hunsur Belikere Andanahally Sy No 94 structure good
The quality of one item of other work selected, rain water harvesting structure is good.
S. Taluk/ Name of the Num Surviv

No year Range Hobli Village Farmer Species received ber al %
K.M.Veerabhadra
1 2004-05 Periyapatna Kasaba Kamalapura iah Teak, Silver Oak 1010 3.46
2 2004-05 K.R.Nagara Saligrama Honnenahalli Abdul Ahamed Teak, Silver Oak 271 62
3 2005-06 Mysore Ilavala Manikyapuri Siddalingegowda Teak, Silver Oak 1100 90
Chunchana
4 2005-06 K.R.Nagara katte Kuppe Ramegowda Teak 150 15
5 2006-07 Mysore Ilavala Maidanahalli Kemparaju Teak, Silver Oak 300 35
6 2006-07 Periyapatna Kasaba Hunasavadi Grama Panchayat Eucalyptus 1000 53
7 2006-07 Mysore Hebbal Byadarahally Mahadevagowda Eucalyptus 1800 87
A.auriculiformis,
Casuarina,
8 2004-05 Hunsur Kasaba Hunsur CTRI A.nilotica 691 76
The wiehted average of survival % for the 8 randomly selected seedling distributed cases is
62.30% (good category). The preferred species are Eucalyptus, Teak, Casuarina, Silver Oak.
481
HUNSUR DIVISION:
Hunsur Division has Hunsur, Periyapatna, K.R.Nagara ranges in its jurisdiction.
A sample of 22 plantations with an extent of 1009 ha was selected at random for evaluation
purpose.
S. Area Survival
No Year Scheme Range Hobli Village Sy.No (Ha) %
1 2004-05 NAP(FDA) Periyapatna Haranahalli Channakal kaval 30 75 88
2 2004-05 KFDF-OP Periyapatna Kasaba Anechowkur 307 27
3 2005-06 NAP(FDA) Periyapatna Haranahalli Channakal kaval 30 40 25.75
4 2005-06 DDF Periyapatna Haranahalli Thirumalapura 40 28 77.2
5 2005-06 KSFMBC Periyapatna Koppa Doddaoharve 130 78
Harangi Right Bank

6 2006-07 FDA Periyapatna Haranahalli Canal 50 25.9
KSFMBC-
7 2006-07 M4 Periyapatna Bettadapura Bettadapura 1 60 64.10
KSFMBC- Bylakuppe
8 2006-07 M4 Periyapatna Haranahalli Agricultural farm 33 25 76
Kamalapura
9 2006-07 CO Periyapatna Kasaba Panchavalli Road Roadside 8 60
10 2006-07 TFC Periyapatna Bettadapura Rashimanti Kaval 1 10 71.1
K.R.Nagara town
11 2005-06 CO K.R.Nagara Kasaba planting 10 55
12 2006-07 DDF K.R.Nagara Gulivinathikuppe 11 20 57
13 2004-05 NAP(FDA) Periyapatna Haranahalli Gulledahalla 1 75 46
Chunchanak
14 2004-05 NAP(FDA) K.R.Nagara atte Malali 172 20 36.25
Chunchanak
15 2004-05 NAP(FDA) K.R.Nagara atte Kuppe 202 20 25
16 2005-06 NAP(FDA) Periyapatna Haranahalli Gulledahalla 1 20 82
17 2005-06 NAP(FDA) Periyapatna Haranahalli Gulledahalla 1 25 49.5
18 2005-06 CO Hunsur Kasaba Town planting 4 65
Chikkahunsur- HD
19 2006-07 AOA Hunsur kote Road Roadside 7 25
20 2004-05 NAP(FDA) Hunsur Bilikere Kuppe Kalghatta 86 30 50
21 2005-06 NAP(FDA) Hunsur Hanagadu Angatahalli 25 64
22 2006-07 NAP(FDA) Hunsur Hanagadu Muthurayana hosalli 20 60
482
Extent
Plnt
S. (in Pit/ Spp. Mainte Status Micro
Year Village Model Spacing Jour
No Ha/ Trench planted -nance of VFC plan
nal
km)
updat
1 2004-05 Channakal kaval 75 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes yes yes ed
No updat
2 2004-05 Anechowkur 307 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes VFC --- ed
updat
3 2005-06 Channakal kaval 40 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes yes yes ed
No updat
4 2005-06 Thirumalapura 28 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes VFC --- ed
updat
5 2005-06 Doddaoharve 130 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes yes yes ed
Harangi Right updat

6 2006-07 Bank Canal 50 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes yes yes ed
updat
7 2006-07 Bettadapura 60 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes yes yes ed
Bylakuppe updat
8 2006-07 Agricultural farm 25 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes yes yes ed
Kamalapura No updat
9 2006-07 Panchavalli Road 8 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes VFC --- ed
No updat
10 2006-07 Rashimanti Kaval 10 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes VFC --- ed
K.R.Nagara town No updat

11 2005-06 planting 10 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes VFC --- ed
No updat
12 2006-07 Gulivinathikuppe 20 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes VFC --- ed
updat
13 2004-05 Gulledahalla 75 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes yes yes ed
updat
14 2004-05 Malali 20 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes yes yes ed
updat
15 2004-05 Kuppe 20 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes yes yes ed
updat
updat
No updat
18 2005-06 Town planting 4 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes VFC --- ed
Chikkahunsur- No updat
19 2006-07 HD kote Road 7 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes VFC --- ed
updat
20 2004-05 Kuppe Kalghatta 30 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes yes yes ed
updat
21 2005-06 Angatahalli 25 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes yes yes ed
Muthurayana updat
22 2006-07 hosalli 20 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes yes yes ed
483
Selection
Extent Protecti
S. Selection of Choice of Surviv General
Year Village (in Ha/ on
No of site Plantation Species al % condition
km) aspects
model
2004-
1 05 Channakal kaval 75 proper proper proper proper 88 very good
2004-
2 05 Anechowkur 307 proper proper proper proper 27 poor
2005-
3 06 Channakal kaval 40 proper proper proper proper 25.75 poor
2005-
4 06 Thirumalapura 28 proper proper proper proper 77.2 good
2005-
5 06 Doddaoharve 130 proper proper proper proper 78 good
2006- Harangi Right

6 07 Bank Canal 50 proper proper proper proper 25.9 poor
2006-
7 07 Bettadapura 60 proper proper proper proper 64.10 good
Bylakuppe
2006- Agricultural
8 07 farm 25 proper proper proper proper 76 good
Kamalapura
2006- Panchavalli
9 07 Road 8 proper proper proper proper 60 good
2006- Rashimanti
10 07 Kaval 10 proper proper proper proper 71.1 good
2005- K.R.Nagara
11 06 town planting 10 proper proper proper proper 55 fair
2006-
12 07 Gulivinathikuppe 20 proper proper proper proper 57 fair
2004-
13 05 Gulledahalla 75 proper proper proper proper 46 fair
2004-
14 05 Malali 20 proper proper proper proper 36.25 poor
2004-
15 05 Kuppe 20 proper proper proper proper 25 poor
2005-
16 06 Gulledahalla 20 proper proper proper proper 82 very good
2005-
17 06 Gulledahalla 25 proper proper proper proper 49.5 fair
2005-
18 06 Town planting 4 proper proper proper proper 65 good
2006- Chikkahunsur-
19 07 HD kote Road 7 proper proper proper proper 25 poor
2004-
20 05 Kuppe Kalghatta 30 proper proper proper proper 50 fair
2005-
21 06 Angatahalli 25 proper proper proper proper 64 good
2006- Muthurayana
22 07 hosalli 20 proper proper proper proper 60 good
Summary:The Weighted average of survival percentage for 22 plantations is 49.98% (fair). Six
plantations have poor survival percentage (20 to 40%).
484
S. Quality of
Year Scheme Range Village/location Name of the Work
No work
JBIC-
Periyapatna
1 2004-05 EKAP Channakalkaval Gully checks good
JBIC-
Periyapatna
2 2004-05 EKAP Doddaharve Percolation tank good
JBIC-
Periyapatna
3 2004-05 EKAP Anechowkur Check dam
JBIC-
Periyapatna
4 2004-05 EKAP Gulledhalla Check dam good
5 2005-06 KSFMBC Periyapatna Doddaharve Percolation tank good
6 2005-06 KSFMBC Periyapatna Rashmanti kaval Percolation tank good
7 2005-06 KFDF Periyapatna Anechowkur Percolation tank good
8 2006-07 KSFMBC Periyapatna Channakal kaval Percolation tank good
9 2006-07 KSFMBC Periyapatna Bettadapura Percolation tank good
10 2006-07 KSFMBC Periyapatna Beerathammannahalli Percolation tank good
11 2006-07 DDF Periyapatna Thirumalapura Gully checks good

Matadakaval
12 2006-07 KSFMBC K.R.Nagara Athiguppe Block I Formation of new tank good
Matadakaval
K.R.Nagara
13 2006-07 KSFMBC Athiguppe Block I I Formation of new tank good
14 2006-07 KSFMBC Hunsur Mutthurayana hosalli Percolation tank good
Other items of works were evaluated at random in 14 locations and they are found to be good in
terms of quality and quantity.
Name of
S. Taluk/ Species Num Survival
year Hobli Village the Remarks
No Range received ber %
Farmer
Krishna
1 2004-05 Periyapatna Haranahalli Benagalu Urs Eucalyptus 1550 48 Satisfactory
Teak, Silver
Bemmat Oak,
2 2006-07 Mysore Haranahalli hi Rajegowda Eucalyptus 410 83 good
Teak, Silver
Yashoda Oak,
3 2004-05 Hunsur Hanagodu pura Rajanna Eucalyptus 194 70 good
The weighted average of survival percentage for the three randomly selected locations of seedling
distribution in Hunsur Division is 48%. The preferred species are Eucalyptus, Teak, Casuarina, Silver
Oak.
MANDYA DIVISION:
Mandya Division has Mandya, Maddur, Malavalli, Srirangapatna, Pandavapura, K.R.Peta,
Nagamangala ranges in its jurisdiction.
A sample of 23 plantations of extent 371.50 ha were selected at random for evaluation.
485
S. Area Survival
No (Ha) %
NAP
1 2005-06 (FDA) Maddur Maddur Byadarahalli 21 10 90
K.Honnalagere
NAP (Kombinakallu
2 2004-05 (FDA) Maddur Maddur RF) 317 10 75.5
Gejjalagere
(Mandya Milk
Union
3 2006-07 GUA Maddur Maddur Compound) 3.5 80
P.G Centre
4 2006-07 GUA Mandya Mandya (Tubinakere) 11 95
Vadesamudra
5 2004-05 KFDF Mandya Mandya (Bukalhalla) 40 15.75 40
6 2006-07 KSFMBC Mandya Dudda Bevikalkoppalu 255, 377 80 51
NAP
7 2005-06 (FDA) Mandya Dudda Javanahally 10 78
8 2005-06 DDF mandya Dudda Bettahally 40 70
Bettahally to
Cultuaral hatna roadside
9 2004-05 operation Mandya Dudda plantation 4.25 82
Kalenahally
NAP (Hunjanakere
10 2005-06 (FDA) Srirangapatna K.Shettihalli SF) 10 64
T.M.Hosur
NAP (Honganahally
11 2005-06 (FDA) Srirangapatna K.Shettihalli Gudda) 15 40
12 2005-06 GUA Nagamangala Nagamangala Town plantation 2 72
13 2006-07 GUA Nagamangala Nagamangala Town plantation 4 70
NAP
14 2004-05 (FDA) Nagamangala Nelligere Byaladakere 5 53
Kardya -
NAP Guddenahalli
15 2006-07 (FDA) Nagamangala Karadya Roadside 6 75
16 2005-06 KFDF-OP Nagamangala H.N.Kaval RF 30 65
NAP
17 2005-06 (FDA) Pandavapura Chinakurli Bindahalli 10 74
NAP
18 2004-05 (FDA) Pandavapura Chinakurli Kadaba 5 64
KSFMBC-
19 2005-06 model 1 Pandavapura Melkote Melkote 17,20 50 sowing
20 2006-07 GUA K.R.Peta K.R.Peta K.R.Peta 5 80
KSFMBC-
21 2006-07 model 1 K.R.Peta K.R.Peta B.B.Kaval 1 25 55
NAP
22 2004-05 (FDA) K.R.Peta S.B.Halli Dugganahalli 155 10 35
NAP
23 2004-05 (FDA) K.R.Peta K.R.Peta B.B.Kaval 1 10 48
486
Status
S. Pit/ Spp. Mainte- Micro Plnt
No Trench planted nance plan Journal
VFC
2005-
1 06 Byadarahalli yes yes yes yes yes yes yes updated
K.Honnalagere
2004- (Kombinakallu
2 05 RF) yes yes yes yes yes yes yes updated
Gejjalagere
(Mandya Milk
2006- Union No
3 07 Compound) yes yes yes yes yes VFC ----- updated
2006- P.G Centre No
4 07 (Tubinakere) yes yes yes yes yes VFC ----- updated
2004- Vadesamudra No
5 05 (Bukalhalla) yes yes yes yes yes VFC ----- updated
2006-
6 07 Bevikalkoppalu yes yes yes yes yes yes yes updated
2005-
7 06 Javanahally yes yes yes yes yes yes yes updated
2005- No
8 06 Bettahally yes yes yes yes yes VFC ----- updated
Bettahally to
2004- hatna roadside No
9 05 plantation yes yes yes yes yes VFC ----- updated
Kalenahally
2005- (Hunjanakere
10 06 SF) yes yes yes yes yes yes yes updated
T.M.Hosur
2005- (Honganahally
11 06 Gudda) yes yes yes yes yes yes yes updated
2005- No
12 06 Town plantation yes yes yes yes yes VFC ----- updated
2006- No
13 07 Town plantation yes yes yes yes yes VFC ----- updated
2004-
14 05 Byaladakere yes yes yes yes yes yes yes updated
Kardya -
2006- Guddenahalli
15 07 Roadside yes yes yes yes yes yes yes updated
2005- No
16 06 H.N.Kaval RF yes yes yes yes yes VFC ----- updated
2005-
17 06 Bindahalli yes yes yes yes yes yes yes updated
2004-
18 05 Kadaba yes yes yes yes yes yes yes updated
2005-
19 06 Melkote yes yes yes yes yes yes yes updated
2006- No
20 07 K.R.Peta yes yes yes yes yes VFC ----- updated
2006-
21 07 B.B.Kaval yes yes yes yes yes yes yes updated
2004-
22 05 Dugganahalli yes yes yes yes yes yes yes updated
2004-
23 05 B.B.Kaval yes yes yes yes yes yes yes updated
487
Selection
Extent Choice
S. Selection of Protection Survival General
No of site Plantation aspects % condition
km) Species
model
2005-
1 06 Byadarahalli 10 proper proper proper proper 90 very good
K.Honnalagere
2004- (Kombinakallu
Gejjalagere
(Mandya Milk
2006- Union
3 07 Compound) 3.5 proper proper proper proper 80 very good
2006- P.G Centre
4 07 (Tubinakere) 11 proper proper proper proper 95 very good
2004- Vadesamudra
5 05 (Bukalhalla) 15.75 proper proper proper proper 40 fair
2006-
6 07 Bevikalkoppalu 80 proper proper proper proper 51 fair
2005-
7 06 Javanahally 10 proper proper proper proper 78 good
2005-
8 06 Bettahally 40 proper proper proper proper 70 good
Bettahally to
2004- hatna roadside
9 05 plantation 4.25 proper proper proper proper 82 very good
2005- Kalenahally
10 06 (Hunjanakere SF) 10 proper proper proper proper 64 good
T.M.Hosur
2005- (Honganahally
11 06 Gudda) 15 proper proper proper proper 40 fair
2005-
12 06 Town plantation 2 proper proper proper proper 72 good
2006-
13 07 Town plantation 4 proper proper proper proper 70 good
2004-
14 05 Byaladakere 5 proper proper proper proper 53 fair
Kardya -
2006- Guddenahalli
15 07 Roadside 6 proper proper proper proper 75 good
2005-
16 06 H.N.Kaval RF 30 proper proper proper proper 65 good
2005-
17 06 Bindahalli 10 proper proper proper proper 74 good
2004-
18 05 Kadaba 5 proper proper proper proper 64 good
2005-
19 06 Melkote 50 proper proper proper proper sowing
2006-
20 07 K.R.Peta 5 proper proper proper proper 80 very good
2006-
21 07 B.B.Kaval 25 proper proper proper proper 55 fair
2004-
22 05 Dugganahalli 10 proper proper proper proper 35 fair
2004-
23 05 B.B.Kaval 10 proper proper proper proper 48 fair
488
The weighted average of survival percentage for 22 plantations with 321.50 ha is 61% (one
plantation with only sowing is excluded). The average survival percent is good (60-80% category)
S. Name of the
Year Scheme Range Hobli Village Location Remarks
No Work
2004- Hulikere lower Construction of

1 05 JBIC (EKAP) Mandya Dudda Hulikere block Check dam good
2004- Kanaganama Hulikere lower

2 05 JBIC (EKAP) Mandya Kasaba rdi block Percolation tank good
2004- Hulikere upper

3 05 JBIC (EKAP) Mandya Dudda Hulikere block Check dam good
Hulikere lower SMC works

2006- block (Sy No (percolation
4 07 KSFMBC Mandya Dudda Hulikere 236) trnches) good
Hulikere lower SMC works

2006- block (Sy No (percolation
5 07 KSFMBC Mandya Dudda Hulikere 296) trnches) good
Mandya Forest
2006- Lands& Quarters Repairs to staff
6 07 Buildings Mandya Mandya Mandya Premises quarters good
Mandya Forest Construction of

2006- Lands& Quarters compound at
7 07 Buildings Mandya Mandya Mandya Premises forest quarters good
2006- Lands& Hulikere Forest Improvement of

8 07 Buildings Mandya Dudda Hulikere Rest House FRH, Hulikere good
SMC works
2005- Srirangap around (percolation
9 06 KSFMBC atna K.Settihalli K.Settihalli settihalli IB trnches) good
The nine other items of works evaluated are found to be good in terms of quality and quantity.
Social Forestry Division, Mandya:
Social Forestry Division, Mandya has Mandya, Maddur, Nagamangala, Malavalli, Srirangapatna,
Pandavapura ranges.
A sample of 9 plantations was selected at random for evaluation.
S. Area Survival
No (Ha) %
JBIC Pandavapura
1 2004-05 (EKAP) SF Chinkurli Hasanapur 40 10 50
Pandavapura
2 2005-06 SGRY (TP) SF Chinkurli Ragimuddanahalli Jatre area 10 82
489
JBIC Nagamangal Devalapur
3 2004-05 (EKAP) a SF a Mylarapatna 195 10 55
SCP
(Social
Security Srirangapatn
4 2004-05 Plantation) a SF Arakere Hunganakere 0.5 76
SCP
(Social
Security Srirangapatn
5 2004-05 Plantation) a SF Arakere Vadiyandanahalli 0.5 80
Madegowdana
6 2004-05 MFP Mandya SF Dudda Koppalu 13 10 76
Private
land
JBIC (Demonstra
7 2004-05 (EKAP) Maddur SF Maddur Hulikere tion plot) 0.5 40
8 2005-06 SGRY (ZP) Maddur SF Koppa Marasinganahalli Roadside 2 46

SCP
(Social 277
Security (private
9 2005-06 Plantation) Mandya SF Dudda Mudagandoor land) 0.5 52
Extent Statu Plnt

S. Mo Pit/ Spa Spp. Mainte Micro
Year Village (in Ha/ s of Journa
No del Trench cing planted -nance plan
km) VFC l
1 2004-05 Hasanapur 10 yes yes yes yes yes yes yes updated
Ragimuddana No
2 2005-06 halli 10 yes yes yes yes yes VFC ---- updated
3 2004-05 Mylarapatna 10 yes yes yes yes yes yes yes updated
No
4 2004-05 Hunganakere 0.5 yes yes yes yes yes VFC ---- updated
Vadiyandana No
5 2004-05 halli 0.5 yes yes yes yes yes VFC ---- updated
Madegowdana No
6 2004-05 Koppalu 10 yes yes yes yes yes VFC ---- updated
7 2004-05 Hulikere 0.5 yes yes yes yes yes yes yes updated
Marasingana No
8 2005-06 halli 2 yes yes yes yes yes VFC ---- updated
No
9 2005-06 Mudagandoor 0.5 yes yes yes yes yes VFC ---- updated

Selection
Extent Choice Survi
S. Selection of Protection General
Year Village (in Ha/ of val
No of site Plantation aspects condition
km) Species %
model
1 2004-05 Hasanapur 10 proper proper proper proper 50 fair
Ragimuddana very
2 2005-06 halli 10 proper proper proper proper 82 good
3 2004-05 Mylarapatna 10 proper proper proper proper 55 fair
4 2004-05 Hunganakere 0.5 proper proper proper proper 76 good
5 2004-05 Vadiyandana 0.5 proper proper proper proper 80 very
490
halli good
Madegowdana
6 2004-05 Koppalu 10 proper proper proper proper 76 good
7 2004-05 Hulikere 0.5 proper proper proper proper 40 fair
Marasingana
8 2005-06 halli 2 proper proper proper proper 46 fair
9 2005-06 Mudagandoor 0.5 proper proper proper proper 52 fair
Summary: The weighted average survival % for the 9 selected plantations with 44 ha area is
64.68%( good category with 60-80% survival).
Quality of
S.No Year Scheme Range Hobli Village/Location Work
work
Drought Relief Pandavapura
1 2004-05 Work SF Chinkurli Hasanapura Check dam good
Drought Relief Nagamangala
2 2004-05 Work SF Devalapura Mylarapatna Nala bund good
Dugganahalli
Drought Relief (Narayanadurga
3 2004-05 Work K.R.Pet SF S.B.Hally RF) Check dam good
Dugganahalli
4 2004-05 Work K.R.Pet SF S.B.Hally RF) Nala bund good
Dugganahalli
5 2005-06 Work K.R.Pet SF S.B.Hally RF) Nala bund good
Drought Relief
6 2004-05 Work S.R.Patna SF Arakere Gobbaragala Check dam good
Drought Relief
7 2004-05 Work Mandya SF Dudda Mannugudda Check dam good
Mannugudda
Drought Relief (Hutchaiah
8 2004-05 Work Mandya SF Dudda gowdana koppalu) Check dam good
Somanahalli Seed storage

9 2006-07 Social Forestry Maddur SF Kasaba nursery building good
Drought Relief
10 2004-05 Work Maddur SF Atagur Atagur gudda Check dam good
The 10 other items of work selected are evaluated as good in terms of quality and quantity.
Surv
S. Taluk/ Name of the Species Num
year Hobli Village ival Remarks
No Range Farmer/Benificiary received ber
%
2004- Pandavapura
1 05 SF Chinkurli Hulkere Ramegowda Teak 200 75 Very good
2006- Nagamagala Mylarapatn Teak,
2 07 SF Devalapura a Venkatesh Silver Oak 400 90 Very good
2004-
3 05 K.R.Pet SF Kasaba Koratikere Ramegowda Teak 300 82 Very good
2006- S.R.Patna Hunganaker Pape gowda s/o
4 07 SF Arakere e Channegowda Teak 100 90 Very good
2004- S.R.Patna
5 05 SF Arakere Alagudu Chinnagiri gowda Eucalyptus 2000 86 Very good
The Weighted average for 5 locations of seedling distribution evaluated at random is

85.53 % (very good).
491
Wildlife Division, Mysore:
Since certain works like Fire tracing, View line tracing etc can not be evaluated after two/three
year period, the following civil works (12 in number are selected) at random for evaluation.
Other works selected for evaluation
S. Range Name of the Quality of
Year Scheme Hobli Village Location
No (WL) Work work
Kallubas
2004- aveswar Water storage
1 05 Arabbithittu (state) Mysore Bilikere a temple tank good
2004- Arabbithittu Kolaghat Thimmachar
2 05 (central) Mysore Bilikere ta i halla Checkdam good
Drilling
Ranghai Ranghaina borewell and
2004- na kopplu fixing hand
3 05 Arabbithittu(central) Mysore Bilikere kopplu colony pumps good
2004- Arabbithittu
4 05 Arabbithittu(central) Mysore Bilikere WLS Gully checks good
2005- Arabbithittu Watch towers
5 06 Arabbithittu(central) Mysore Bilikere WLS (2) good
2006- Arabbithittu Construction of
6 07 Arabbithittu(central) Mysore Bilikere WLS pargola good
Construction of
Adichuncha Rubble
2406-02-110-0-47 nagiri- Masonary wall
2004- DWS&NP- Chuncha Kumbarapall for boundary
7 05 Adichunchanagiri Melkote Bellur nahalli ya roadside demarcation good
Construction of
Periphery of Rubble
2406-02-110-0-47 Adichuncha Masonary wall
2005- DWS&NP- Chuncha nagiri for boundary
8 06 Adichunchanagiri Melkote Bellur nahalli Sanctuary demarcation good
2406-02-110-0-47
2005- DWS&NP- Chuncha Kumbarapal Construction of
9 06 Adichunchanagiri Melkote Bellur nahalli ya Roadside Check dam good
2406-02-110-0-47
2005- DWS&NP- Chuncha Near Forest Construction of
10 06 Adichunchanagiri Melkote Bellur nahalli Rest House Pargola good
2406-02-110-0-47 Construction of
2006- DWS&NP- Chuncha Near Forest Interpretation
11 07 Adichunchanagiri Melkote Bellur nahalli Rest House centre good
Construction of
Rubble
2406-02-110-0-47 Masonary wall
2004- DWS&NP- Melukot Hebballa to for boundary
12 05 Melukote- state Melukote Melukote e Huligere demarcation good
2406-02-110-0-47
2004- DWS&NP- state- Melukot Costruction of
13 05 Melukote Melukote Melukote e Hebballa Check dam good
2406-02-110-0-47 Near Forest

2004- DWS&NP- state- Melukot Rest House- Drilling of
14 05 Melukote Melukote Melukote e melukote Borewell good
492
2406-02-110-0-47
2005- DWS&NP- state- G.Singa Boardgalluh
15 06 Melukote Melukote Melukote pura alla Perculation tank good
2406-02-110-0-47 Construction of
2006- DWS&NP- state- Melukot Addahebbala Rubble stone
17 07 Melukote Melukote Melukote e to Anegundi wall good
Construction of
rection centre,
2406-02-110-0-47 FRH Kitchen cum
2006- DWS&NP- state- Melukot premises, watchman shed
18 07 Melukote Melukote Melukote e Melukote building good
2406-02-110-0-47
2006- DWS&NP- state- Vasanth Metarekoyad Construction of
19 07 Melukote Melukote Melukote apura ahalli manti Watch tower good
All the above 19 works selected for evaluation are found to be good in terms of quality and
quantity.
--------------------------------
493
Annexure- XIII-Detailed Circle Report
8.13 SHIMOGA CIRCLE

Evaluation teams were constituted vide Official memorandum No APCCF (EWPRT)/I-
32/Eval./07-08 dtd 08-10-2007 with a direction to carry out evaluation of all the Plan and Non
plan works implemented during 2004-05, 2005-06 and 200-06-07. It was also stipulated that
field work to be completed in Nov-Dec 2007 and submit the report to the APCCF(EWPRT) by
15th February, 2008 to facilitate him to submit consolidated comprehensive report to the PCCF
by March 2008.
Evaluation team for Shimoga circle comprised the following Officers.
Chief Conservator of Forests (Training), Dharwad and Team leader
Conservator of Forests, Bellary Circle, Bellary & Member
Conservator of Forests, Working plan Belgaum &
Dy Conservator of Forests ( Social Forestry) Haveri & Member of the Evaluation Team
Shri. C.M.Ammannavar, Assistant conservator of forests (Training) Gungaragatti
Dharwad. Co-opted Member.
Salient points of the Guidelines for evaluation teams are as under.
1. Forms are to be prepared separately for Plantations (A), Distribution of seedlings(D) and
other works(I) of all schemes.
2. Team shall inspect at least one work in each type of other works.
3. Evaluation team shall work at least for 4 days in assigned circle to cover all types of
works in detail.
4. Team leader shall see that all the works implemented during the period is included in
either A or D or I forms to cover all the expenditures incurred irrespective of the source
of funds, which includes purchase of material.
5. Evaluation work is taken up for the works implemented by Territorial, social Forestry and
wild life wings under Plan, Non Plan including logging works.
6. Evaluation is done in relation to the implementation of field works, sanctioned estimates,
quantities worked and objectives of the scheme. Team shall specify to what extent
objectives have been fulfilled.
7. A minimum of 10% of the works implemented in each scheme in the division is selected
by random sampling by the APCCF in consultation with other officers.
8. Samples shall be identified by the evaluation team in respect of other works such as
Seedling distribution, civil works, Logging works, etc. While selecting the sampling care
shall be taken to select at least one work in each Range of the division is selected
irrespective of the scheme. No Range shall be omitted
9. Selection of works based on the spots.
10. Sample plantations selected shall be visited by the Jurisdictional Working Plan staff, who
will carry out the survival percentage, growth condition, Quality of the work carried out,
Performance of different species etc.
11. Working plan staff shall record GPS readings and ocular observations in the plantations
viz.
A) Record whether same area planted more than once.
B) General condition and survival percentage.
c) Average ht and DBH and approximate yield in terms of timber/poles/firewood.
12. Sampling intensity is 10% up to 20 ha and 2% for more than 20ha plantation as per the
revised OM dtd 10.01.2008.
494
13. Sample plot size shall be 1000sqm and 10 no for 10 ha and 8plots for 40ha.
14. As per the revised decision sampling intensity has been restricted to 2% irrespective of
the size of plantations.
15. Team shall observe the parameters such as Survival percentage, Growth condition,
Quality of the work carried out and performance of species etc.
Regarding the distribution of seedlings, survival and performance of species shall be
recorded by the team.
Regarding logging and civil works team shall record in relation to measurements and
actual in the field.
16. To achieve even spread of sample plots grid lines can be drawn at regular intervals on the
map and sample plots located for desired intensity with the recommended plot size by
random number method.
17. Or even the line transect method also could be followed for locating the sample plots
starting from the north west corner back words at 315 and draw plot of 31.62sq.m.
18. Lat- long to be recorded for each field visit with the help of GPS. If possible grid lines
distance may be noted for precise location. Corners of the sample plots be marked with
stones or pegs.
19. Villages for assessing the success of the distribution of seedlings selected at the rate
of 1-2% of villages in each Hobli.
20. Report submitted will have the following.
a) Continuation of the scheme.
b) Continuation with modification of the scheme.
c) Clubbing of the schemes.
d) Schems which are to be given up.
21. Observations are to be recorded in the pro-formae circulated (9No).
22. Team shall function as one unit but at times it can split to cover more area.
23. Special emphasis be laid on the performance of older plantations raised under
Compensatery Afforestation, JFPM and Tree patta schemes.
24. Team leaders shall have meeting with the Territorial and officers of other wings
regarding the action taken report on the earlier evaluation report.
25. Special efforts shall be made to record status of plantations survey and in the field books
MBs and Plantations journals.
Shimoga Forest Circle comprises of Bhadravathi (T), Sagar (T), Shimoga (T), Shimoga
(SF) and Shimoga WL divisions.
The total Geographical area of the district is about 10,575.54 sq.km., out of which
3,270.16sq.km., is the forest area making the forest cover to 30.92%.
The forest types of the district vary from dry deciduous to evergreen types.
Shimoga Division:
Shimoga division is distributed towards the left of Tunga and Tungabhadra river. Other
major rivers of the district are Kumadwathi and Kushavathi. The forests of the division are
confined to the jurisdiction of the district and are mainly spread over in Shimoga and Thirthahalli
taluks and small portions spread over in Hosanagar , Honnalli Taluks of Davanagere District.
The location of the division is between N 13*21’14.8” and E 75.50 to 74.45’ east of greenwhich.
Topography is generally hilly and undulating. Soil is generally porus and well drained.
Bhadravathi Division:
The division extends on either sides of the Bhadra and on the right bank of Tunga river,
the two most important rivers running through some of the most valuable forests tracts in
495
Shimoga, Davanagere and Chickamagalur districts. The division comprises of the part of
Revenue district of Shimoga, Davanagere and Chickamagalur. The revenue Taluks of
Bhadravathi, Channagiri, Tarikere, Shimoga (part) and Honnali (part) constitute the division.
The division lies within the lat 10-30’ and 14-21’ north longitudes 75-30’ and 76-7’ east of
Greenwich. The topography of the division is varied, flat to undulating and hilly. The
underlying geological formation of the division exhibits wide variations from gneissic granite to
magnetite, hematite, quartzite and iron ores to igneous schist and sedimentary schist. Due to
variations in the underlying rocks, the resulting soils of the tract exhibit variations. Tunga and
Bhadra are the important rivers of the division. Tunga rises at Gangamoola in western ghats at
an elevation of 1200m near Kudremukh in Sringere and flows in the division at Lakkavalli and
then flows through a course of 50km. The two rivers meet at Kudli about 14km from Shimoga
and forms the TungaBhadra river and flows to an extent of 47.5km in Bhadravathi Division.
The forest types of the division vary from scrub type to the everegreen forest. It has
Sagar Division:
Sagar is one of the biggest forest divisions of state and is situated at a lat-long of 13.36’
and 14.38’ of North and 75.32’ east of Greenwich respectively. The major rivers that flow
through the division are Sharavathi, Kumudwathi, Varada, Vaahi and Chakra. The undulating
rocks are of an igneous formation and are generally quartzite, Granite, Gneissic, Chlorite Schist
and Mica Schist etc. The soil is also varied in nature. The forest types vary from Dry deciduous
forests to Wet evergreen forests. The typical wet Evergreen forests mainly occur in Hosanagar,
Nagar and Sagar Ranges. Of late the forests are showing tendency of changing from evergreen
to Semi-evergreen types and from Semi-evergreen to Moist deciduous types because of over
pressure on them.
Social Forestry Division, Shimoga:
The Social Forestry division, Shimoga has jurisdiction over the whole district.
Wild life division, Shimoga:
Wild life division has jurisdiction over the protected areas of the district can be divided
into three sanctuaries viz., Shettihalli Wild life sanctuary, Sharavathi Wild life sanctuary and
Gudavi Bird Sanctuary.
Schemes implemented in the circle
1. 01-Timber (139 Major works)
2. 03-op-FDF
3. 11-Forest protection
4. Compensatory plantations
5. CSS(S)
6. CSS©
7. DDF
8. DPA
9. Ecotourism (ZP)
10. FDA
11. GUA
12. JBIC
13. KFDF-03 other plantations
14. KSF
15. KSFMBC
16. NAP (FDA)
17. ROE (Compensatory Afforestation)
496
18. RSPD
19. SGRY
20. Twelfth Finance
Bhadravathi Division(T)
Plantations identified and evaluated under Plantations other than FDA:
Sl. Year Scheme Range Hobli Village SY.No Area % of
No in ha survival
1 04-05 ROE (Compn) Shanthi Sagar Nallur Yedehalli 25 15.00 85.60
2 04-05 03-OP-FDF Lakkavalli Lakkavalli Karkuchi 76 16.00 79.00
3 05-06 KSFMBC Channagiri Ubrani Thuppadahalli 105/106/107 30.00 89.40
4 06-07 KSFMBC Lakkavalli Lakkavalli Karkuchi 75/76 20.00 71.00
5 06-07 KSFMBC Shanthisagar Kudligere Bhadrapura 35 25.00 90.00
6 06-07 KSFMBC Tarikere Lingadahalli Attiganalu 120 87.00 91.15
7 06-07 12th Finance Ajjampura Shivane Bukkambudi 409 25.00 77.80
8 06-07 12th Finance Umblebyle Nadige Thotakere 39 25.00 92.00
Total 243.00 675.95
Avg 85.49
NB: 1. 2003-04 and 2007-08 Plantations are not subjected for evaluation as it was not the
mandate of the evaluation team.
2. Complete Plantation details including S.Y Number wise were not furnished by the
Divisional authorities.
3. Except Plantation details, no details pertaining to other works viz timber
extraction, soil conservation measures, fire line clearance, construction work and
such other works carried out in the division were furnished by the division.
4. During the visit even the APOs were not produced.
In this division list of plantations identified and sent by the CCF (Evaluation) for
Evaluation purpose were only taken up under the plantations other than FDA. Altogether 8
plantations were evaluated. Except this, the details of other plantations under the other schemes
are not known to the evaluation team as the APOs were not furnished for verification at the time
of visit to the division. In all 8 plantations covering 243.00 ha was evaluated for the purpose
keeping in view the guidelines issued. Further due to transfers of team members, team was not
able to visit some of the places in Ajjampura and Channagiri in the third round of visit.
Plantations identified and evaluated under FDA:
Sl. Year Scheme Range Hobli Village SY.No Area % of
No in ha survival
1 04-05 FDA-NR Tharikere Siddapura Siddapura 20.00 64.50
2 FDA-BMB Umblebyle Nidige Siddammaji Hosur 29 20.00 75.00
3 05-06 FDA-NR Tharikere Siddapura Siddapura 20.00 65.00
4 05-06 FDA-BMB Lakkavalli Lakkavalli Gopala 52 10.00 78.00
5 05-06 FDA-NR Bhadravathi Gangur Gangur 19 20.00 80.00
6 05-06 FDA-MP Bhadravathi Ukkunda Ukkunda 25.00 67.00
7 05-06 FDA-AR Umblebyle Umblebyle Ramanakoppa 20.00 80.00
8 06-07 FDA-ANR Umblebyle Umblebyle Lakkinakoppa 20.00 83.00
Total 155 592.5
Avg 74.04
Under FDA, plantations raised in Bhadravathi division as per the information furnished
are as under.
2004-05 21 works 350.00 ha
2005-06 17 works 350.00 ha
497
2006-07 15 works 300.00 ha
Total 53 works 1000.00 ha
Under FDA, 8 plantations out of 53 in an extent of 155.00 ha out of 1000.00 ha raised
over a period of 3 years in the jurisdiction of the Division covering all the ranges were evaluated
by the team by following the guidelines issued by the APCCF(EWPRT).
In order to assess the success of the plantations the following criteria was adopted by the
team.
1. 00-20% Classified as failure.
2. 20.10-40% Classified as poor.
3. 40.10-60% Classified as good.
4. 60.10-80% Classified as Very good.
5. 80.10-100% Classified as Excellent.
Abstract of the performance of the plantations in Bhadravathi Division
Plantations other than FDA Plantations under FDA
Survival Number of Percentage Survival Range in Number of Percentage
Range in % Plantations % Plantations
00-20 00 00 00-20 00 00
20.10-40 00 00 20.10-40 00 00
40.10-60 00 00 40.10-60 00 00
60.10-80 3 37.50 60.10-80 7 87.50
80.10-100 5 62.50 80.10-100 1 12.50
Total 100 Total 100
Average 85.49 Average 74.04
Species performance:
By and large following species found better in the order of priority both in qualitative and
quantitative parameters.
1. Acacia auriculiformis.
2. Pongamia pinnata.
3. Eucalyptus hybrid.
4. Tectona grandis.
5. Schizigium cuminii.
6. Basia latifolia.
N.B: Total of 9 samples from the list provided by the (T) division was selected but have
failed to show the spots to the evaluation team. In view of this the report pertaining to
RSPD is to be trated as nil.
Social Forestry Division Shimoga
Sl. Area in Survival
Year Scheme Range Hobli Village SY.No
No ha %
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 04-05 JBIC Shimoga Holehonur Tadasa 10.00 63.50
2 04-05 JBIC Sorab Kasaba Gangulli 121/107/1,1 2.00 90.00
26
3 04-05 SGRY Sagara Belur 7.00 94.60
4 05-06 KSFMBC Shikaripura Anjanapura Nandihalli 33/1,32,15,1 10.00 15.12
02,32/2
5 05-06 KSF Hosanagar Kasaba Koduru/Ammana 77 6.00 95.00
ghatta
6 05-06 KSF Sagar Kasaba Keladi/Hallibylu 24.00 86.87
7 05-06 KSF Sagara Anandpuram Nadamanchale/ 45 24.00 89.05
Bramhamanchale
498
8 05-06 KSF Shimoga Mandagadde Salur/ Hosakodu 155/133 15.00 95.00
/155
9 05-06 SGRY Hosanagara Kasaba Ramachandramat 4.00 73.00
h/Jayabagara
10 05-06 SGRY Sagara Hosagadde 2.00 64.80
11 06-07 KSFMBC Shimoga Ayanur Ayanur/ 23,97, 7.00 00.00
Channalli/ 119 (Not
Yalavalli shown)
12 06-07 SGRY Sagara Kasaba Nadakalasi 6 10.00 62.00
13 06-07 SGRY Shimoga Shimoga Abbalagere 5.00 00.00
(Not
shown)
14 06-07 SGRY Shimoga Bobli School 99 6.45 95.00
923.94
120.45 77.00
Abstract of the performance of the plantations in SF Division, Shimoga

Plantations RSPD
Survival Range in Number of Percentage Survival Range in Number of Percentage
% Plantations % Plantations
00-20 1 8.33 00-20 00
20.10-40 00 00 20.10-40 00
40.10-60 00 00 40.10-60 00
60.10-80 4 33.33 60.10-80 7
80.10-100 7 58.33 80.10-100 1
Total 99.99 Total
Average 77.00 Average
Samples identified under Raising of seedlings for public distribution for evaluation in
Sagar Division’s Jurisdiction
Sl. SY.
Year Scheme Range Hobli Village No Distrd Survival %
No No
1 04-05 RSPD Shikaripura Hosur Balekoppa 1140 75.00
2 04-05 RSPD Shikaripura Kasaba Chikkapura 800
3 04-05 RSPD Shikaripura Talagunda Javagatti 145
4 04-05 RSPD Shikaripura Udagani Tadagani 330 75.00
5 04-05 RSPD Sagar Talguppa Hiremane 600 Not shown
6 04-05 RSPD Shimoga Haranhalli Harnahalli 15000
7 04-05 RSPD Shimoga Kumsi Mallapura 20000
8 04-05 RSPD Shimoga Holalur Holalur 15000
9 04-05 RSPD Shimoga Kasaba Purdal 10000
10 05-06 RSPD Shikaripura Udagani Nagehalli 996 90.00
11 05-06 RSPD Shikaripura Anjanapura Gaama 106 77.50
12 05-06 RSPD Shikaripura Hosur Hosur 1500
13 05-06 RSPD Soraba Kasaba Devathikoppa 100 81.00
14 05-06 RSPD Soraba Ulavi Kanalli 250
15 05-06 RSPD Soraba Anavatti Thattur 250
16 05-06 RSPD Soraba Ulavi Chittur 1000
17 05-06 RSPD Soraba Jade Bommanahalli 100
18 05-06 RSPD Hosanagar Hosuru Hebylu 170
19 05-06 RSPD Sagar Talguppa Shakthikere 3100
20 05-06 RSPD Sagar Kasaba GP Kandika 2000
21 05-06 RSPD Shimoga Haranhalli Ramanagar 22000
22 05-06 RSPD Shimoga Kumsi Kongavalli 13000
23 05-06 RSPD Shimoga Holalur Harumaghatta 24000
24 05-06 RSPD Shimoga Kasaba Hosahalli 8000
499
25 06-07 RSPD Soraba Ulavi Hilagodu 400
26 06-07 RSPD Soraba Anavatti Thoravanda 2050
27 06-07 RSPD Shikaripura Kasaba Hirejambur 500
28 06-07 RSPD Soraba Kasaba Nadahalli 300
29 06-07 RSPD Hosanagar Kasaba RFO Nagara 25000
30 06-07 RSPD Sagar Kasaba Mandgalale 550
31 06-07 RSPD(T) Sagar Kasaba Avinahalli 1060
32 06-07 RSPD Anandpuram Kasaba Konesara 250
33 06-07 RSPD Shimoga Holalur Kommanalu 4000
34 06-07 RSPD Sagar Hosagadde 3000 64.80
35 06-07 RSPD Shimoga Kasaba Gajanur 3000
36 06-07 RSPD(T) Shiralkoppa Kanasogi 1000 90.60
37 06-07 RSPD(T) Anavatti Anavatti 1150
38 06-07 RSPD Hosanagar Nagara Kilandur 10000
(T)
39 06-07 RSPD(T) Soraba Soraba 200
40 06-07 RSPD Shikaripura Kasaba Kotta 250 68.00
41 06-07 RSPD Shikaripura Anjanapura Salur 43 94.00
42 06-07 RSPD Shikaripura Hosur Maravalli 370 98.30
43 06-07 RSPD Shikaripura Udagani Ambaragoppa 100
Sample plantations identified and evaluated in Wildlife Division Shimoga

Sl.
Year Scheme Range Hobli Village SY.No Area in ha
No
1 06-07 KSFMBC Kargal WL Karur Kanchikal 50 8.00
2 06-07 KSFMBC Hanagere WL Shimoga Chinmane 37 2.00
3 06-07 KSFMBC Shimoga WL Shimoga Purdalu 126 3.00
4 06-07 KSFMBC Sacrebyle WL Nidige Basavapura/Sacrebyle 3 3.00
Samples of other works identified and evaluated in Shimoga Wild life Division
Sl.
Year Scheme Range Hobli Village Work Extent Quality
No
1 04-05 CSS© Shimoga WL Kasaba Aldevarahosur CD 1 No
2 04-05 CSS (S) Shimoga WL Thirthahalli Pandavapura CD 1 No
3 04-05 CSS © Sacrebyle WL Nadige Aihole/ Clearing of 36 Km
Sacrebyle etc Firelines
4 04-05 CSS(S) Sacrebyle WL Nadige Sacrebyle SF Clearing of D line 30 Km
5 04-05 01-Timber Hanagere WL Siregere Water supply Staff
Haranahalli works quarters
6 04-05 CSS-IFP Hanagere WL Haranahalli Sirigere Formation of new 22.5 Km
firelines
7 04-05 01-Timber Kargal WL Barangi Kargal Repairs to One
ACF/RFOs Office building
Building
8 04-05 CSS© Sagar WL Barangi Muppani Construction of One No
New tank
9 04-05 CSS© Sharavathi WL Sagar Kattinkaru Formation of Salt
licks
10 05-06 CSS© Shimoga WL Kasaba Anupinakatte Formation of New 4 km
MF Firelines
11 05-06 12th Shimoga WL Kasaba Narasipura Maintenance of 7.5 km
Finance tank to Forest Rd
Manjarikoppa
12 05-06 DPA Hanagere WL Kumsi Chowdikatte Formation of 5.34 km
trekking path
13 05-06 12th Thirthhalli Kerehalli Kudi SF Construction of One no
500
Finance Gully checks 46.346*2
m3
14 05-06 DPA Shimoga Nidige Hulihalla Construction of One No
CD
15 05-06 KSFMBC Shimoga Nidige Sacrebyle Construction of 8 No
Water holes
16 05-06 DPA Shimoga Nidige Sacrebyle Construction of
Toilet Rooms
17 05-06 CSS© Kargal WL Sagar Muppani SF Construction of 89.18m3
Gully Checks
18 05-06 DPA Kargal WL Sagar Muppani NC Construction of 1 NO
Watch Tower
19 05-06 KSFMBC Sharavathi WL Barangi Hogewadi B-I Excavation of CPT 1 km
20 05-06 CSS© Sharavathi WL Barangi Kannapagaru Excavationof CPT 1.5 km
21 06-07 KSFMBC Shimoga WL Kasaba Anesara Formation of water 126*3m3
holes
22 06-07 CSS© Shimoga WL Kasaba Purdalu SF Soil working to 3600 No
Bamboo clumps
23 06-07 CSS© Hanagere WL Kerehalli Kudi SF/ Formation of 126.25m
Harohitlu SF/ Water holes 3 *12 No
Hanagere SF
24 06-07 CSS-IFP Sacrebyle WL Nadige Balppanahalla Formation of New 8 km
firelines
25 06-07 CSS© Sacrebyle WL Nadige Sacrebyle SF Maintenance of 20 km
Game Road
26 06-07 DPA Sacrebyle WL Nadige Sacrebyle SF Constn of Pipe 1 No
culvert
Doddkalkerehalla
27 06-07 CSS© Kargal WL Chandragut Gudavi Formation of new 2 km
ti Rd
28 06-07 CSS© Kargal WL Barangi Muppani/Arala Clearance of D 46.00 km
godu line
29 06-07 Wet land Kargal WL Chandragut Gudavi Revetment to Tank 349sqm
Devpt ti Bund
30 06-07 CSS© Sharavathi WL Barangi Karini SF Constn of Gully 113.12m
checks at Ulukodu 3
jeddu
31 06-07 DPA Sharavathi WL Barangi Thotaduru to Trecking path 9.25km
Dabbe falls
Range Year
2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 Total
Shimoga WL Range 16 19 17 52
Hanagere WL Range 13 22 17 52
Sacrebyle Range 32 27 28 87
Kargal WL Range 35 46 26 117
Sharavathi WL Range 18 37 19 74
Total 114 151 107 372
Sagar (T)DivisionPlantations identified and evaluated
Sl. Area in
No ha
1 04-05 KFDF-03-op Anavatti Jade Shanuvalli/Talagad 18 10.00
de MF
2 04-05 KFDF-03-op Soraba Chandragutti Nyarsi 26/65 20.00
3 04-05 Compensatory Shikaripura Anjanapura Shidiginahal 1 10.00
4 05-06 11-FP Sagar Avinahalli Kalmane 100 7.00
5 05-06 11-FP Anandpuram Anandpuram Tuppur 31 5.00
501
6 05-06 11-FP Anavatti Kerachalli Tyavagodu MF/ 40 15.00
Bilvagodu
7 05-06 11-FP Shiralkoppa Hosuru Huluginakoppa 73 18.00
8 05-06 DDF Hosanagar Kasaba Masagalli 5 10.00
9 06-07 11-FP Nagar Nagar Hosanadu 239 10.00
10 06-07 11-FP Kargal Karur Kudurur 428 30.00
11 06-07 KSFMBC Sagar Avinahalli Athvadi 273 36/62/
72
12 06-07 12th Finance Anavatti Anavatti Tallur 273 20.00
13 06-07 12th Finance Sorab Ulavi Chimnur 10.00
14 06-07 12th Finance Anandpuram Anandpuram Aluvalli 13 10.00
15 06-07 12th Finance Shiralkoppa Ulavi Induvalli 1 5.00
16 06-07 12th Finance Hosanagar Kasaba Battamallappa 31 6.00
FDA plantations in Sagar (T) division

Sl. Area % of
No in ha survival
1 04-05 FDA-RPHS Sagar Talagoppa Maradvalli 4 10-00 70.00
2 04-05 FDA-AR Sagar Talagoppa Hirenellur 285 06-00 75.00
3 04-05 FDA-AR Sagar Talagoppa Bellenne 72 06-00 95.00
4 04-05 FDA-SP Kargal Shimale 08-00
5 04-05 FDA-ANR Anandpuram Anandpuram Tavarehalli 44 13-00 50.00
6 04-05 FDA-RPHS Soraba Ulavi Kanalli 28 10-00 70.00
7 04-05 FDA-MFP Soraba Kasaba Tavarehalli 25 05-00 70.00
8 04-05 FDA-ANR Soraba Chandragutti Hechhe 306 05-00 00.00
9 04-05 FDA-SP Anavatti Kuppagadde Negavadi 258 05-00 42.30
10 04-05 FDA-RPHS Shikarpur Anjanapur Sidaginhal 1 10-00 85.00
11 04-05 FDA-MFP Shikaripur Udagani Basapur 3 05-00 97.60
12 04-05 FDA-Bamboo Shiralkoppa Ulavi Kavadi 74 to 78 20-00 30.00
13 04-05 FDA-AR Shiralkoppa Udagani Kuskur 75 10-00 93.30
14 04-05 FDA-RP Ambligola Kasaba Mallapur 9 & 13 05-00 80.00
15 04-05 FDA-SP Anavatti Jade Putnalli 05-00 32.43
16 04-05 FDA-Cane Hosanagar Kerahalli Mumbaru 18 10-00 50.00
17 04-05 FDA-MPF Hosanagar Hansagaru 05-00
18 04-05 FDA-ANR Nagar Andagadudur 05-00 20.00
19 04-05 FDA-RPHS Shikaripur Udagani Kuttralli 91 05-00 77.70
20 04-05 FDA-Bamboo Ambligol Kasaba Muduba 29 05-00 80.00
Siddapur
21 04-05 FDA-MPF Ambligol Kasaba Hotanakatte 72 10-00 70.00
22 05-06 FDA-RPHS Sagar Kasaba Kaangodu 12-50 90.00
23 05-06 FDA-SP Kargal Brahmmana 10-00 18.00
keppige
24 05-06 FDA-MPF Kargal S. Shanubhog 10-00 58.75
25 05-06 FDA-Bmboo Choradi Anandpura Aadur 54 10-00 50.00
26 05-06 FDA-MPF Anavatti Kuppagadde Kuppagadde 306 06-00 66.60
27 05-06 FDA-SP Anavatti Kuppagadde Negavadi 258 05-00 73.75
28 05-06 FDA-AR Shikaripur Anjanapur Harokoppa/ 1 05-00 00.00
Sidiginhalli
29 05-06 FDA-Bamboo Shikaripur Maravalli 61 05-00 66.60
30 05-06 FDA-AR Shiralkoppa Ulavi Kavadi 15 05-00 93.00
31 05-06 FDA-NPF Shiralkoppa Kasaba Gerukoppa 49 05-00 03.10
32 05-06 FDA-Cane Nagara Sulagodu 10-00 75.00
33 05-06 FDA-Cane Nagara Brahmanvada 10-00 62.50
34 05-06 FDA-Bamboo Hosanagar Haniya 05-00 00.00
502
35 05-06 FDA-RPHS Hosanagar Kerahalli Haratalu 27 05-00 75.00
36 05-06 FDA-RPHS Soraba Chandragutti Hechhe 100 10-00 79.00
37 06-07 FDA-MPF Sagara Kasaba Kanugodu 45 25-00 80.00
38 06-07 FDA-RPHS Kargal B.Keppige 15-00 46.00
39 06-07 FDA-AR Soraba Ulavi Kanalli 34 10-00 67.00
40 06-07 FDA-ANR Shikaripura Udugani Tumarihosur 3&4 15-00 82.00

/Basapur
41 06-07 FDA-ANR Hosanagar Kerahalli Mumbaru 3 25-00 50.00
42 06-07 FDA-Cane Nagara Nidagodu 08-00 80.00
43 06-07 FDA-SP Nagara Andagadudur 07-00 30.00
Other works identified and evaluated
Sl.
Year Scheme Range Hobli Village Works Extent
No
1 04-05 FDF-03-Other Soraba Ulavi Patresalu CPT 2552m3
plantations Excavation
2 04-05 01-Commu & Sagar Kasaba Sagar Spl repairs to One
Buildings Q-20
3 04-05 01-Timber-139 Shimoga Kumsi Koragi Extrn of Big 10000
Major works Bamboo in No
anandapuram
4 04-05 11-FP Regn and Sagar Kasaba Sagar Formation of 70.00
Cultural New Firelines Km
operation
5 04-05 FDF-03 other Hosanagar Kasaba Varakodu Procurement of
plantations ingredients to
Chandanavana
6 05-06 01-Timber-139 Sorab Chandragutti Chandragut Extrn of wind 85m3
Major works ti fallen trees in
Karjikoppa
coupe &
transport to
GTD Sagar
7 05-06 01-Timber-139 Hosanagar Nagar Masthikatte Extrn of Fire 75m3
Major works wood
8 05-06 KSFMBC Shikaripura Talgunda Muthige SMC works 72m3
In Sy No44/45
9 05-06 11-FP Regn and Sorab Kasaba Sorab Formation of D 30 km
Cultural Range lines
operation
10 05-06 01-Timber-139 Sorab Ulavi Karjikoppa Extrn of timber 225m3
Major works from 1976 Teak timber
plantn 200m3
Fire
wood
11 05-06 01-Timber-139 Sagar Barangi Talakalale Extrn of timber 13m3
Major works from 1984
503
Talakalale
plantn
12 05-06 01-Timber-139 Hosanagar Humcha Kolagi Spl repairs to
Major works staff qtrs at
Kolagi
13 05-06 01-Timber-139 Sorab Kasaba Kondagalal Sy no 58 of 200m3
Major works e/Kolisalpu kondgalale and
ra/ 38 of
Revenue kolisalpura and
lands 1 of Kuppe
14 05-06 01-Timber-139 Sorab Jade Jade Repairs of twin
Major works Quarter at jade
15 05-06 CSS-IFP Hosanagar Kasaba Hosanagar Formation of 7.5km
new Firelines 33 km
16 05-06 11-FP-Regn & Sagar Kasaba Sagar Formation of 5 km
Co New fielines
17 05-06 CSS IFP Shikaripura Ambligola Ambligola Const of Front One
line staff Qtrs at
Nuligere
18 06-07 01-Timber-139 Sorab Anavatti Anvatti Transportation 52-
Major works of Foc timber 21m3
19 06-07 11-FP-Compen Sorab Kuppagadde Bettadakurl Excavationof 2281.25
Affon-139 i CPT m3
Major works
20 06-07 01-Timber-139 Shikaripura Kasaba Shikaripura Extrn of green 5990
Major works Bamboo In No
Horogoppa sec
21 06-07 KSFMBC Hosanagar Kerehalli K.Hunsaval SMC works 2067m3
li
22 06-07 01-Timber-139 Sagar Avinahalli Avinahalli Extraction of 200m3
Major works Eucalyptus
timber in SF
Block XVI
23 06-07 11-FP-Regn & Sorab Kuppagadde Talgadde Excavation of 1218.75
CO CPT 976rmt m3
24 06-07 KSFMBC Hosanagar Nagar Hilakunji SMC works Rouble
checks
25 06-07 11-FP-Compen Sorab Chandragutti Chandragut CPT works 1475rmt
Affon-139 ti (1843.7
Major works 5m3)
26 06-07 KSFMBC Sorab Jade Talgadde Excavation of 391tr
Staggered (1329.4
trenches 0m3)
27 06-07 KSFMBC Sorab Chandragutti Chikkalago Excavation of 500tr
du Staggered (1700m
trenches 3)
28 06-07 147-Land & Shikaripura udagani Shiralkopp Construction of
Buildings a RFO’s Office
Building
2004-05 94 works
2005-06 217 works
2006-07 200 works
504
Raising seedlings for Public Distribution in Sagar (T)Division
Sl. No of Survival
No seedliings %
1 06-07 RSPD Hosanagar Haniya 300
2 06-07 RSPD Shikaripura Neralgi 500
3 06-07 RSPD Anandpuram Chordi 300
4 06-07 RSPD Sagar Avinahalli 1060
5 06-07 RSPD Shiralkoppa Kanasogi 1000
6 06-07 RSPD Nagara Kilandur 10,000
7 06-07 RSPD Sorab Sorab 200
Sample plantations identified and evaluated in Shimoga(T) Division

Sl. Area in
No ha
1 04-05 COP Shankar Basavapura 2 5.00
2 04-05 KFDF-3 OP Agumbe Chommadabyle SF 99 25.00
3 04-05 KFDF-3 OP Mandgadde Beguvalli 118 20.00
4 04-05 KFDF-3 OP Shankar Kyathinkopa Kyathinakoppa 36 30.00
5 04-05 GUA Shankar Bommanakatte Bommanakatte RD 5.00
6 05-06 CO Thirthahalli Danasale 41 20.00
7 05-06 GUA Shankar Sharavathinagar Rd side 4.50
8 05-06 GUA Shankar Vivekanand Rd side 2.00
colony
9 05-06 KSFMBC Mandgadde Kannangi 47 80.00
10 05-06 KFDF-3 OP Ayanur Kasavinakatte Kumsi SF 38 20.00
11 05-06 KFDF-3 OP Ripponpet Arasalu SF 28. 30.00
12 05-06 KFDF-3 OP Ripponpet Huligadde 59 15.00
13 05-06 KFDF-3 OP Mandgadde Ubbur 80 10.00
14 05-06 KFDF-3 OP Agumbe Thallur 64 15.00
15 05-06 KFDF-3 OP Thirthahalli Shankarapura 162 20.00
16 06-07 Compen Affn Agumbe Lakkunda 32/38 15.00
17 06-07 KSFMBC Ayanur Sudur SF 40.00
18 06-07 KSFMBC Ripponpet Baruve 12 50.00
19 06-07 12th Finance Ayanur Kumsi 7 20.00
20 06-07 12th Finance Mandagadde JogikoppaMF 80 15.00
21 06-07 12th Finance Agumbe Megaravalli 48 10.00
22 06-07 12th Finance Thirthahalli Aralimatha 115 10.00
Other works identified and evaluated in Shimoga (T) Division

Sl.
Year Scheme Range Hobli Village Works
No
1 04-05 01-Timber Hosanagar Ripponpet Arasalu Logging
2 05-06 1-Timber Thirthahalli Agumbe Megaravalli plantn Thinning
3 05-06 KSFMBC Thirthahalli Agumbe Elimane SMC works M-1
4 05-06 KSFMBC Thirthahalli Agumbe Shirur SMC works M-4
5 05-06 KSFMBC Thirthahalli Ayanur Hittur SMC works M-4
6 06-07 KSFMBC Thirthahalli Kasaba Babli Inchvallu SMC works M-4
7 06-07 KSFMBC Thirthahalli Kasaba Karadiga SMC works M-5
8 06-07 KSFMBC Hosanagar Ripponpet Baruve SMC works M-4
9 06-07 KSFMBC Hosanagar Ripponpet Benevalli SMC works M-3
10 06-07 12th Finance Hosanagar Ripponpet Balur SMC works
11 06-07 KSFMBC Shimoga Ayanur Vitagondanakoppa SMC works M-3
Gollarakoppa
Kesavinakatte
505
12 06-07 KSFMBC Shimoga Ayanur Hittur SMC works M-3
Galigekola
Madenkoppa
13 06-07 KSFMBC Shimoga Ayanur Hittur/Narayanapura SMC works M-5
Lakkinakoppa
14 06-07 KSFMBC Shimoga Ayanur Konagavalli/Yerekopp SMC works M-3
a/Sidlipura/Tyajavalli
15 06-07 COP Shimoga Ayanur Kempinakoppa SMC works
16 06-07 KSFMBC Shimoga Shankar Beeranakere SMC works M-3
17 06-07 KSFMBC Thirthahalli Mandagadde Hosagaddekere SMC works M-5
18 06-07 KSFMBC Thirthahalli Agumbe Shirur/Honnetale SMC works M-3
19 06-07 KSFMBC Thirthahalli Agumbe Arehalli SMC works M-5
Total works of 256 o which 19 works are selected and evaluated.

List of FDA Plantations in Shimoga (T) Division
Sl. SY. Survival
Year Scheme Range Hobli Village Area in ha
No No %
1 04-05 FDA-ANR Ripponpet Muguthi 5 15.00
2 04-05 FDA-ANR Shankar Holalur Kyathinakoppa 36 30.00 75.00
3 04-05 FDA-AR Mandagadde Lingapura 15.00
4 04-05 FDA-Cane Thirthahalli Salur Salur 25.00
5 04-05 FDA-Cane Agumbe Balehalli Balehalli 94 10.00
6 04-05 FDA-MFP Ripponpet Amrutha Amrutha 57 15.00
7 04-05 FDA-MFP Ripponpet Aklapura Aklapura 55 10.00
8 05-06 FDA-ANR Thirthahalli Hodla Hodla 212 20.00 63.37
9 05-06 FDA-ANR Ripponpet Anavalli 15 25.00
10 05-06 FDA-ANR Shankar Holalur Kyathinakoppa 36 25.00 75.00
11 05-06 FDA-AR Mandgadde Manikoppa Manikoppa 10 20.00
12 05-06 FDA-MFP Thirthahalli Haralimatha Haralimath 15 10.00
13 06-07 FDA-ANR Ayanur Kongavalli Kongavalli 58,85 15.00 32.50
14 06-07 FDA-ANR Mandgadde Mrugavade Mrugavade 24 10.00
15 04-05 FDA-ANR Thirtahalli Muttur Haralimath 115 20-00 55.47
16 04-05 FDA-ANR Shankar Holalur Kyathinakoppa 36 30-00 75.00
17 04-05 FDA-ANR Ayanur Ayanur Richikoppa 32 50-00 57.50
18 04-05 FDA-Cane Thirtahalli Salur 42 40-00
19 04-05 FDA-Cane Mandagadde Mrugavade 24 25-00 00.00
20 04-05 FDA-ANR Rippanpete Amrutha 55 10-00 50.00
21 04-05 FDA-ANR Rippanpete Akalapur 29 25-00 60.00
22 05-06 FDA-ANR Rippanpete Muguti 5 20-00 80.00
23 05-06 FDA-ANR Shankar Holalur Kyatinakoppa 36 30-00 75.00
24 05-06 FDA-ANR Agumbe Nantur 56 10-00 40.00
25 05-06 FDA-AR Shankar Holalur Badarhosahalli 65 15-00 00.00
26 05-06 FDA-Cane Agumbe Balehalli 94 10-00 80.00
27 05-06 FDA-MFP Thirtahalli Muttur Haralimath 15 10-00 62.16
28 06-07 FDA-ANR Rippanpete Kerahalli Malavalli 19 10-00 80.00
29 06-07 FDA-ANR Mandagadde Mrugavade 24 10-00 85.16
30 06-07 FDA-Cane Agumbe Thallur 49 15-00 65.00
Additional list of FDA plantations of WL , Shimoga:

Sl. Area % of
No in ha survival
1 06-07 FDA-AR Kargal WL Karuru Maratikeri 11-00
2 06-07 FDA-AR Kargal WL Karuru Karumane 10-00
3 06-07 FDA-ANR Kargal WL Karuru Karumane 40-00 10.00
4 06-07 FDA-AR Kargal WL Karuru Aralgudu/ 08-00
Mandavalli
506
5 06-07 FDA-ANR Kogar WL Barangi Kattinkaru 16-50
6 06-07 FDA-AR Kogar WL Barangi Kattinkaru 10-00
7 06-07 FDA-Mixed Kogar WL Barangi Kattinkaru 05-00 61.81
8 06-07 FDA-SP Kogar WL Barangi Kattinkaru 08-00
9 06-07 FDA-ANR Kogar WL Barangi Nagavalli 16-50
10 06-07 FDA-AR Kogar WL Barangi Nagavalli 10-00
11 06-07 FDA-Mixed Kogar WL Barangi Nagavalli 05-00 70.00
12 06-07 FDA-Cane Kogar WL Barangi Nagavalli 05-00
13 06-07 FDA-ANR Kogar WL Barangi Banukuli 16-50
14 06-07 FDA-AR Kogar WL Barangi Banukuli 10-00
15 06-07 FDA-Mixed Kogar WL Barangi Banukuli 05-00
16 06-07 FDA-ANR Sacrebyle WL Mandagadde Kedagi 35 10-00
17 06-07 FDA-AR Sacrebyle WL Mandagadde Talale 13 05-00 96.49
18 06-07 FDA-AR Sacrebyle WL Nidige Sacrebyle 2 05-00
Observations:
¾ Funds not received in times especially under FDA scheme.
¾ Cost norms provided under FDA are insufficient.
¾ Model prescriptions are not result oriented.
¾ Mandatory provisions of seedlings number results in failure of plantations especially
in case of Bamboo Model. The same is also true in mixed plantations model.
¾ During field inspections it was observed the number of seedlings planted in the
respective survey numbers was much more than the seedlings number recorded in the
distribution register by the department. This might be due to repeated planting in the
successive years or the farmers might have procured seedlings from different sources.
¾ Some of the plantations raised are in meager extents ie., less than 5-00 ha. which is un
economical.
¾ Monoculture practice is the common trend observed in the entire Circle.
¾ CPT has been excavated as an alternative to SMC works in many of the plantations.
¾ SMC works carried out in the adjoining areas instead of carrying out in the same
plantation area.
¾ Earth work and SMC works carried out with machinery and equipments which render
the local community jobless. Further areas inaccessible to machinery and equipment
remain untreated which defeats the Water Shed Management concept envisaged for
holistic development of the treated areas.
¾ Seedlings raised for public distribution on adhoc basis resulted in wastage of
seedlings resource.
¾ Differential rates of subsidy for selling of seedlings is prevalent in different
departments. This policy discourages farmers from utilizing the seedling resource to
the fullest extent.
¾ Grassy blanks are brought under afforestation.
¾ Salt licks have been formed beyond tourism zone.
¾ Generally it is observed that the species viz., Vetteria Indica, Pongemia pinnata, G.
Arborea , S. cuminnia, B. lattifolia.
¾ In the plantation programs, planting material used in the circle is generally traditional
type and the source is not known. This though helpful in maintenance of bio-
diversity but from the productive point of view it is not useful.
¾ The drastic reduction in allocation for school forestry / vanamahotsava has resulted in
non participation of both public and school authorities in such programs.
507
¾ Plantations raised under Canopy cover are generally a failure. Even if they survive
the seedlings remain lean and lanky.
¾ Certain plantations have been provided with partial fencing.
¾ Generally plantations are not surveyed in about 50% of the plantations. Even if they
are surveyed sketches are not prepared. Even if the sketches are prepared they are
incomplete in some cases.
¾ Most of the plantation journals are remarked by the inspecting authorities.
¾ Timber extraction procedures though are clearly spelt out in the manual are not
adhere to by the field staff.
¾ Generally estimates are split in two or more than two which is against the codal
provision.
¾ Estimates prepared especially regarding firelines clearance, D line maintenance, SMC
works etc., are invariably clubbed together in the same estimates.
Recommendations:
¾ Under ANR model planting of seedlings needs to be scrapped.
¾ Rigid protection only needs to be encouraged. If quality bamboo plantations to be
raised from the economical point of view seedlings in bigger size bags with well
developed rhyzome should be utilized for planting.
¾ In the high rainfall zone/ evergreen areas where Cane plantations are taken up, in
such areas authority should resort to digging of shallow trenches around the
plantation area to demarcate it instead of erecting barbed wire fencing or brushwood
fencing which is expensive proposition and utilize the savings for raising the
plantation more area from the same amount from the development point.
¾ Cane model to be encouraged but planting of minimum 2 year old seedlings should be
made mandatory.
¾ Digging of Contour trenches as SMC measures in high rainfall zone should be
discouraged. If SMC to be done pick ups to be constructed or vegetative measures to
be given importance.
¾ Minimum extent of plantation should be 20-00 ha which otherwise it is not
economical.
¾ Monoculture practice which is prevalent in the Circle needs to be given up and the
staff should be encouraged to go for misc., species from the bio-diversity point of
view.
¾ For misc., plantations 5 years maintenance should be made mandatory for achieving
better results.
¾ The practice of excavating CPT in the name of SMC works needs to be reviewed.
¾ Execution of SMC works in the adjoining areas instead of plantations to be
discouraged as it leads to confusion.
¾ The treatment of area should be starting from ridge to valley to achieve the objective
of holistic development of Water Shed areas.
¾ In order to overcome the seedlings wastage raised on on adhoc basis, a demand
survey in a realistic manner needs to be carried out in advance in the month of June-
July.
¾ Uniform rates of subsidy to be introduced by the Govt., irrespective of the
departments so that the farmers do not get confused and try to meet their demands by
meeting the convenient departments.
508
¾ Govt. should introduce the uniform policy fixing the uniform price for the seedlings
or seedlings should be fully priced.
¾ Grassy blanks are the cliamatic climaxes and they form important habitat for several
of the fauna. Hence, they should be retained to encourage diversity of fauna.
¾ Salt licks shall be encouraged only in tourism zone providing salt licks beyond
tourism zone is wasteful exercise as the animals can thrive on naturally available salt
sources.
¾ Firelines, viewlines and D lines should be evaluated on an annual basis. Whenever
the time demands such works should be inspected by the evaluation wing
periodically. And this exercise should not become part of evaluation conducted after
lapse of considerable period.
¾ Use of quality planting material should be made mandatory for maximum
productivity. Especially species viz., Acacia Hybrid, Eucalyptus species resistant to
Galls and Termites at the juvenile stage should be given importance. To encourage
this department should go for production of cloned seedlings. This would certainly
motivate private entrepreneurs to switch over to forestry crop in the farm lands.
¾ Adequate allocations be earmarked for activities involving the general public and
students to create awareness through programs of mass scale afforestation of public
lands through programs like Vanamahotsava.
¾ Raising of plantations under Canopy cover should discouraged unless they are shade
tolerant. The authorities may decide to go for raising medicinal plants which are
harbetious in nature and which are shade tolerant.
¾ The practice of providing partial fencing needs to be discouraged as the partial
fencing provided do not provide effective protection to the plantations.
¾ Treating the forest areas by following the principles of Watershed concepts be made
mandatory.
¾ Field staff should be directed to survey the plantations and prepare the survey sketch
without fail and produce it at the time of evaluation to the authorities concerned.
¾ Maintenance of Plantation Journals though made mandatory are not being maintained
in complete respect by the field staff which should be enforced.
¾ Procedures laid down in the Forest Manual for extraction of timber/poles / bamboo
etc., should be scrupulously followed by the field staff.
¾ Directions should be given to the field staff to not split the estimates.
¾ Clubbing of different works for taking sanction should be avoided especially in Wild
life wings.
Bhadravati Division:
Observations:
economical.
¾ Monoculture practice is the common trend observed in this division.
509
¾ In the plantation programs, planting material used in the division is generally
traditional type and the source is not known. This though helpful in maintenance of
bio-diversity but from the productive point of view it is not useful.
Recommendations:
¾ Monoculture practice which is prevalent in the division needs to be given up and the
view.
better results.
mandatory.
Social Forestry Division Shimoga:
Observations:
economical.
¾ Monoculture practice is the common trend observed in this division.
510
Recommendations:
¾ Monoculture practice which is prevalent in the division needs to be given up and the
view.
better results.
mandatory.
Shimoga Division:
Observations:
economical.
¾ Monoculture practice is the common trend observed in the entire .
511
plantation area.
seedlings resource.
the fullest extent.
provision.
Recommendations:
made mandatory.
512
economical.
¾ Monoculture practice which is prevalent in the Division needs to be given up and the
view.
better results.
July.
mandatory.
¾
513
Sagar Division:
Observations:
economical.
¾ Monoculture practice is the common trend observed in the entire .
plantation area.
seedlings resource.
the fullest extent.
provision.
514
Recommendations:
made mandatory.
economical.
¾ Monoculture practice which is prevalent in the Division needs to be given up and the
view.
better results.
July.
515
mandatory.
Shimoga WL Division:
Observations:
economical.
¾ Monoculture practice is the common trend observed in the entire Circle.
plantation area.
¾ Grassy blanks are brought under afforestation.
¾ Salt licks have been formed beyond tourism zone.
provision.
Recommendations:
economical.
516
better results.
¾ Grassy blanks are the cliamatic climaxes and they form important habitat for several
of the fauna. Hence, they should be retained to encourage diversity of fauna.
¾ Salt licks shall be encouraged only in tourism zone providing salt licks beyond
tourism zone is wasteful exercise as the animals can thrive on naturally available salt
sources.
students to create awareness through programs of mass scale for conservation of bio-
diversity and protection of wild life.
mandatory.
¾ Clubbing of different works for taking sanction should be avoided.
517
Annexure- XIV-Detailed Circle Report
8.14 FIELD DIRECTOR – PROJECT TIGER- MYSORE

Hunsur Wildlife Division:
Out of various works carried out by Hunsur Wildlife Division during 2004-2007, 41
works were selected randomly and evaluated by the team. Works like fire line clearance, View
line clearance were not selected as these works can not be evaluated at this point of time. The
Hunsur Wildlife Division has Anechowkur, Veeranahosahalli, Antarasanthe, D.B.Koppe,
Metikoppe, Kalahalla, Nagarahole ranges in it’s jurisdiction. The division consists of Rajiv
Gandhi National park, which is a famous Project Tiger area and a National park, rich in Wildlife.
The evaluation team for FDPT-Mysore is as hereunder:
List of works evaluated with comments:
S. Cost
Year scheme Range Village/Beat Nature of Work remarks
No (Rs)
Construction of 30
1 2004-05 CSS-PT Veeranahosalli Thuppadakola tribal houses 1140000 Good work
Repair of quarters of
2 2004-05 CSS-PT Veeranahosalli kalkunike RFO, IEDP 41000 Good work
Project- Construction of tank
3 2004-05 Elephant Veeranahosalli Veeranahosalli bund at yerehalla 100000 Good work
4 2004-05 CSS-PT Veeranahosalli Veeranahosalli Improvement to Tank 100000 Good work

Construction of
Compound wall to
5 2004-05 IEDP Veeranahosalli madahally samudaya bhavana 37500 Good work
6 2006-07 CSS-PT Veeranahosalli Thuppadakola Borewell 46900 Good work
Good land
ploughing at development
7 2006-07 CSS-PT Veeranahosalli Thuppadakola Nagapura tribal area. 192840 was carried out
8 2006-07 CSS-PT Veeranahosalli Thuppadakola land 84000 Good work
Restoration of EPT.
Thittimathi
highschool to
Project- Konannkatte coffee
9 2004-05 Elephant Anechoukur Nokya estate. 70000 Good work
Is not working
at present.
Needs
10 2004-05 IEDP Anechoukur Solar power fence 81961 maintenance
Can not be
evaluated now.
Tank is full of
11 2004-05 CSS-PT Anechoukur Anechoukur Tank 118039 water now
Project-
12 2004-05 Elephant Anechoukur Anechoukur APC shed 64944 Good work
Annual maintenance Can not be
13 2005-06 DPA Anechoukur Anechoukur of forest Quarters 10120 evaluated now
518
Restoration of EPT-
Kachivanahalli In good
14 2006-07 NC-WL Anechoukur Anechoukur section 93804 condition
It is not
working.
Needs
15 2006-07 NBR Anechoukur Anechoukur Solar power fence 110000 maintenance
Can not be
16 2004-05 CSS-PT Antarasanthe Taraka EPT repair 80000 verified now
Construction of EP
17 2004-05 CSS-PT Antarasanthe Udboor wall at Kallahebballa 79799 Good work
Improvement of
18 2004-05 CSS-PT D.B.Kuppe Kymara Kymara tank 96605 Good work
Providing roofing to
Guard's quarters at
19 2004-05 P.A.D.F D.B.Kuppe Kymara Kymara 31000 Good work
Construction of 50
tribal hoses at
20 2004-05 CSS-PT Metikuppe Datahalla Sollepura 1800000 Good work
Improvement of
21 2004-05 CSS-PT Metikuppe Datahalla Bangarakatte tank 100000 Good work
Construction of APC
shed at
22 2005-06 CSS-PT Antarasanthe Udboor Gerathalakollachi 97500 Good quality
Providingand fixing
solar lights to FRS Good quality
23 2005-06 DPA Antarasanthe Sunkadakatte Sunkadakatte 78000 and is working
Construction of APC
24 2005-06 CSS-PT Metikuppe Datahalla shed at Jiyara 99900 Good work
Formation of road at
25 2005-06 CSS-PT Metikuppe Datahalla sollepura 162000 Good work
Project- Construction of cause
26 2006-07 Elephant Metikuppe Metikuppe-1 way cum culvert 85000 Good Quality
Improvement and
Project- formation of bund to
27 2006-07 Elephant Metikuppe Metikuppe-1 Devagangothri tank 100000 Good work
Construction of
check post buildings
28 2006-07 DPA Metikuppe Masthigudi at Balle 191500 Good work
Restoration of EPT-
Karmad chaingate to
29 2004-05 CSS-PT Kalahalla Hathghat RF Lakshimithirtha river 95841 Satisfactory
Construction of
Elephant proof wall
30 2004-05 CSS-PT Kalahalla Hathghat RF at Vaddaramadu katte 80000 Satisfactory
Improvement of
31 2004-05 CSS-PT Kalahalla Hathghat RF Bommanahalli kere 100000 Satisfactory
Construction of
Project- Elephant proof wall
32 2004-05 Elephant Nagarahole at CPT-3 64944 Good work
Construction of
check dam at
33 2005-06 CSS-PT Kalahalla Nittur Devanakere 65500 Good work
Drilling of Bore well
and & fixing hand
pump at Balle murkal
34 2005-06 NBR Nagarahole Nalkeri APC 50000 Satisfactory
Constructio of
causeway at
35 2005-06 CSS-PT Nagarahole Nalkeri Julekalluhalla 78000 Satisfactory
519
Improvement and
strengthening of bund
36 2005-06 CSS-PT Nagarahole Nalkeri at Doddahalla tank 100000 Satisfactory
Repairs to Quarters
37 2005-06 DPA Nagarahole Nalkeri No : 3 11500
Repairs to Quarters
38 2005-06 DPA Nagarahole Nalkeri No : 7 15000 Satisfactory
Repairs to Kauvery
39 2005-06 DPA Nagarahole Nalkeri Room No 1 (cottage) 28000 Satisfactory
Specila repairs to
Eco- Forest Rest House at
40 2006-07 tourism Kalahalla Nalkeri Murkal 39500 Satisfactory
Recondition of solar
power fence 9.00 km
from kanoor chain
41 2006-07 Non-plan gate to karmad 67500 Satisfactory
Observations:
• The works carried out are of good quality
• Solar fencing carried out is not working in case of item 10 and 15, needs regular
maintenance.
• Regarding certain items like tank repair, EPT repair quantities could not be verified and
observations are limited only its working condition now.
Bandipur (under FDPT, Mysore)
Project Tiger Division, Bandipur had Bandipur, Maddur,Moolehole, Nugu, Gundre,
N.Begur and Moliyur ranges during the period evaluated (2004-07). 33 works of various nature
were evaluated.
The evaluation team for FDPT-Mysore is as hereunder:
List of works evaluated with comments:
Cost
S.No Year Range Scheme Nature of Work & location Remarks
(Rs)
CSS-Project Tiger, Construction of culvert cum cause
1 2004-05 Bandipur 59133 Good work
Major works way to Ganjikattehalla in Bandipur
EPT from K.P.Site border ,

2 2004-05 Moyar CSS-Project Elephant Mangala dam to Dindalamarada 63502 Good work
junction
Excavation of EPT from Bandipur
3 2004-05 Moyar CSS-Project Elephant Mangala road to Aladamara 57058 Good work
junction
Providing water supply and sanitary
CSS-Project Tiger,
4 2005-06 Bandipur connections to twin guard quarters 35050 Good work
Major works
No.1 in Bandipur range
Providing water supply and sanitary
CSS-Project Tiger,
5 2005-06 Bandipur connections to twin guard quarters 35050 Good work
Major works
No.2 in Bandipur range
Replacement of pipe connection
CSS-Project Tiger,
6 2005-06 Bandipur Cheetal, Harini and Kutira cottages 21527 Good work
Major works
in Bandipura range
520
CSS-Project Tiger, Electrification of twin guard
Major works quarters No.1 at Bandipura range
CSS-Project Tiger, Electrification of twin guard
Major works quarters No.2 at Bandipura range
Formation of percolation tank in
Nilagiri Biosphere
9 2005-06 Bandipur Adinakanive and karemela tribal 85440 Good work
Reserve
colony in Bandipur range
CSS-Project Tiger, Widening of Karapurakere in
10 200506 Moyar 100809 Good work
Major works Moyar range
Construction of double pipe culvert
CSS-Project Tiger,
11 2005-06 Moyar cum causeway in Doddanakatte to 57955 Good work
Major works
Hulikatte road in Moyar range
Desilting
work was
done in three
patches on
the river bed.
CSS-Project Tiger, Widening and rejuvenation of Work should
12 2005-06 Hediyala 100033
Major works Marabuthanakatte tank could have
been carried
out in one
patch for
more
effectiveness.
stone
pitching
would have
CSS-Project Tiger, Construction of culvert/causeway at been
13 2005-06 Hediyala 105947
Major works Mavinamaradahalla adequate,
without
going for
culvert.
Construction of Low level
CSS-Project Tiger,
14 2005-06 Moliyur Causeway on Doddadasana Katte 148757 Good work
Major works
halla in Moliyur range
Formation of percolation tank in

CSS-Project Tiger,
15 2005-06 Moliyur agricultaural lands adjacent to 64579 Good work
Major works
moliyur range
Special repairs to vehicle shed

Protected Area
16 2006-07 Bandipur building at (No 1,2,3) I Bandipur 49500 Good work
Development fund
campus
Special repairs to vehicle shed
Protected Area
17 2006-07 Bandipur building at (No 4,5,6) in Bandipur 49950 Good work
Development fund
campus
Providing Sanitary works to
Protected Area
18 2006-07 Bandipur cottages and buildings in Bandipur 49900 Good work
Development fund
campus
Protected Area Providing water supply to the
Development fund buildings at Bandipur campus
CSS-Project Tiger, Widening and strengthening of

Major works Kalaiahnakatte in Bandipur range
Construction of of EP wall at
21 2006-07 Maddur Nature Conservation Beerambadi "D" line across 74178 Good work
Mavinamaradahalla
Construction of EP wall at
Good work
22 2006-07 Maddur Nature Conservation Beerambadi "D" line across 107087
Keremalahalla
521
Construction of Anti-poaching
23 2006-07 Maddur Nature Conservation 136000 Good work
camp house at Halastikatte.
Danadadari
Construction of EPT wall at
Halasthikatte halla
CSS-Project Tiger, Construction of EP wall at
26 2006-07 Maddur 99261 Good work
Major works Gandhadamarahalla
27 2006-07 Maddur KSFMBC Percolation tank 97595 Good work
Widening and strengthening of
CSS-Project Tiger, Honnemaradahalla in
28 2006-07 Moyar 99956 Good work
Major works melukamanahally beat of Moyar
range
Widening and strengthening of
CSS-Project Tiger, Enne-Dinne Bettadahalla in
29 2006-07 Moyar 99956 Good work
Major works melukamanahally beat of Moyar
range
Repair works to existing EPT from
30 2006-07 Hediyala Nature Conservation 41775 Good work
Banakally to Nanjedevanahalli
31 2006-07 Moliyur Nature Conservation 79747 Good work
Jenubarehalla
Barbed wire fencing around range
32 2006-07 Maddur KSFMBC office compound, Maddur (180 57500 Good work
concrete posts)
33 2006-07 Nugu Nature Conservation 102592 Good work
Yethigehalla in Nugu range
Observations:
• The works carried out are of good quality
• Regarding certain items like tank repair, EPT repair quantities could not be verified and
observations are limited only to its working condition now.
522

Evaluation Report 2008-09

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Evaluation Report 2008-09

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

KARNATAKA FOREST DEPARTMENT

INTERNAL EVALUATION REPORT, 2008-09

2. Appendix – 1 : Guidelines on Methodology……………………………6

3. Appendix – 2 : Evaluation Teams …………………………………….10

4. Appendix – 3 : Evaluation Formats…………………………………...15

5. Appendix – 4 : Expenditure Statement………………………………..28

6. Appendix – 5: Executive Summaries of Circles…………………...….29

7. Appendix – 6: Survival Percentage of Plantations…………………....67

8. Detailed Circle Reports

8.1 Annexure I : Bangalore………………..……..….91

(Evaluation of Plan and Non-Plan works implemented

Additional Principal Chief Conservators Forests

Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests,

DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS

KARNATAKA FOREST DEPARTMENT

No. Year Scheme Range Hobli Village Survey Area Model

KARNATAKA FOREST DEPARTMENT

13. Status of VFC’ & Micro plan in the village plantation:

(To be filled by the Evaluation team, after inspection of the plantation)

15. Selected Sampling intensity:

17. Total number of seedlings planted in the sample plots:

KARNATAKA FOREST DEPARTMENT

EVALUATION FORM – “D”- (DISTRIBUTION OF SEEDLINGS)

1. Name of the District:

DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS

KARNATAKA FOREST DEPARTMENT

EVALUATION FORM – “E”- (DISTRIBUTION OF SEEDLINGS

1. Name of the District:

5. Details of randomly selected villages (where seedlings have been distributed):

KARNATAKA FOREST DEPARTMENT

EVALUATION FORM – “F”- (DISTRIBUTION OF SEEDLINGS

1. Name of the Village:

KARNATAKA FOREST DEPARTMENT

EVALUATION FORM – “G”- (LIST OF ALL OTHER WORKS)

1. Name of the District:

DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS

KARNATAKA FOREST DEPARTMENT

EVALUATION FORM – “H”- (LIST OF SELECTED OTHER WORKS)

1. Name of the District:

KARNATAKA FOREST DEPARTMENT

EVALUATION FORM – “I”- (INDIVIDUAL OTHER WORK)

1. Name of the work:

(To be filled by the Evaluation team, after inspection)

Qualitative and suitability to site aspects of the executed work:

6.1 BANGALORE CIRCLE

6.2 BELGAUM CIRCLE

6.3 BELLARY CIRCLE

6.4 CHAMARAJANAGAR CIRCLE

6.5 CHIKKMAGALUR CIRCLE

6.6 DHARWAD CIRCLE

6.7 GULBARGA CIRCLE

6.8 HASSAN CIRCLE

6.9 KANARA CIRCLE

6.10 KODAGU CIRCLE

6.11 MANGALORE CIRCLE

6.12 MYSORE CIRCLE

6.13 SHIMOGA CIRCLE

6.14 FDPT, MYSORE

1 Bangalore Rural - - - - - - 675.00 40.97

Summary of Evaluation of Individual plantations:

Summary of Evaluation of Qualitative aspects of Individual plantations:

147-Land & Sankey Forest Guest Repairs & Painting

Bangalroe Sri. Narayana

1 2004-05 SGRY (ZP) Anekal Sarjapura Parappana Agrahara 10.00