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: 16
th
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
1

KARNATAKA FOREST DEPARTMENT

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
2

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 12
th
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
3

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
4

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.


5

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.




6


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 1
st
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
7

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.
8

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 31
st
December 2007 and the final report may
please be submitted by the 15
th
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
9

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.
10

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.
No.
Circle/Circles to
be evaluated
Team leader Other members
1 Bangalore Chief Conservator of
Forests (Evaluation)
Bangalore.
1. Conservator of Forests, Working
Plans, Bellary.
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
Forests (Legal Cell)
Bangalore.
1. Conservator of Forests, Working
Plan, Dharwad.
2. Conservator of Forests , Canara
Circle, Sirsi.
3. Deputy Conservator of Forests
(Zilla Panchayath), Bangalore
Urban.
4. Deputy Conservator of Forests
(Zilla Panchayath), Karwar.
3 Bellary Chief Conservator of
Forests (Personnal)
Bangalore.
1. Conservator of Forests, (Research)
Dharwad.
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
Forests
(Communication &
Information) Bangalore.
1. Conservator of Forests(Research)
Bangalore.
2. Conservator of Forests, Dharwad.
3. Deputy Conservator of Forest s
(Zilla Panchyath) Dharwad
4. Deputy Conservator of Forests
(Zilla Panchyath) Bangalore Rural
5 Chamarajnagar
& Kodagu
Chief Conservator of
Forests (Evaluation)
Bangalore.
1. Conservator of Forests(Budget &
Finance) Bangalore
2. Conservator of Forests, Hassan
3. Deputy Conservator of Forests
(Head Quarters) Bangalore
4. Deputy Conservator of
Forests,(Zilla Panchyath) Mandya
6 Chickmagalur Chief Conservator of 1. Conservator of Forests (PF&P)
11

Sl.
No.
Circle/Circles to
be evaluated
Team leader Other members
Forests (Working Plans)
Bangalore.
Bangalore
2. Conservator of Forests, Shimoga
3. Deputy Conservator of Forests,
Social Forestry Research,
Bangalore
4. Deputy Conservator of Forests
(Zilla Panchyath) Mangalore
7 Dharwad Chief Conservator of
Forests (Research &
Utilisation) Bangalore.
1. Conservator of Forests, Working
Plans, Shimoga
2. Conservator of Forests,
Chamrajanagar
3. Deputy Conservator of Forests
(Zilla Panchyath) Bellary
4. Deputy Conservator of Forests
(Zilla Panchyath) Chithradurga
8 Gulbarga Chief Conservator of
Forests (Head Quarters)
Bangalore.
1. Conservator of Forests (Research)
Bellary
2. Conservator of Forests, Belgaum
3. Deputy Conservator of Forests,
(Zilla Panchyath) Belgaum
4. Deputy Conservator of Forests,
Bijapur
9 Hassan Chief Conservator of
Forests (Working Plan)
Bangalore.
1. Conservator of Forests, Mangalore
2. Deputy Conservator of Forests
(Development) Bangalore
3. Deputy Conservator of Forests,
(Zilla Panchyath) Shimoga
4. Deputy Conservator of Forests &
TA to Conservator of Forests,
Bangalore
10 Mangalore Chief Conservator of
Forests (Project Tiger)
Mysore.
1. Conservator of Forests (Research)
Madikeri
2. Conservator of Forests,
Chikmagalur
3. Deputy Conservator of Forests
(Zilla Panchyath) Madikeri
4. Deputy Conservator of Forests
(Zilla Panchyath) Mysore
11 Mysore &
Project Tiger,
Mysore
Chief Conservator of
Forests (Personnel)
Bangalore.
1. Conservator of Forests, Working
Plans, Chikmagalur
2. Conservator of Forests, Kodagu
3. Deputy Conservator of Forests
(Zilla Panchyath) Tumkur
4. Deputy Conservator of Forests
(Zilla Panchyath) Kolar
12 Shimoga Chief Conservator of
Forests (Training)
1. Conservator of Forests, Working
Plans, Belgaum
12

Sl.
No.
Circle/Circles to
be evaluated
Team leader Other members
Gungarghatti, Dharwad. 2. Conservator of Forests, Bellary
3. Deputy Conservator of Forests
(JBIC) Bangalore
4. Deputy Conservator of Forests
(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:-
Sl.
No.
Circle/Circles to
be evaluated
Team leader Other members
1 Bangalore Chief Conservator of
Forests (Projects)
Bangalore.
1) Conservator of Forests, Working
Plans, Bellary.
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
Forests (Legal Cell)
Bangalore.
5. Conservator of Forests, Working Plan,
Dharwad.
6. Conservator of Forests , Canara Circle,
Sirsi.
7. Deputy Conservator of Forests (Zilla
Panchayath), Bangalore Urban.
8. Deputy Conservator of Forests (Zilla
Panchayath), Karwar.
3 Bellary Chief Conservator of
Forests (Forest
Conservation)
Bangalore.
4. Conservator of Forests, (Research)
Dharwad.
5. Conservator of Forests, Gulbarga
6. Deputy Conservator of Forests, (Zilla
Panchayath),Bidar
Deputy Conservator of Forests (Zilla
Panchayath),Bagalkote
4 Canara Chief Conservator of
Forests
(Communication &
Information)
Bangalore.
5. Conservator of Forests(Research)
Bangalore.
6. Conservator of Forests, Dharwad.
7. Deputy Conservator of Forest s (Zilla
Panchyath) Dharwad
8. Deputy Conservator of Forests (Zilla
Panchyath) Bangalore Rural
5 Chamarajnagar
& Kodagu
Chief Conservator of
Forests (Evaluation)
Bangalore.
5. Conservator of Forests(Budget &
Finance) Bangalore
6. Conservator of Forests, Hassan
13

Sl.
No.
Circle/Circles to
be evaluated
Team leader Other members
7. Deputy Conservator of Forests (Head
Quarters) Bangalore
8. Deputy Conservator of Forests,(Zilla
Panchyath) Mandya
6 Chickmagalur Chief Conservator of
Forests (Working
Plans) Bangalore.
5. Conservator of Forests (PF&P)
Bangalore
6. Conservator of Forests, Shimoga
7. Deputy Conservator of Forests, Social
Forestry Research, Bangalore
8. Deputy Conservator of Forests (Zilla
Panchyath) Mangalore
7 Dharwad Chief Conservator of
Forests (Research &
Utilisation)
Bangalore.
5. Conservator of Forests, Working
Plans, Shimoga
6. Conservator of Forests,
Chamrajanagar
7. Deputy Conservator of Forests (Zilla
Panchyath) Bellary
8. Deputy Conservator of Forests (Zilla
Panchyath) Chithradurga
8 Gulbarga Chief Conservator of
Forests (Head
Quarters) Bangalore.
5. Conservator of Forests (Research)
Bellary
6. Conservator of Forests, Belgaum
7. Deputy Conservator of Forests, (Zilla
Panchyath) Belgaum
8. Deputy Conservator of Forests, Bijapur
9 Hassan Chief Conservator of
Forests (Wild Life)
Bangalore.
5. Conservator of Forests, Mangalore
6. Deputy Conservator of Forests
(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
Forests (Project
Tiger) Mysore.
5. Conservator of Forests (Research)
Madikeri
6. Conservator of Forests, Chikmagalur
7. Deputy Conservator of Forests (Zilla
Panchyath) Madikeri
8. Deputy Conservator of Forests (Zilla
Panchyath) Mysore
11 Mysore &
Project Tiger,
Mysore
Chief Conservator of
Forests (Personnel)
Bangalore.
5. Conservator of Forests, Working Plans,
Chikmagalur
6. Conservator of Forests, Kodagu
7. Deputy Conservator of Forests (Zilla
Panchyath) Tumkur
8. Deputy Conservator of Forests (Zilla
Panchyath) Kolar
14

Sl.
No.
Circle/Circles to
be evaluated
Team leader Other members
12 Shimoga Chief Conservator of
Forests (Training)
Gungarghatti,
Dharwad.
5. Conservator of Forests, Working Plans,
Belgaum
6. Conservator of Forests, Bellary
7. Deputy Conservator of Forests (Zilla
Panchyat, Davanagere).
8. Deputy Conservator of Forests (Zilla
Panchyath) Haveri.


Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests,
(EWPRT )




































15

Appendix 3 - Evaluation Formats
KARNATAKA FOREST DEPARTMENT

EVALUATION FORM – “A”- (LIST OF ALL PLANTAIONS)

(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
Nos.
Area
(ha)
Main Species planted


















DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS
……………..DIVISION




















16

Appendix 3 - Evaluation Formats

KARNATAKA FOREST DEPARTMENT

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
Nos.
Area
(ha)
Model


















CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS/
DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS
of the Evaluation team
















17

Appendix 3 - Evaluation Formats

KARNATAKA FOREST DEPARTMENT

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



















18

Appendix 3 - Evaluation Formats
12. Details of Maintenance operations carried out:
No Item of Work
Period of operation from ………….. to ………… (Dates)
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.












19

Appendix 3 - Evaluation Formats

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:




CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS/
DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS
of the Evaluation team











20

Appendix 3 - Evaluation Formats

KARNATAKA FOREST DEPARTMENT

EVALUATION FORM – “D”- (DISTRIBUTION OF SEEDLINGS)
(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 village-wise seedling distribution;
No. Year Taluk Hobli Village
Number of seedlings
Distributed.
Species of seedlings
distributed


















DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS
……………..DIVISION


















21

Appendix 3 - Evaluation Formats

KARNATAKA FOREST DEPARTMENT

EVALUATION FORM – “E”- (DISTRIBUTION OF SEEDLINGS
LIST OF SELECTED VILLAGES)
(To be filled by the evaluation team, from division office records)

1. Name of the District:
2. Name of the Division:
3. Total number of seedlings distributed during 3 years, under all the schemes:
4. Number of villages where departmental seedlings have been distributed;
No. Taluk Hobli
Total number of
villages in the hobli
Number of
villages where
seedlings
distributed in
2004-2005
Number of villages
where seedlings
distributed in
2005-2006
Number of
villages where
seedlings
distributed in
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











22

Appendix 3 - Evaluation Formats

KARNATAKA FOREST DEPARTMENT

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:
4. Name of the District:
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:



CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS/
DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS
of the Evaluation team







23

Appendix 3 - Evaluation Formats

KARNATAKA FOREST DEPARTMENT

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


No.
Year of
sanction
Taluk Hobli Village
Survey
Nos.
Scheme Work Sanctioned cost



















DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS
……………..DIVISION













24

Appendix 3 - Evaluation Formats

KARNATAKA FOREST DEPARTMENT

EVALUATION FORM – “H”- (LIST OF SELECTED OTHER WORKS)
(To be filled by the Evaluation Team)

1. Name of the District:
2. Name of the Division:
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:


No.
Year of
sanction
Taluk Village
Survey
Nos.
Scheme Work Sanctioned cost


















CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS/
DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS
of the Evaluation team












25

Appendix 3 - Evaluation Formats

KARNATAKA FOREST DEPARTMENT

EVALUATION FORM – “I”- (INDIVIDUAL OTHER WORK)
(To be filled by the evaluation team, from division office records)

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:
26

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
27

• 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:


CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS/
DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS
of the Evaluation team




































28

Appendix-4-Expenditure Statement
SCHEMES IDENTIFIED FOR INTERNAL EVALUATION FOR THE YEARS
2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07.

Sl.
No
Scheme
Achievement (Rs. In
lakhs) (Phy. In Ha.)
2004-05
Achievement (Rs. In
lakhs) (Phy. In Ha.)
2005-06
Achievement (Rs. In
lakhs) (Phy. In Ha.)
2006-07
Phy. Fin. Phy. Fin. Phy. Fin.
1
2406-01-101-2-05-Development of
Degraded Forests-139 Major Works
510.00 208.346 1286.60 156.087 688.50 190.496
2
2406-01-101-2-10-Greening of Urban
Areas-139-Major Works
271.00 47.988 177.50 38.914 668.50 287.965
3
2406-01-796-0-00-Tribal Sub Plan
(State)
97.00 6.000 N.A. N.A. N.A. 12.635
4
2406-01-800-0-05-Special Component
Plan(State)
793.00 43.924 N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A.
5
4406-01-070-0-02-Buildings-147-Land
and Buildings
N.A. 40.000 N.A. 18.816 N.A. N.A.
6
2406-01-101-2-19-Conservation and
Management of Mangroves(State &
Central)
N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. 371.12 83.925.
7
2406-01-102-2-17-Integrated Forest
Protection (State & Central)
N.A. 73.856 N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A.
8
2406-02-110-0-02-Project
Tiger,Bandipur-139 Works(State &
Central)
N.A. 519.890 N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A.
9
2406-02-110-0-35-Rehabilitation of
Villages of Bhadra Wildlife
Sanctuary(State & Central)
N.A. 121.000 N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A.
10
2406-02-110-0-47-CSS for Development
of Wildlife Sanctuaries and National
Parks-139 Works (State & Central)
N.A. 812.980 N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A.
11
2501-05-101-0-02-CSS-Area oriented
Fuelwood and Fodder Project
N.A. 28.329 N.A. 11.389 N.A. 18.259
12
2406-01-102-2-25-Eco-Tourism(State
Sector)
N.A. N.A. N.A. 9.605 N.A. 145.672
13
2501-05-101-0-02-CSS-Area oriented
Fuelwood and Fodder Project (Swarana
Jayanthi Kunj Project)-139 Major Works.
N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. 20.151
14 12
th
Finance N.A. N.A. 1237.63 230.424 5803.97 432.472
15
2406-01-102-2-80-Karnataka Sustainable
Forest Management and Bio-diversity
Conservation/JBIC
N.A. 2082.483 24487.00 230.11 20084.00 1635.02
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.










29

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, 12
th
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
30

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
31

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
32

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.
































33

Appendix-5- Executive Summaries of Circles
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.


34

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.
35

Appendix-5- Executive Summaries of Circles

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.



36


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.





























37

Appendix-5- Executive Summaries of Circles

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.

38

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
39

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.







































40

Appendix-5- Executive Summaries of Circles

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.
41

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.





































42

Appendix-5- Executive Summaries of Circles

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.
43

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.




44

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.

45

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.


































46

Appendix-5- Executive Summaries of Circles

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
47

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, 12
th
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
48

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.



















49

Appendix-5- Executive Summaries of Circles


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, 12
th
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.




50

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
51

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.














52

Appendix-5- Executive Summaries of Circles

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
53

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
54

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.
55

Appendix-5- Executive Summaries of Circles

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 12
th
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.

56


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
57

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.
























58

Appendix-5- Executive Summaries of Circles

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, 12
TH
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.
59

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 12
th
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
60

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.









































61

Appendix-5- Executive Summaries of Circles

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.

62

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.

































63

Appendix-5- Executive Summaries of Circles

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
64

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 4
th
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
65

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.






66

Appendix-5- Executive Summaries of Circles

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.















67

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
SI
NO.
DIVISION
FDA
COMPENSATORY
AFFORESTATION
12TH FINANCE
Greening of Urban
Area (GUA)
Extent
in Ha.
Survival
%
Extent
in Ha.
Surviva
l %
Extent
in Ha.
Surviv
al %
Exten
t in
Ha.
Surviv
al %
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
68



SI
NO
.
DIVISION
KFDF-Other
Plantation
CULTURAL
OPERATION
SGRY
Development of
Degraded Forests
(DDF)
Extent in
Ha.
Survi
val
%
Extent in
Ha.
Surviv
al %
Extent
in Ha.
Survival
%
Extent
in Ha.
Survival
%
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
SF
- - - - 58.49 56.68 - -
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

69


SI
N
O.
DIVISION
KSFMBC / JBIC
National Oil &
Vegetable Oilseed
Development
Authority
(NOVODA)
Special
Component Plan
(SCP)
Minor Forest
Produce (MFP)
Extent
in Ha.
Surviv
al %
Extent
in Ha.
Surviv
al %
Extent
in Ha.
Surviv
al %
Extent
in Ha.
Surv
ival
%
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 - - - - - -
5 Bannerghatta NP - - - - - - - -
6 Chikballapur 726.00 62.62 - - - - - -
7 Chikballapur SF - - - - - - - -
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

70


SI
NO.
DIVISION
Central
Sponser
Scheme -
DWS/CSS
(Central)
NATURE
CONSERVATI
ON
Karnataka Uraban
Development & Coastal
Environmental
Management Project
(KUDCEMP)
Western
Ghats
Development
Projects
Exten
t in
Ha.
Surv
ival
%
Exten
t in
Ha.
Survi
val %
Exten
t in
Ha.
Survival %
Exten
t in
Ha.
Surv
ival
%
1 2 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34
I Bangalore Circle
1 Bangalore Rural - - - - - - - -
2 Bangalore Rural SF - - - - - - - -
3 Bangalore Urban - - - - - - - -
4 Bangalore Urban SF - - - - - - - -
5 Bannerghatta NP - - - - - - - -
6 Chikballapur - - - - - - - -
7 Chikballapur 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
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 - -

71


SI
NO.
DIVISION
Regularization of
Encrochment
Evicted Area /
Regularization of
Encrochment of
Forest Land
(ROE / REFL)
Karnataka
Social Forestry
Karnataka State
Highway
Improvement
Project (KSHIP)
Tribal Sub
Plan (State)
Extent
in Ha.
Survi
val %
Extent
in Ha.
Surv
ival
%
Extent
in Ha.
Survival
%
Exten
t in
Ha.
Survi
val %
1 2 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42
I Bangalore Circle
1 Bangalore Rural - - - - - - - -
2 Bangalore Rural SF - - - - - - - -
3 Bangalore Urban - - - - - - - -
4 Bangalore Urban SF - - - - - - - -
5 Bannerghatta NP - - - - - - - -
6 Chikballapur 35.00 77.00 - - - - - -
7 Chikballapur SF - - - - - - - -
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 - - - - - - - -


72


SI
NO.
DIVISION
MARKENDEY
A YOJANE
Calamity Relief
Fund (CRF)
METRO
Karnataka
Road
Development
Corporation
Ltd., (KRDCL)
Extent
in Ha.
Surv
ival
%
Exten
t in
Ha.
Survi
val %
Extent
in Ha.
Survival
%
Exte
nt in
Ha.
Surviv
al %
1 2 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
I Bangalore Circle
1 Bangalore Rural - - - - - - - -
2 Bangalore Rural SF - - - - - - - -
3 Bangalore Urban - - - - 36.50 95.00 - -
4 Bangalore Urban SF - - - - - - - -
5 Bannerghatta NP - - - - - - - -
6 Chikballapur - - - - - - - -
7 Chikballapur SF - - - - - - - -
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
19 Bellary Division - - - - - - - -
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 - - - - - - - -

73


SI
NO.
DIVISION
National Rural
Employment
Generation
Scheme
(NREGS)
Rashtriya Sam
Vikas Yojana
(RSVY)
National Food for
Work Programme
(NFFWP-MLA)
Village
Panchayat Fund
(VPF)
Exten
t in
Ha.
Survi
val %
Extent
in Ha.
Surviv
al %
Extent in
Ha.
Surviv
al %
Exten
t in
Ha.
Surviv
al %
1 2 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58
I Bangalore Circle
1 Bangalore Rural - - - - - - - -
2 Bangalore Rural SF - - - - - - - -
3 Bangalore Urban - - - - - - - -
4 Bangalore Urban
SF
- - - - - - - -
5 Bannerghatta NP - - - - - - - -
6 Chikballapur - - - - - - - -
7 Chikballapur 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
19 Bellary Division - - - - - - - -
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 - - - - - - - -

74


SI
NO.
DIVISION
Gram
Panchayat
Nidhi (GPN)
Deposit of Work
Contribution
Hyderbad
Karnataka
Development
Board (HKADB)
Total
Exte
nt in
Ha.
Survi
val %
Exten
t in
Ha.
Surviv
al %
Extent
in Ha.
Surviv
al %
Extent in
Ha.
Surviv
al %
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
SF
- - - - - - 99.15 70.03
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

75


SI
NO.
DIVISION
FDA
COMPENSATORY
AFFORESTATION
12TH FINANCE
Greening of
Urban Area
(GUA)
Extent
in Ha.
Surviv
al %
Exten
t in
Ha.
Surviv
al %
Extent
in Ha.
Surviv
al %
Exten
t in
Ha.
Survi
val %
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

76


SI
NO.
DIVISION
KFDF-Other
Plantation
CULTURAL
OPERATION
SGRY
Development of
Degraded
Forests (DDF)
Extent
in Ha.
Survival
%
Exten
t in
Ha.
Surviv
al %
Extent
in Ha.
Survival
%
Extent
in Ha.
Surv
ival
%
1 2 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
V Chamarajnagar
Circle

1 Chamarajnagar SF - - - - - - - -
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
6 Chikmagalur SF - - - - - - - -
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
VIII Gulbarga Circle
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

77


SI
NO.
DIVISION
KSFMBC / JBIC
National Oil &
Vegetable Oilseed
Development
Authority
(NOVODA)
Special
Component Plan
(SCP)
Minor Forest
Produce (MFP)
Extent
in Ha.
Surviva
l %
Extent
in Ha.
Surviv
al %
Exten
t in
Ha.
Surviv
al %
Exten
t in
Ha.
Surviv
al %
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 - - - - - -
6 Chikmagalur SF - - - - - - - -
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 - - - - - - - -
VIII Gulbarga Circle
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 - - -

78


SI
NO.
DIVISION
Central Sponser
Scheme -
DWS/CSS
(Central)
NATURE
CONSERVATIO
N
Karnataka Uraban
Development &
Coastal
Environmental
Management Project
(KUDCEMP)
Western Ghats
Development
Projects
Extent
in Ha.
Surviv
al %
Exten
t in
Ha.
Survival
%
Extent in
Ha.
Surviv
al %
Exten
t in
Ha.
Surviv
al %
1 2 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34
V Chamarajnagar
Circle

32 Chamarajnagar SF - - - - - - - -
33 Chamarajnagar WL - - - - - - - -
34 Kollegal - - - - - - - -
35 Cauvery WL - - - - - - - -
Sub Total - - - - - - - -
VI Chikmagalur Circle
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 - - - - - - - -
VIII Gulbarga Circle
46 Bidar - - - - - - - -
47 Bidar SF - - - - - - - -
48 Gulbarga - - - - - - - -
49 Gulbarga SF - - - - - - - -
50 Raichur - - - - - - - -
51 Raichur SF - - - - - - - -
Sub Total - - - - - - - -

79


SI
NO.
DIVISION
Regularization of
Encrochment
Evicted Area /
Regularization of
Encrochment of
Forest Land
(ROE / REFL)
Karnataka
Social Forestry
Karnataka State
Highway
Improvement
Project (KSHIP)
Tribal Sub
Plan (State)
Exten
t in
Ha.
Survival
%
Exten
t in
Ha.
Surviv
al %
Extent
in Ha.
Surviv
al %
Exten
t in
Ha.
Survi
val %
1 2 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42
V Chamarajnagar
Circle

32 Chamarajnagar SF - - - - - - - -
33 Chamarajnagar WL - - - - - - - -
34 Kollegal - - - - - - - -
35 Cauvery WL - - - - - - - -
Sub Total - - - - - - - -
VI Chikmagalur Circle
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 - - - - - - - -
VIII Gulbarga Circle
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 - -

80


SI
NO.
DIVISION
MARKENDEYA
YOJANE
Calamity Relief
Fund (CRF)
METRO
Karnataka Road
Development
Corporation
Ltd., (KRDCL)
Exten
t in
Ha.
Survival
%
Exten
t in
Ha.
Survival
%
Exten
t in
Ha.
Survival
%
Exten
t in
Ha.
Surviv
al %
1 2 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
V Chamarajnagar
Circle

32 Chamarajnagar SF - - - - - - - -
33 Chamarajnagar WL - - - - - - - -
34 Kollegal - - - - - - - -
35 Cauvery WL - - - - - - - -
Sub Total - - - - - - - -
VI Chikmagalur Circle
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
I
Gulbarga Circle
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

81


SI
NO.
DIVISION
National Rural
Employment
Generation Scheme
(NREGS)
Rashtriya Sam
Vikas Yojana
(RSVY)
National Food for
Work Programme
(NFFWP-MLA)
Village
Panchayat
Fund (VPF)
Extent in
Ha.
Survival
%
Extent
in Ha.
Surv
ival
%
Extent
in Ha.
Survival
%
Exte
nt in
Ha.
Surv
ival
%
1 2 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58
V Chamarajnagar
Circle

32 Chamarajnagar SF - - - - - - - -
33 Chamarajnagar WL - - - - - - - -
34 Kollegal - - - - - - - -
35 Cauvery WL - - - - - - - -
Sub Total - - - - - - - -
VI Chikmagalur Circle
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
I
Gulbarga Circle
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 - -

82


SI
NO.
DIVISION
Gram Panchayat
Nidhi (GPN)
Deposit of Work
Contribution
Hyderbad
Karnataka
Development
Board (HKADB)
Total
Exten
t in
Ha.
Survival
%
Exten
t in
Ha.
Survival
%
Exten
t in
Ha.
Surviv
al %
Extent in
Ha.
Survival
%
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
VI Chikmagalur Circle
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
VIII Gulbarga Circle
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

83


SI
NO.
DIVISION
FDA
COMPENSATORY
AFFORESTATION
12TH FINANCE
Greening of
Urban Area
(GUA)
Extent in
Ha.
Surviv
al %
Extent
in Ha.
Survival
%
Extent
in Ha.
Survi
val %
Extent
in Ha.
Survi
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

84



SI
NO.
DIVISION
KFDF-Other
Plantation
CULTURAL
OPERATION
SGRY
Development of
Degraded Forests
(DDF)
Extent in
Ha.
Surviv
al %
Extent
in Ha.
Surv
ival
%
Extent in
Ha.
Survi
val %
Extent
in Ha.
Survi
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

85


SI
NO.
DIVISION
KSFMBC / JBIC
National Oil &
Vegetable
Oilseed
Development
Authority
(NOVODA)
Special
Component Plan
(SCP)
Minor Forest
Produce (MFP)
Extent in
Ha.
Surviv
al %
Extent
in Ha.
Survi
val %
Extent
in Ha.
Survi
val %
Extent
in Ha.
Survi
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

86


SI
NO.
DIVISION
Central Sponser
Scheme -
DWS/CSS
(Central)
NATURE
CONSERVATIO
N
Karnataka Uraban
Development &
Coastal
Environmental
Management
Project
(KUDCEMP)
Western Ghats
Development
Projects
Extent
in Ha.
Survi
val %
Extent
in Ha.
Surviv
al %
Extent
in Ha.
Survival
%
Extent
in Ha.
Surviv
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

87


SI
NO.
DIVISION Regularization of
Encrochment
Evicted Area /
Regularization of
Encrochment of
Forest Land
(ROE / REFL)
Karnataka
Social Forestry
Karnataka State
Highway
Improvement
Project (KSHIP)
Tribal Sub Plan
(State)
Exten
t in
Ha.
Survival
%
Extent
in Ha.
Survi
val %
Extent
in Ha.
Surviv
al %
Extent
in Ha.
Surv
ival
%
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

88


SI
NO.
DIVISION MARKENDEY
A YOJANE
Calamity Relief
Fund (CRF)
METRO Karnataka
Road
Development
Corporation
Ltd., (KRDCL)
Exten
t in
Ha.
Surviv
al %
Extent
in Ha.
Survi
val %
Extent
in Ha.
Survival
%
Extent
in Ha.
Surv
ival
%
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

89


SI
NO.
DIVISION
National Rural
Employment
Generation
Scheme (NREGS)
Rashtriya Sam
Vikas Yojana
(RSVY)
National Food for
Work
Programme
(NFFWP-MLA)
Village
Panchayat
Fund (VPF)
Extent in
Ha.
Survi
val %
Extent
in Ha.
Surv
ival
%
Extent
in Ha.
Surviv
al %
Exten
t in
Ha.
Surv
ival
%
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

90


SI
NO.
DIVISION
Gram
Panchayat
Nidhi (GPN)
Deposit of
Work
Contribution
Hyderbad
Karnataka
Development
Board (HKADB)
Total
Exten
t in
Ha.
Survi
val %
Exten
t in
Ha.
Survi
val %
Extent
in Ha.
Survi
val %
Extent in
Ha.
Survi
val %
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





91


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.
92

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)

93

Details of afforestation works including seed sowing selected randomly for evaluation in
all schemes except FDA_NAP
Planting:

S.No Year Scheme Range Hobli Village Sy.No
Extent (in
Ha/ km)
1
2004-
05
GUA Yelahanka Yelahanka ISRO-Layout-Nagenahalli 8.00
2
2004-
05
SCP Anekal Kasaba Bestamanahalli 87 0.50
3
2004-
05
SCP Anekal Kasaba Menasignahalli 56 0.50
4
2004-
05
COP Kagalipura Kengeri Turahalli MF- Kengeri Road side 6.00
5
2004-
05
COP Ulsoor Dasanapura NH 4 cross to Ravuthanahalli Roadside 5.50
6
2004-
05
FDF Kagalipura Kengeri Turahalli MF 42 10.00
7
2005-
06
GUA Ulsoor -
Vyalikaval Housing Society,
Nagavara
Road
Side
5.00
8
2006-
07
GUA Ulsoor -
Telecom Housing Society-
Sriramanagar
Road side 5.50
9
2006-
07
GUA Kagalipura Kengeri
Banashankeri 6
th
Phase, Block-
II
Road side 5.00
10
2006-
07
KSFMBC
M-4
Kagalipura Kengeri Turahalli SF (Mylasandara) 22 8.30
11
2006-
07
METRO
Rajajinagar
Unit
Kengeri
IB Officers Colony Co-op
society, Valgerahalli
- 2.50
12
2006-
07
METRO Kagalipura Kengeri
Banashankeri 6
th
Phase, Block-
V, METRO
- 5.00

Summary of Evaluation of Individual plantations:

S.No Year Village
Extent
(in
Ha/
km)
Model
Pit/
Trench
Spacing
Spp.
planted
Mainte-
nance
Status
of
VFC
Micro
plan
Plnt
Journal
1
2004-
05
ISRO-Layout-
Nagenahalli
8.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes -- --
Up to
date
2
2004-
05
Bestamanahalli 0.50 Yes Yes Yes Yes -- -- --
Not
written
3
2004-
05
Menasignahalli 0.50 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Not
written
4
2004-
05
Turahalli MF-
Kengeri
6.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes --
5
2004-
05
NH 4 cross to
Ravuthanahalli
5.50 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes --
Partially
written
6
2004-
05
Turahalli MF 10.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes -- -- -
7
2005-
06
Vyalikaval
Housing
Society,
Nagavara
5.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Partially
written
8
2006-
07
Telecom
Housing
5.50 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes -- --
Not
written
94

Society-
Sriramanagar
9
2006-
07
Banashankeri
6
th
Phase,
Block-II
5.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes -- --
Up to
date
10
2006-
07
Turahalli SF
(Mylasandara)
8.30 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Partially
written
11
2006-
07
IB Officers
Colony Co-op
society,
Valgerahalli
2.50 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes -- -- --
12
2006-
07
Banashankeri
6
th
Phase,
Block-V,
METRO
5.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes -- -- --

Summary of Evaluation of Qualitative aspects of Individual plantations:

S.No Year Village
Extent
(in
Ha/
km)
Selection
of site
Se;ection
of
Plantation
model
Choice
of
Species
Protection
aspects
Survival
percentatge
General
condition
1
2004-
05
ISRO-Layout-
Nagenahalli
8.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 84.00 Good
2
2004-
05
Bestamanahalli 0.50 Proper Proper Proper improper 0.00
100%
failure
3
2004-
05
Menasignahalli 0.50 Proper Proper Proper Proper 0.00
100%
failure
4
2004-
05
Turahalli MF-
Kengeri
6.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 75.00 Good
5
2004-
05
NH 4 cross to
Ravuthanahalli
5.50 Proper Proper Proper Proper 55.00 Fair
6
2004-
05
Turahalli MF 10.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 72.00 Good
7
2005-
06
Vyalikaval
Housing
Society,
Nagavara
5.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 76.00 Good
8
2006-
07
Telecom
Housing
Society-
Sriramanagar
5.50 Proper Proper Proper Proper 90.00 Good
9
2006-
07
Banashankeri
6
th
Phase,
Block-II
5.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 95.00 Good
10
2006-
07
Turahalli SF
(Mylasandara)
8.30 Proper Proper Proper improper 70.00
Requires
immediate
protection
11
2006-
07
IB Officers
Colony Co-op
society,
Valgerahalli
2.50 Proper Proper Proper Proper 95.00 Good
12
2006-
07
Banashankeri
6
th
Phase,
Block-V,
METRO
5.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 95.00 Good




95

OTHER WORKS:
Details of other works selected randomly for evaluation:

S.No Year Scheme Range Hobli Village Location Name of the Work
1 2005-06
147-Land &
Buildings
Estate -- Bangalore
Sankey Forest Guest
House
Repairs & Painting
(Interior & Exterior)
2 2006-07
147-Land &
Buildings
Estate -- Bangalore Sankey Qtrs S4
Repairs & Painting
(Interior & Exterior)
3 2006-07
147-Land &
Buildings
Estate -- Bangalore Sankey Qtrs S5
Repairs & Painting
(Interior & Exterior)
4 2006-07
Road Bridges &
Building 139
MW
Estate -- Bangalore
Working Plan office
at Aranya Bhavan
Corrugated Roofing
works
5 2006-07
2406-01-001-2-
01-gen.est 200
(maint)
Estate -- Bangalore
Sankey information
centre
Corrugated Roofing
works
6 2006-07
2406-01-001-2-
01-gen.est 200
(maint)
Estate -- Bangalore
Sankey information
centre
Corrugated Roofing
works

DISTRIBUTION OF SEEDLINGS

S.
N
o.
Taluk/
Range
Hobli Village
Name of the
Farmer
Species
received
Number
Survival
%
Remarks
1
Bangalroe
North Taluk
Yelahanka Nagenahalli
Sri. Muni
Ramanna
Eucalyptus 7200 90 Good
2
Bangalroe
North Taluk
Yelahanka Nagenahalli
Sri. Narayana
Swamy
Eucalyptus 2700 85 Good
3
Bangalroe
North Taluk
Yelahanka Nagenahalli Sri. Bhoopal Eucalyptus 1700 90 Good

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.
96

BANGALORE URBAN SOCIAL FORESTRY DIVISION

PLANTATIONS:
Total number of plantations raised in the division during the period under
Evaluation including seed sowing in all schemes: 73 ( 625.778 Ha)
Total Number of the plantation visited by the Team: 9 (73.57 Ha.)
Details of afforestation works including seed sowing selected randomly for evaluation in
all schemes except FDA_NAP
Planting:
S.No Year Scheme Range Hobli Village Sy.No
Extent (in
Ha/ km)
1 2004-05 SGRY (ZP) Anekal Sarjapura Parappana Agrahara 10.00
2 2004-05 SGRY (ZP) Anekal Sarjapura Parappana Agrahara 10.00
3 2004-05 SGRY (ZP) Anekal Sarjapura Parappana Agrahara 10.00
4 2004-05 SGRY (ZP) Anekal Atthibele
BTL Engineering College,
Bommasandra
4.40
5 2004-05 SGRY (TP) Yelanka SF Hessakata
Jarakabonde Plantation -
Mylapanahalli
Road
Side
3.00
6 2004-05 SGRY (ZP) Kagali pura Uttarahalli Mukkadlu 71 10.00
7 2005-06
KSFMBC
M-8A
Anekal Kasaba Karpur
186/2,
190/1
2.11
8 2006-07 SF Anekal Sarjapura
Vegetable & Fruit
Market- Huskur
Road side 2.50
9 2005-06 SGRY (ZP) Kagalipura Tavarekere Chandrappa Circle 5.20
10 2005-06 SGRY (ZP) Kagalipura Tavarekere Chandrappa Circle 2.60
11 2006-07
KSFMBC
M-8A
Anekal Kasaba Singhsandra 29 C 1.30
12 2006-07 SGRY (TP) Kagalipura Bidirahalli
Lagumenahalli Amani
TFS
TFS 3.29

Summary of Evaluation of Individual plantations:

S.
No
Year Village
Extent
(in
Ha/
km)
Model
Pit/
Trench
Spacing
Spp.
planted
Mainte-
nance
Status
of
VFC
Micro
plan
Plnt
Journal
1
2004-
05
Parappana
Agrahara
10.00 No Yes Yes Yes Yes -- --
Partially
written
2
2004-
05
Parappana
Agrahara
10.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes - -
Partially
written
3
2004-
05
Parappana
Agrahara
10.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes -- --
Partially
written
4
2004-
05
BTL
Engineering
College,
Bommasandra
4.40 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes -- --
Partially
written
5
2004-
05
Jarakabonde
Plantation -
Mylapanahalli
3.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes -- -- --
Partially
written
97

6
2004-
05
Mukkadlu 10.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes -- --
Partially
written
7
2005-
06
Karpur 2.11 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes -- --
Up to
date
8
2006-
07
Vegetable &
Fruit Market-
Huskur
2.50 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes -- --
Partially
written
9
2005-
06
Chandrappa
Circle
5.20 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes -- --
Not
written
10
2005-
06
Chandrappa
Circle
2.60 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes -- --
Not
written
11
2006-
07
Singhsandra 1.30 Yes Yes Yes Yes -- -- --
12
2006-
07
Lagumenahalli
Amani TFS
3.29 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes --
Partially
written

Summary of Evaluation of Qualitative aspects of Individual plantations:
S.No Year Village
Extent
(in Ha/
km)
Selection
of site
Se;ection
of
Plantation
model
Choice
of
Species
Protection
aspects
Survival
percentatge
General
condition
1
2004-
05
Parappana
Agrahara
10.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 48.00 Fair
2
2004-
05
Parappana
Agrahara
10.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 57.00 Good
3
2004-
05
Parappana
Agrahara
10.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 54.00 Fair
4
2004-
05
BTL
Engineering
College,
Bommasandra
4.40 Proper Proper Proper Proper 34.00 Fair
5
2004-
05
Jarakabonde
Plantation -
Mylapanahalli
3.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 72.00 Good
6
2004-
05
Mukkadlu 10.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 56.30 Fair
7
2005-
06
Karpur 2.11 Proper Proper Proper Proper 90.00 Good
8
2006-
07
Vegetable &
Fruit Market-
Huskur
2.50 Proper Proper Proper Proper 83.00 Good
9
2005-
06
Chandrappa
Circle
5.20 Proper Proper Proper Proper 61.50 Good
10
2005-
06
Chandrappa
Circle
2.60 Proper Proper Proper Proper 62.00 Good
11
2006-
07
Singhsandra 1.30 Proper Proper Proper Proper 100.00 Good
12
2006-
07
Lagumenahalli
Amani TFS
3.29 Proper Proper Proper Proper 96.00 Good

OTHER WORKS:
Details of other works selected randomly for evaluation:
S.No Year Scheme Range Hobli Village Location Name of the Work
1 2007-08 SGRY Kaggallipura -- Kaduagrahara
Kaduagrahara to Gundur
Road Side Plnt
Tree Patta 600
98

2 2007-08 SGRY Kaggallipura -- Ramohalli
Ramohalli to Tavrekere
Road Side Plnt
Tree Patta 600
3 2006-07
Tree
Patta
Anekal -- Jigani Tree Patta 60

DISTRIBUTION OF SEEDLINGS

S.
No
Taluk/
Range
Hobli Village
Name of the
Farmer
Species
received
Number
Survival
%
Remarks
1
Bangalore
East Taluk
Bidirahalli Gundur Muniraj G.A
Eucalyptus
Clones
1333 98 Good
2
Bangalore
South
Tavrekere Puradapalya Krishnappa
Silver Oak
& Teak
250
250
60 Fair
3
Bangalore
North
Heserghatta Chokkanahalli Shivanna
Eucalyptus
(AFD-10)
2000 98 Good
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 survival percentage varies from 33 to 100%.
™ 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:

Total number of plantations raised in the division during the period under
Evaluation including seed sowing in all schemes: 41 (1331.50 Ha)
Total Number of the plantation visited by the Team : 11 (231.0 Ha)
Details of afforestation works including seed sowing selected randomly for evaluation in
all schemes except FDA_NAP
Planting:

S.No Year Scheme Range Hobli Village Sy.No
Extent
(in Ha/
km)
1
2004-
05
COP Nelamangala Kasaba
T Begur-
Tyamagondhu
Road Side 9.00
2
2004-
05
COP Doddaballapura Sasalu Sasalu-Arudi Road Side 3.00
3
2005-
06
DDF Doddaballapura Vijayapura Mandebele SF 3 15.00
4
2004-
05
KFDF Hosakote Sulibele Gullahally SF 1 27.00
99

5
2005-
06
DDF Nelamangala Sampura Sripathihalli SF 72 13.00
6
2005-
06
KSFMBC
M-1
Doddaballapura Kasaba Dibbagiri Beta SF 199 96.00
7
2006-
07
GUA Hosakote Kasaba
Rayan Singh Extension
Hoskote Town
Road Side 4.00
8
2006-
07
TFC Nelamangala Kasaba Soladevanahalli SF 63,64,65,(part) 20.00
9
2006-
07
GUA Doddaballpura Kasaba DB Pura Town 4.00
SEED SOWING
1
2006-
07
KSFMBC
M-1
Doddaballpura Devanahalli Gulynandagunda 25 40.00

Summary of Evaluation of Individual plantations:

S.
No
Year Village
Extent
(in Ha/
km)
Model
Pit/
Trench
Spac
ing
Spp.
planted
Mainte-
nance
Status
of
VFC
Micro
plan
Plnt
Journal
1
2004-
05
T Begur-
Tyamago
ndhu
9.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes -- --
Partially
written
2
2004-
05
Sasalu-
Arudi
3.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes -- --
Partially
written
3
2005-
06
Mandebe
le SF
15.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes -- Yes
Partially
written
4
2004-
05
Gullahall
y SF
27.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Partially
written
5
2005-
06
Sripathih
alli SF
13.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes -- --
Partially
written
6
2006-
07
Rayan
Singh
Extensio
n
Hoskote
Town
4.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes -- --
Partially
written
7
2006-
07
Soladeva
nahalli
SF
20.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes -- Yes
Partially
written
8
2006-
07
DB Pura
Town
4.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes -- --
Partially
written
SEED SOWING (Bangalore Rural Territorial Division)
1
2006-
07
Gulynan
dagunda
40.00 Yes Yes Yes -- Yes Yes Yes
Partially
written
2
2005-
06
Dibbagir
i Beta SF
96.00 No -- -- Yes No Yes Yes
Partially
written

Summary of Evaluation of Qualitative aspects of Individual plantations:
S.No Year Village
Extent
(in
Ha/
km)
Selection
of site
Selection
of
Plantation
model
Choice
of
Species
Protection
aspects
Survival
percentage
General
condition
1
2004-
05
T Begur-
Tyamagondhu
9.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 25.00
Mortality
is due to
road
100

widening
2
2004-
05
Sasalu-Arudi 3.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 13.00
Mortality
is due to
road
widening
3
2005-
06
Mandebele SF 15.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 81.25 Good
4
2004-
05
Gullahally SF 27.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 79.00 Good
5
2005-
06
Sripathihalli SF 13.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 76.19 Good
6
2005-
06
Dibbagiri Beta
SF
96.00 Proper Improper
Partially
Proper
Proper 20.00 Not good
7
2006-
07
Rayan Singh
Extension
Hoskote Town
4.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 55.00 Good
8
2006-
07
Soladevanahalli
SF
20.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 79.27 Good
9
2006-
07
DB Pura Town 4.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 74.00 good
SEED SOWING (Bangalore Rural Territorial Division)
1
2006-
07
Gulynandagunda 40.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 20.00 Failure

OTHER WORKS:
Details of other works selected randomly for evaluation:

S.No Year Scheme Range Hobli Village Location Name of the Work
1 2005-06 DDF Devanahalli Vijayapura Mandibele
Mandhibele
Forest Block
Soil conservation work
(NALABUND)
2 2006-07 Buildings Doddaballapura -- --
Near TB
circle, DB
pura
Repair to RFO Office
Toilet
3 2006-07 -- Doddaballapura -- -- Near D Cross
Special repair to ACF
Quarters
4 2006-07 -- Doddaballapura -- -- Near D Cross
Special repair to ACF
Quarters
5 2007-08 -- Hosakote Sulibele Gullahally Gullahally
Thinning/Cutting Acacia
Plantation
6 2007-08 COP Hosakote Nandagudi Gullahally
Gullahally
Plantation
Fireline works

DISTRIBUTION OF SEEDLINGS

S.
No
Taluk/
Range
Hobli Village
Name of the
Farmer
Species
received
Num
ber
Survi
val %
Remarks
1 Devanahalli Kasaba
Kodimanchan
ahalli
Mallesh Eucalyptus 4500 80 Good
2
Doddaballa
pura
Kasaba Hasanaghatta Krishnappa Eucalyptus 6000 33
Not Good. Due
to Gull
formation.
101

3
Doddaballa
pura
Kasaba Mallathahalli Shivakumar Eucalyptus 2000 -- Failed
4
Doddaballa
pura
Kasaba Hasanaghatta Appanna
Teak,
Silver &
Neem
20 100 Good
5
Doddaballa
pura
Kasaba Mallathahalli Rangappa
Eucalyptus,
Teak,
Silver &
Jack
2085 20
Eucalyptus is
failure whereas
Jac, Silver Oak
& Teak are
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 survival percentage varies from 13 to 81%.
™ The plantations raised under Forest Protection, Cultural Operation, DDF, KFDF

™ GUA, 12
th
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 plantations raised in the division during the period under
Evaluation including seed sowing in all schemes: 4 (8.00 Ha)
Total Number of the plantation visited by the Team: 4 (8.0 Ha.)
Details of afforestation works including seed sowing selected randomly for evaluation in
all schemes except FDA_NAP
Planting:
S.No Year Scheme Range Hobli Village Sy.No
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

102

Summary of Evaluation of Individual plantations:

S.
No
Year Village
Extent
(in
Ha/
km)
Model
Pit/
Trench
Spacing
Spp.
planted
Mainte-
nance
Status
of
VFC
Micro
plan
Plnt
Journal
1
2006-
07
Dalasagere 1.00 Yes -- Yes Yes -- Yes Yes
Partially
written
2
2005-
06
Byadarahalli 3.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes -- -- Yes
Partially
written
3
2005-
06
Mugabala 1.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes -- -- --
Partially
written
4
2006-
07
Ragunatapura 3.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes -- -- --
Partially
written


Summary of Evaluation of Qualitative aspects of Individual plantations:

S.
No
Year Village
Extent
(in
Ha/
km)
Selection
of site
Se;ection
of
Plantation
model
Choice
of
Species
Protection
aspects
Survival
percentatge
General
condition
1
2006-
07
Dalasagere 1.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 70.00 Good
2
2005-
06
Byadarahalli 3.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 63.00 Good
3
2005-
06
Mugabala
TFS
1.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 95.00 Good
4
2006-
07
Ragunatapura 3.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 20.00 Fair
DISTRIBUTION OF SEEDLINGS

S.
No
Taluk/
Range
Hobli Village
Name of
the
Farmer
Species
received
Num
ber
Survi
val
%
Remarks
1 Hoskote Sulibele Gullahally Gowramma Nilgiri 2000 80
General condition of
the plantation is fair.
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 survival percentage varies from 20 to 95%.
™ 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.
™ The roadside plantations are promising but mortality has resulted due to road
widening work.
™ Gall formation has been observed in case of eucalyptus seedlings distributed to
famers.


103

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.
No.
Name of the Reserve Forest
Extent
(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 27
0
C and the Maximum
temperature goes upto 35
0
C
Monsoon: - The annual mansoon rainfall variers from
625mm to 750mm from June to Mid of November
104

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.,
105

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
Total number of plantations raised in the division during the period under
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
S.No Year Scheme Range Hobli Village Sy.No
Extent (in
Ha/ km)
1
2006-
07
FDA-
NAP
Harohalli
Wildlife
Maralavadi
Bheemasandra
doddi
12 20.00
2
2006-
07
FDA-
NAP
Anekal
Wildlife
Kasaba,
Maralavadi
Thattekere,
Indlavadi
54/5,155,96,58,96,
35,58,24,54/2,96,
96,62,158,113,48,53,
71/3,58/3,112,58/2,&
Forest S.No: 80,91
20.00

3
2006-
07
CSS
NAP
FDA
Anekal
Wildlife
Chikkcahosa
halli
T.N. Halli
Indlavadi pura
80,96 & 93 20.00
4
2006-
07
CSS
NAP
FDA
Bannerghatta
Wildlife
Range
Jigani Mantapa 171 & 156 40.00

Summary of Evaluation of Individual plantations:
S.
No
Year Village
Extent
(in
Ha/
km)
Model
Pit/
Trench
Spacing
Spp.
planted
Mainte-
nance
Status
of
VFC
Micro
plan
Plnt
Journal
1
2006-
07
Bheemasandra
doddi
20.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes
Written
up to
date
2
2006-
07
Thattekere,
Indlavadi
20.00

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Partially
Written
3
2006-
07
T.N. Halli
Indlavadi pura
20.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Not
written
up to
date
4
2006-
07
Mantapa 40.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Not
written
up to
date

Summary of Evaluation of Qualitative aspects of Individual plantations:
S.No Year Village
Extent
(in Ha/
km)
Selection
of site
Selection
of
Plantation
model
Choice
of
Species
Protection
aspects
Survival
percentage
General
condition
1
2006-
07
Bheemasandra
doddi
20.00 Proper Proper Proper Improper 14.44
Failure.

2
2006-
07
Thattekere,
Indlavadi
20.00

Proper Proper Proper Proper 60.3 Poor.
3
2006-
07
T.N. Halli
Indlavadi pura
20.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 46 Satisfactory
4
2006-
07
Mantapa 40.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 42 Satisfactory
106


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:
Details of other works selected randomly for evaluation:
S.
No
Year Scheme Range Hobli Village Location
Name of the
Work
1 2006-07
Project
Elephant
Anekal Jigani T.N Halli Arali Marda Selu
Creation of
Large sixe
Pond.
2 2005-06 CSS Central Anekal Jigani Ragihalli Tabbekatte halla
Desilting of
Tank
3 2006-07
Project
Elephant
Horahalli Maralavadi Thattekere Yerekunte
Desilting of
Yerekunte
Tank
4 2005-06
Protected
area
development
Fund
Anekal Jigani Mantapa Kaleswari gate
Camp site
tower
5 2006-07
Project
Elephant
Harohalli Harohalli Gullatti Gullatti
Construction
of Anti
Poaching
Camp Shed
6 2006-07 CSS State Harohalli Harohalli Gullatti Kebee to Sasibyle
Maintenance
of Road
7 2005-06 CCS Central Anekal Kasaba Ragihalli Ragihalli Fire Lines
8 2004-05 CSS Central Anekal Maralavadi Thattekere
Kanive on the
yekinahalli to
Dodda hirangutte
Formation of
New road(
9 2006-07 CSS Central Anekal Kasaba Thammanayakanahalli
T. halli to
Bachayanakunti
Maintenance
of Road
10 2006-07 CSS Central Anekal Kasaba Thammanayakanahalli
T. halli to
Bachayanakunti
Maintenance
of Road
11 2005-06 CSS State Harohalli Harohalli Harohalli Harohalli
Maintenance
of RFO’s
quarters
12 2005-06 CSS Central
BNP
Range
Jigani Ragihalli
Mathimaradha
halla
Construction
of Gully
checks
13 2004-05 CSS Central Harohalli Harohalli Gullatti Karalahalla
Construction
of Gully
checks
107

14 2005-06 CSS Central Anekal Jigani Ragihalli
Aneri Bande
Halla
Construction
of Gully
checks
15 2006-07 CSS Central
BNP
Range
Jigani Bhutanahalli Bhutanahalli
Construction
of Gully
checks
16 2005-06 CSS Central Anekal Maralavadi Tattekere
Doddayana gutte
selu
Construction
of Gully
checks
17 2006-07 CSS State
BNP
Range
Jigani Ragihalli Adragani
Construction
of
NALABUND
18 2006-07 CSS State Harohalli -- -- Thremaradahalla
Construction
of
NALABUND
19 2005-06 CSS Central Anekal Kasaba T.N Halli Donne Bunduselu
Construction
of
NALABUND
20 2005-06 CSS Central
BNP
Range
Jigani Matapa
Narasimappana
halla
Construction
of
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.
Details of afforestation works including seed sowing selected randomly for evaluation in
all schemes except FDA_NAP
Planting:
S.No Year Scheme Range Hobli Village Sy.No
Extent
(in
Ha/
km)
1
2004-
05
KFDF Bagepalli Pathapalya Thungata dinne 92 26
2
2005-
06
KSFMBC-M-
01
Bagepalli
Gujjepalli IDB (IIIrd
Block)
43
3
2006-
07
DDF Gudibande Kasaba Chedumanahalli 43 10
4
2005-
06
GUA Chintamani Kasaba Chintamani -
10
kms
108

5
2005-
06
KSFMBC M-
04
Sidlghatta Sodali Attagolahalli - 30
6
2005-
06
ROE Bageballi Chickballapura Pesalaparthi 76 15
7
2006-
07
GUA - Kasaba Gowribindanur town - 2
8
2006-
07
KSFMBC-M-
04
Gudibande Mandical Udagirinallappanahalli 37,38 50
9
2006-
07
KSFMBC-M-
04
Chickaballapura Nandi Gowchenahalli 37 15
10
2004-
05
DDF Chintamani Kasaba Hadegere 136 13.5
11
2006-
07
ROE Gauribidanur Manchenhalli Bisalahalli 20
12
2006-
07
KSFMBC Sidlaghata Sadali
Attagolahalli VFC, TK
beta SF Block I
77,58-
60,61,62
30
13
2005-
06
COP Gauribindanur Hosur Somashettihalli 41,42,43 20

Summary of Evaluation of Individual plantations:
S.
No
Year Village
Extent
(in Ha/
km)
Model
Pit/
Trench
Spac
ing
Spp.
planted
Mainte
-nance
Status
of
VFC
Micr
o
plan
Plnt
Journal
1
2004
-05
Thungata
dinne
26 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Written
up to date
2
2005
-06
Gujjepalli
IDB (IIIrd
Block)
43 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
Partially
written
3
2006
-07
Chedumana
halli
10 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
Written
up to date
4
2005
-06
Chintamani 10 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
Partially
written
5
2005
-06
Attagolahall
i
30 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Written
up to date
6
2005
-06
Pesalaparthi 15 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
Written
up to date
7
2006
-07
Gowribinda
nur town
2 Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No
Not
written
8
2006
-07
Udagirinalla
ppanahalli
50 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Written
up to date
9
2006
-07
Gowchenah
alli
15 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Written
up to date
10
2004
-05
Hadegere 13.5 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Written
up to date
11
2006
-07
Bisalahalli 20 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
Partially
written
12
2006
-07
Attagolahall
i VFC, TK
beta SF
Block I
30 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
Partially
written
13
2005
-06
Somashettih
alli
20 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No written



109

Summary of Evaluation of Qualitative aspects of Individual plantations:
S.No Year Village
Extent
(in
Ha/
km)
Selection
of site
Selection
of
Plantation
model
Choice
of
Species
Protection
aspects
Survival
%
General
condition
1
2004-
05
Thungata dinne 26 Proper Proper Proper Proper 78
Very
good
2
2005-
06
Gujjepalli IDB (IIIrd
Block)
43 Proper Proper Proper Proper 5 poor
3
2006-
07
Chedumanahalli 10 Proper Proper Proper Proper 90 Good
4
2005-
06
Chintamani 10 Proper Proper Proper Proper 81.65 Good
5
2005-
06
Attagolahalli 30 Proper Proper Proper Proper 100 Good
6
2005-
06
Pesalaparthi 15 Proper Proper Proper Proper 93 Good
7
2006-
07
Gowribindanur town 2 Proper Proper Proper Proper 95 Good
8
2006-
07
Udagirinallappanahalli 50 Proper Proper Proper Proper 81
Very
good
9
2006-
07
Gowchenahalli 15 Proper Proper Proper Proper 85 Good
10
2004-
05
Hadegere 13.5 Proper Proper Proper Proper 30 Poor
11
2006-
07
Bisalahalli 20 Proper Proper Proper Proper 65 Good
12
2006-
07
Attagolahalli VFC,
TK beta SF Block I
30 Proper Proper Proper Proper 66 Good
13
2005-
06
Somashettihalli 20 Proper Proper Proper Proper 75 Good

OTHER WORKS:
Details of other works selected randomly for evaluation

S.No Year Scheme Range Hobli Village Location
Name of the
Work
1
2004-
05
COP Gauribidanur Hosur Somashettihalli
Yemmegudda
state forest
NALABUND
2
2004-
05
KFDF Chickaballapura Mandical Anemodagu Anemadagu Gully check
3
2006-
07
RSPD Siddalaghatta Siddalaghatta Siddalaghatta
Siddalaghatta
nursery
Water tank in
nursery

DISTRIBUTION OF SEEDLINGS

S.
No
Taluk/
Range
Hobli Village
Name of the
Farmer
Species
received
Num
ber
Survi
val %
Remarks
1 Chintamani Kaiwara Kariwara Chadapasha
Eucalyptus
Hybrid
7000 60 Good
2 Chintamani Kaiwara Kariwara Jay rama Hunase 25 75 Good
110

3 Chintamani
Muruga
malla
Nara
makalapalli
Venkaronap
pa
Hunase 40 80 Good
4 Chintamani
Chilkan
erggu
Kenchapally R. Byanna
Eucalyptus
Hybrid
4500 70 Good
5 Chintamani Kasaba Kurubur Muniyappa
Eucalyptus
Hybrid
200 90 Good
6 Chintamani Kasaba Chickpur
Narasimhare
ddy
Eucalyptus 4500 70 Good
7
Gauribidan
ur
Kasaba
Chickakuragou
nda
Sowbagya Not planted
8
Gouribidan
ur
Hosur Drohakurte
Malliah s/o
lingaiah
Halasu
Hunase
Silveroak
Teak
50
50
100
200
80 Good
9 Bagepalli
Mitama
ri
Karaganakalap
alli
Narasimiah
Eucalyptus
Hybrid
3500 60 Good
10
Siddlaghatt
a
Kasaba Mallenahalli Muniswamy
Eucalyptus
Hybrid
533 85 Good
11
Siddalaghat
ta
Kasaba Tharasahalli
Akkalu
reddy
Eucalyptus
Hybrid
6500 80 Good
12
Siddalaghat
ta
j. kote
Naradopenaya
kanahalli
Satyanaraya
na
Eucalyptus
Hybrid
6800 80 Good

Details of afforestation works selected randomly for evaluation in FDA_NAP scheme.
S.
No
Year Range Hobli Village Sy.No
Extent
(in Ha/
km)
Model
1 2003-04 Sidlaghatta Basetihalli Ajjakadirenahalli 34,35,36,37 25
FDA
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
5 2003-04 Gudibande Kasaba Somalapur 147 25
Mixed
plantations
6 2006-07 Chickaballapura Chilkaranahalli Motenakondapally 25
Mixed
plantations
7 2003-04 Chickaballapura Nandi Sriramapura 12 25 ANR
8 2002-03 Chintamani Munganahalli Hanumaiahgarahalli 25 NA-MP
9 2004-05 Gauribidanur Hosur
Hoskote,
Yemmegudda SF
25
Bamboo
plantation
10 2004-05 Gauribidanur Hosur Kurudi 25 AR
11 2002-03 Gauribidanur Hosur Kurudi 25
Silvi
pasture
111

12 2005-06 Gauribidanur Hosur Kurudi 25
Mixed
plantation
13 2006-07 Gauribidanur Thondebavi Kambalahalli 25 AR
14 2002-03 Gauribidanur Thondehavi Kambalahalli 25 AR

Summary of Evaluation of Individual plantations
S.
No
Year Village
Extent
(in
Ha/
km)
Model
Pit/
Trench
Spacing
Spp.
planted
Mainte-
nance
Status
of
VFC
Micro
plan
Plnt
Journal
1
2003-
04
Ajjakadirenahalli 25 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
Partially
written
2
2005-
06
Madakaveripally 20 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
Partially
written
3
2004-
05
E. Thiommasandra 25 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Not
written
4
2005-
06
Avalahalli 25 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Written
up to
date
5
2003-
04
Somalapur 25 Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No
Partially
written
6
2006-
07
Motenakondapally 25 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Partially
written
7
2003-
04
Sriramapura 25 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Written
up to
date
8
2002-
03
Hanumaiahgarahalli 25 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Partially
written
9
2004-
05
Hoskote,
Yemmegudda SF
25 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Partially
written
10
2004-
05
Kurudi 25 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Partially
written
11
2002-
03
Kurudi 25 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Partially
written
12
2005-
06
Kurudi 25 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Partially
written
13
2006-
07
Kambalahalli 25 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Partially
written
14
2002-
03
Kambalahalli 25 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
Partially
written


Summary of Evaluation of Qualitative aspects of Individual plantations

S.
No
Year Village
Extent
(in
Ha/
km)
Selection
of site
Selection
of
Plantation
model
Choice
of
Species
Protection
aspects
Survival
percentage
General
condition
1
2003-
04
Ajjakadirenahalli 25 Proper Proper Proper Proper 78 good
2
2005-
06
Madakaveripalic 20 Proper Proper Proper Proper 42.2 Satisfactory
3
2004-
05
E.Thiommanasandra 25 Improper Proper Proper Improper 75 good
112

4
2005-
06
Avalahalli 25 Proper Proper Proper Proper 87 good
5
2003-
04
Somalapur 25 Proper Proper Proper Proper 60 good
6
2006-
07
Motenakondapally 25 Proper Proper Proper Proper 86.3 Good
7
2003-
04
Sriramapura 25 Proper Proper Proper Proper 75 Good
8
2002-
03
Hanumaiahgarahalli 25 Proper Proper Proper Proper 68.46
performing
well
9
2004-
05
Hoskote,
Yemmegudda SF
25 Proper Improper Proper Proper 30 Poor
10
2004-
05
Kurudi 25 Proper Improper Proper Proper 80 Good
11
2002-
03
Kurudi 25 Proper proper Proper Proper 30 Poor
12
2005-
06
Kurudi 25 Proper Proper Proper Proper 78 Good
13
2006-
07
Kambalahalli 25 Proper Proper Proper Proper 66.93 Satisfactory
14
2002-
03
Kambalahalli 25 Proper Proper Proper Proper 47 Satisfactory

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.
113

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.
Details of afforestation works including seed sowing selected randomly for evaluation in
all schemes except FDA_NAP
Planting:
S.
No
Year Scheme Range Hobli Village Sy.No
Extent
(in Ha/
km)
1 2005-06 SGRY (TP) Gudibanda Somanahalli Voralakonda 168 21.50
2 2005-06 SGRY (TP) Bagepalli SF Golur Devanahally - 10.00
3 2005-06 SGRY (ZP) Gauribidanur SF Manchenahalli
Sadenahalli &
Shampura to DB
Pura Road side
- 6kms
4 2006-07 SGRY (ZP) Sidlagatta SF Kasaba Siddapura 1 10.00
5 2005-06 SGRY (TP) Sidlagatta Bashettihalli GLPS, Sadahalli - 1.50
6 2006-07 SGRY (TP)
Chikballapura
SF
-
GHS,
Reddigollarahalli
- 1
7 2006-07 SGRY (TP) Gauribidanur Thondebhavi Doddamallekere 104 12.5
8 2006-07 SGRY (TP) Gauribidanur SF Hossur
Kenkere-
Machenahalli
- 6 kms


Summary of Evaluation of Individual plantations

S.
No
Year Village
Extent
(in
Ha/
km)
Model
Pit/
Trench
Spacing
Spp.
planted
Mainte-
nance
Status
of
VFC
Micro
plan
Plnt
Journal
1
2005-
06
Voralakonda 21.50 Yes Yes Scattered Yes Yes No No
Partially
written
2
2005-
06
Devanahally 10.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
Partially
written
3
2005-
06
Sadenahalli &
Shampura to DB
Pura Road side
6 kms Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
Partially
written
4
2006-
07
Siddapura 10.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Partially
written
5
2005-
06
GLPS, Sadahalli 1.50 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
Not
written
6
2006-
07
GHS,
Reddigollarahalli
1.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No
Not
written
7
2006-
07
Doddamallekere 12.5 yes yes yes yes yes no no
Not
written
8
2006-
07
Kenkere-
Machenahalli
6 kms Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
Partially
written
114


Summary of Evaluation of Qualitative aspects of Individual plantations:
S.
No
Year Village
Extent
(in Ha/
km)
Selection
of site
Selection
of
Plantation
model
Choice
of
Species
Protection
aspects
Survi
val %
General
condition
1
2005-
06
Voralakonda 21.50 Proper Proper Proper Proper 87 Good
2
2005-
06
Devanahally 10.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 64.6 Good
3
2005-
06
Sadenahalli &
Shampura to
DB Pura
Road side
6 kms Proper Proper Proper Proper 72 Good
4
2006-
07
Siddapura 10.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 26 Poor
5
2005-
06
GLPS,
Sadahalli
1.50 Proper Proper Proper Proper 65 Poor
6
2006-
07
GHS,
Reddigillarah
alli
1.00 Proper Proper
Improp
er
Improper 28 Poor
7
2006-
07
Doddamallek
ere
12.5 proper proper proper proper 60 good
8
2006-
07
Kenkere-
Machenahalli
6 kms Proper Proper Proper Proper 82 Good
DISTRIBUTION OF SEEDLINGS

S.
No
Taluk/
Range
Hobli Village
Name of the
Farmer
Species
received
Num
ber
Survi
val %
Remarks
1
Chickball
apura
Mandical Gundlamandical
Venkatanarasamma
W/o Avalappa
Eucalyptus 3000 90 Good
2
Chickball
apura
Mandical Gundlamandical
Muniyappa S/o
Chickgurappa
Eucalyptus 3000 88 Good

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.

115

Details of afforestation works including seed sowing selected randomly for evaluation in
all schemes except FDA_NAP
Planting:
S.No Year Scheme Range Hobli Village Sy.No
Extent (in Ha/
km)
1 2005-06 KSFMBC Mulbagal - Vemmasandra - 35
2 2005-06
Compensatory
Afforestation
Mulbagal Yeldur Kannampalli 51 13
3 2004-05 DDF Kolar - Thondala - 12
4 2005-06 NOVOD Srinivaspur -
Kotapally
(Karanja)
- 25

Summary of Evaluation of Individual plantations:
S.
No
Year Village
Extent
(in
Ha/
km)
Model
Pit/
Trench
Spacing
Spp.
planted
Mainte-
nance
Status
of
VFC
Micro
plan
Plnt
Journal
1
2005-
06
Vemmasandra 35 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
Written
up to
date
2
2005-
06
Kannampalli 13 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes
Written
up to
date
3
2004-
05
Thondala 12 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
Written
up to
date
4
2005-
06
Kotapally
(Karanja)
25 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
Written
up to
date
Summary of Evaluation of Qualitative aspects of Individual plantations:
S.
No
Year Village
Extent
(in
Ha/
km)
Selection
of site
Selection
of
Plantation
model
Choice
of
Species
Protection
aspects
Survival
percentage
General
condition
1
2005-
06
Vemmasandra 35 Proper Proper Proper Proper 82 Good
2
2005-
06
Kannampalli 13 Proper Proper Proper Proper 83
Plantation
is
performing
well
3
2004-
05
Thondala 12 Proper Proper Proper Proper 95 Very good
4
2005-
06
Kotapally
(Karanja)
25 Proper Proper Proper Proper 91 Good


OTHER WORKS:
Details of other works selected randomly for evaluation:
S.No Year Scheme Range Hobli Village Location
Name of the
Work
1 2004-05 DDF Kolar - Thondala Thondala Gully Checks




116

DISTRIBUTION OF SEEDLINGS

S.
No
Taluk/
Range
Hobli Village
Name of the
Farmer
Species
received
Num
ber
Survival
%
Remarks
1
Srinivas
pur
Muduwadi Muduwadi
Venkategowda
S/o Ramappa
Eucalyptus 8000 92 Good
2
Bangar
pet
Kamasamudra Chamanahally
Narayanappa
S/o
Muniswamy
Eucalyptus 8000 85 Good
3
Bangar
pet
Kysamballi B.K.Pura
Sri Ram Reddy
S/o
Muniswamy
Reddy
Eucalyptus 6000 86 Good
4
Bangar
pet
Robertranjal Pochepally
Armugam S/o
Muniswamy
Eucalyptus 1110 89 Good
5
Bangar
pet
Kamasumudr
a
Makarahally
Babu S/o
Mahboob sab
Eucalyptus 1225 90 Good
6
Bangar
pet
Kasaba K.G. Kote
Baba john S/o
Raheem sub
Eucalyptus 300 90 Good
7
Bangar
pet
Kasaba
Dodda
Ankondahally
Natraj S/o
Venkatappa
Eucalyptus 500 85 Good
8
Bangar
pet
Kasaba
Kamandahall
y
Ramappa S/o
Munisiddappa
Eucalyptus 150 95 Good
9
Bangar
pet
Kasaba Hoskote Govindappa Eucalyptus 2200 92 Good
10
Bangar
pet
Robertr Doddur Ramappa Silver Oak 20 95 Good
11
Bangar
pet
Kasaba
Kshetranahall
y
Rasheed Khan
S/o Madar
Khan
Eucalyptus 2500 95 Good
12
Bangar
pet
Robert KGF Rasheed Khan Eucalyptus 111 98 Good
13
Bangar
pet
Kamasamudra
Ramanayakan
ahally
Munivenkatapp
a
Eucalyptus 1000 96 Good
14 Malur Kasaba Doddakadatur
Anand S/o
Natraj
Eucalyptus 666 95 Good
15 Malur Masti
Thirumalahatt
i
Sonnappa S/o
Ramappa
Eucalyptus 3000 85
Effected by
Gall
infection
16
Mulbag
al
Taylur
Thimmaravatt
ahally
T.R.
Shankarappa
Eucalyptus
1225
0
87 Good
17
Mulbag
al
Byrkur Kadenahally
K.
Ramachandrap
pa S/o
Krishnappa
Eucalyptus
1467
0
90 Good
18 Kolar Holur Aleri Muniswamy Eucalyptus
1000
0
89 Good
19 Kolar Holur Muduwadi
Munegowda
S/o
Venkalishgowd
a
Eucalyptus 4000 90 Good



117

Details of afforestation works selected randomly for evaluation in FDA_NAP scheme.
S.No Year Range Hobli Village Sy.No
Extent (in
Ha/ km)
Model
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
4 2004-05 Kolar Narasapura
Pemmashetti
halli
- 25 AR
5 2005-06 Srinivaspur Rayalpod Gollapally 82,84 25 AR
6 2004-05 Malur Boodikate Pathramgola 31,32 20 ANR

Summary of Evaluation of Individual plantations:
S.
No
Year Village
Extent
(in
Ha/
km)
Model
Pit/
Trench
Spacing
Spp.
planted
Mainte-
nance
Status
of
VFC
Micro
plan
Plnt
Journal
1
2004-
05
Nachapalli 25 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
Partially
written
2
2006-
07
Kolamur 25 Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No
Partially
written
3
2006-
07
Kolamur 25 Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No
Written
up to
date
4
2004-
05
Pemmashetti
halli
25 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Written
up to
date
5
2005-
06
Gollapally 25 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Written
up to
date
6
2004-
05
Pathramgola 20 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
Written
up to
date
Summary of Evaluation of Qualitative aspects of Individual plantations:
S.No Year Village
Extent
(in
Ha/
km)
Selection
of site
Selection
of
Plantation
model
Choice
of
Species
Protection
aspects
Survival
percentage
General
condition
1
2004-
05
Nachapalli 25 Proper Proper Proper Proper 69 Good
2
2006-
07
Kocamur 25 Proper Proper Proper Proper 98 Good
3
2006-
07
Kolamur 25 Proper Proper Proper Proper 82
Moderate
(due to fact
recently
planted)
4
2004-
05
Pemmashetti
halli
25 Proper Proper Proper Proper 75 Good
5
2005-
06
Gollapally 25 Proper Proper Proper Proper 91 Very good
6
2004-
05
Pathramgola 20 Proper Proper Proper Proper 71 Good

118

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.
Details of afforestation works including seed sowing selected randomly for evaluation in
all schemes
Planting:
S.
No
Year Scheme Range Hobli Village Sy.No
Extent
(in
Ha/
km)
1 2006-07
SGRY
(TP)
Srinivaspur Dalasanur Gandlahalli 49 10.00
2 2005-06 KSFMBC Mulbagal Duddasamdra Kunibanda
63/P.30, 288,
63,33/P.2,63/P.30
2.50
3 2005-06
SGRY
(ZP)
Bangarpet
SF
-
Kamasamudra to
KGF Roade side
- 3 km
4 2005-06
KSFMBC
M-8A
Bangarpet
SF
- Muduganahalli 58 1.5
5 2006-07
SGRY
(ZP)
Malur SF Kasaba Shivarapatna TFS 1 20







119

Summary of Evaluation of Individual plantations:
S.
No
Year Village
Extent
(in
Ha/
km)
Model
Pit/
Trench
Spacing
Spp.
planted
Mainte-
nance
Status
of
VFC
Micro
plan
Plnt
Journal
1
2006-
07
Gandlahalli 10.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
Partially
written
2
2005-
06
Kumibanda 2.50 Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No
Not
written
3
2005-
06
Kamasamudra
to KGF Road
side
3 km Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
Partially
written
4
2005-
06
Muduganahalli 1.5 Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No
Not
written
5
2006-
07
Shivarapatna
TFS
20.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
Written
up to
date
Summary of Evaluation of Qualitative aspects of Individual plantations:

S.
No
Year Village
Extent
(in
Ha/
km)
Selection
of site
Selection
of
Plantation
model
Choice
of
Species
Protection
aspects
Survival
percentage
General
condition
1
2006-
07
Goudhahalli 10.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 93 Good
2
2005-
06
Kunibanda 2.50 Proper Proper Proper Improper 13
Not
performing
well
3
2005-
06
Kamasamudra
to KGF Road
side
3 km Proper Proper Proper Proper 54.60
Performing
well
4
2005-
06
Muduganahalli 1.5 Proper Proper Proper Improper 5 Poor
5
2006-
07
Shivarapatna
TFS
20.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 88 Good

DISTRIBUTION OF SEEDLINGS

S.
No
Taluk/
Range
Hobli Village Name of the Farmer
Species
received
Num
ber
Survi
val %
Remarks
1 Bangarpet S.G.Kote
Subbaiah
S/o Muniswamy
Eucalyptus 2600 86.24 Good
2 Bangarpet -
Dasarahosa
halli
H.M. Ramaiah S/o
Narayanappa
Eucalyptus
Hybrid
2490 28.01 Good
3 Bangarpet Hunkunda Hunkunda
1.Srinivas Naik S/o
Channa Naik
2.Channama W/o
Venkatshappa
Eucalyptus 4800 24 Poor
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.
120

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:
Total number of plantations raised in the division during the period under
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)
Details of afforestation works including seed sowing selected randomly for evaluation in
all schemes except FDA_NAP
Planting:
S.No Year Scheme Range Hobli Village Sy.No
Extent
(in Ha/
km)
1 2004-05 COP Ramanagara Kootagal
Chamenalli to
Vaddaradoddi
Road side 9.00
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
5 2005-06
KSFMBC
M-4
Magadi Madabal Gattipura Block-I 50 40.00
6 2006-07
KSFMBC
M-2
Chennapatna Vpura Gallaradoddi 1 25.00
7 2006-07
KSFMBC
M-4
Ramanagara Kailanaka
Pichanakere (Handigundi
SF)
1 26.00
8 2006-07
KSFMBC
M-4
Sathanur Uyyamballi
Pillagowdanadoddi
(Encroachment evicted
area)
89 27.00
9 2006-07
KSFMBC
M-2
Magadi Kasaba
Gollarahatti
(Encroachment evicted
area)
114-117 50.00

Summary of Evaluation of Individual plantations:

S.
No
Year Village
Extent
(in
Ha/
km)
Model
Pit/
Trench
Spacing
Spp.
planted
Mainte-
nance
Status
of
VFC
Micro
plan
Plnt
Journal
1
2004-
05
Chamenalli to
Vaddaradoddi
9.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes No -- --
Partially
written
2
2004-
05
Kodamballi-
Singarajapura
3.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes -- --
Partially
written
3
2004-
05
Chilandavadi 10.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No --
Partially
written
121

4
2005-
06
Makkalanda 12.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Partially
written
5
2005-
06
Gattipura Block-I 40.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes -- --
Partially
written
6
2006-
07
Gollaradoddi 25.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes -- --
Partially
written
7
2006-
07
Pichanakere
(Handigundi SF)
26.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Partially
written
8
2006-
07
Pillagowdanadoddi
(Encroachment
evicted area)
27.00
9
2006-
07
Gollarahatti
(Encroachment
evicted area)
50.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes -- -- Yes
Partially
written

Summary of Evaluation of Qualitative aspects of Individual plantations:

S.
No
Year Village
Extent
(in
Ha/
km)
Selection
of site
Se;ection
of
Plantation
model
Choice
of
Species
Protection
aspects
Survival
%
General
condition
1
2004-
05
Chamenalli to
Vaddaradoddi
9.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 24.00
Mortality
is due to
road
widening
2
2004-
05
Kodamballi-
Singarajapura
3.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 53.00
Mortality
is due to
road
widening
3
2004-
05
Chilandavadi 10.00
Partially
improper
Proper
Partially
improper
Proper 72.00
Elephant
infested
area.
4
2005-
06
Makkalanda 12.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 82.00
Elephant
damage
Noticed.
5
2005-
06
Gattipura Block-I 40.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 90.00 Fair
6
2006-
07
Gollaradoddi 25.00 Proper Proper Proper Im proper 100.00 Good
7
2006-
07
Pichanakere
(Handigundi SF)
26.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 68.00 Good
8
2006-
07
Pillagowdanadoddi
(Encroachment
evicted area)
27.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 70.00 Good
9
2006-
07
Gollarahatti
(Encroachment
evicted area)
50.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 84.00 Good

OTHER WORKS:
Details of other works selected randomly for evaluation:
S.
No
Year Scheme Range Hobli Village Location Name of the Work
1 2006-07
Eco-
Tourism
Kanakapura Kodihalli Kodihalli
Sangam Guest
House
Renovation of
Sangam Guest
House
2 2004-05 FDA Magadi -- Nayakanapalya Nayakanapalya
Construction of
Community hall
3 2005-06
NAP-
FDA
Ramanagara Bidadi Kethohalli
Basaveshware
Temple Kethohalli
Construction of
Ashwathakatte

122

DISTRIBUTION OF SEEDLINGS

S.
No
Taluk/
Range
Hobli Village
Name of the
Farmer
Species
received
Num
ber
Survi
val %
Remarks
1 Kanakapura Sathanur
Chikkamudude
(chikkahalahalli)
Chikkaswamy
Teak,
Turukebevu
600 80 Good
2 Kanakapura Sathanur Sorekaidoddi Kempegowda
Teak,
Turukebevu
600 80 Good
3 Channapatna VPura Honganur Srinivas
Nilgiri,Teak,
Silver Oak,
Turukebevu
& Misc
780 76.92 Good
4 Channapatna VPura Honganur Venkatesh
Nilgiri,Teak,
Silver Oak,
Turukebevu
& Misc
570 78.94 Good
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

Details of afforestation works selected randomly for evaluation in FDA_NAP scheme.
Planting:
S.No Year Range Hobli Village Sy.No
Extent (in
Ha/ km)
Model
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
5 2006-07 Sathanur Uyyamballi
Halya-Hosadoddi
(Encroachment evicted area)
1 25.00 NAP
6 2006-07 Kanakapura Maralavadi Kadushivanahalli 1 25.00 MP
7 2005-06 Ramanagara Kasaba Kethohalli (Handigundi) 1 25.00 NAP

Summary of Evaluation of Individual plantations:

S.
No
Year Village
Extent
(in
Ha/
km)
Model
Pit/
Trench
Spacing
Spp.
planted
Mainte-
nance
Status
of
VFC
Micro
plan
Plnt
Journal
1
2004-
05
Hebbanga
(Gandhigrama)
25.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes -- -- --
Partially
written
2
2004-
05
Kolagandanahalli 25.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes --
Partially
written
3
2005-
06
Dyavappanakatte
(Nehrudoddi)
25.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes --
Not
written
123

4
2005-
06
Nayakanapalya 25.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes --
5
2006-
07
Halya-Hosadoddi
(Encroachment
evicted area)
25.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No
Partially
written
6
2006-
07
Kadushivanahalli 25.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Partially
written
7
2005-
06
Kethohalli
(Handigundi)
25.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes No -- Yes
Partially
written

Summary of Evaluation of Qualitative aspects of Individual plantations:

S.No Year Village
Extent
(in
Ha/
km)
Selection
of site
Selection
of
Plantation
model
Choice
of
Species
Protection
aspects
Survival
percentage
General
condition
1
2004-
05
Hebbanga
(Gandhigrama)
25.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 16.00 poor
2
2004-
05
Kolagandanahalli 25.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 70.00 Fair
3
2005-
06
Dyavappanakatte
(Nehrudoddi)
25.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 20.00
4
2005-
06
Nayakanapalya 25.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 70.17 Good
5
2006-
07
Halya-Hosadoddi
(Encroachment
evicted area)
25.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 80.00 Good
6
2006-
07
Kadushivanahalli 25.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 90.00 Good
7
2005-
06
Kethohalli
(Handigundi)
25.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 86.00 Good

™ 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
works out to be 36.74% of the area. In addition to afforestation works the division has
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 survival percentage varies from 16 to 90%.
™ 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.
™ The roadside plantations are promising but mortality has resulted due to road
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.

124

RAMANAGARA SOCIAL FORESTRY DIVISION

PLANTATIONS:

Total number of plantations raised in the division during the period under
Evaluation including seed sowing in all schemes: 55 (74.60 Ha)
Total Number of the plantation visited by the Team : 7 (24.88 Ha. )

Details of afforestation works including seed sowing selected randomly for evaluation in
all schemes except FDA_NAP
Planting:
S.
No
Year Scheme Range Hobli Village Sy.No
Extent
(in
Ha/
km)
1 2004-05 SGRY
Ramanagara
SF
Kootagal Kengal doddi to Vijayapura Road Side 3.00
2 2006-07
SGRY
(ZP)
Magadi SF Kasaba
Jamalsobarapalya to
Agalakote Gate
Road Side 3.00
3 2006-07
SGRY
(ZP)
Kanagepura Sathanur Kabbalu to Sathanur Road Side 3.00
4 2004-05
SGRY
(ZP)
Channapatna
SF
Vpura Y.T. Halli to Nidagodu Road Side 3.00
5 2004-05
SGRY
(ZP)
Channapatna
SF
Vpura
Iggalur to
Chikkabommanahalli
Garakalli
Road Side 6.00
6 2006-07
SGRY
(TP)
Channapatna
SF
Vpura
Kallapura Gate – Bhuvapura
– Nelamakanahalli
Road Side 6.00
7 2006-07
KSFMBC
M-8A
Channapatna
SF
Kasaba Honiganahalli (BM Road) 120,139,140 1.00

Summary of Evaluation of Individual plantations:

S.
No
Year Village
Extent
(in
Ha/
km)
Model
Pit/
Trench
Spacing
Spp.
planted
Mainte
nance
Status
of
VFC
Micro
plan
Plnt
Journal
1
2004-
05
Kengal doddi to
Vijayapura
3.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes --
Partially
written
2
2006-
07
Jamalsobarapalya to
Agalakote Gate
3.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes --
Partially
written
3
2006-
07
Kabbalu to Sathanur 3.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes - --
Partially
written
4
2004-
05
Y.T. Halli to
Nidagodu
3.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Partially
written
5
2004-
05
Iggalur to
Chikkabommanahalli
Garakalli
6.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes --
Partially
written
6
2006-
07
Kallapura Gate –
Bhuvapura –
Nelamakanahalli
6.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
Partially
written
7
2006-
07
Honiganahalli (BM
Road)
1.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes -- --
Partially
written




125

Summary of Evaluation of Qualitative aspects of Individual plantations:

S.
No
Year Village
Extent
(in
Ha/
km)
Selection
of site
Selection
of
Plantation
model
Choice
of
Species
Protection
aspects
Survival
%
General
condition
1
2004-
05
Kengal doddi to
Vijayapura
3.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 42.00 Good
2
2006-
07
Jamalsobarapalya to
Agalakote Gate
3.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 81.00 Good
3
2006-
07
Kabbalu to Sathanur 3.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 33.00 Fail
4
2004-
05
Y.T. Halli to
Nidagodu
3.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 52.00 Fair
5
2004-
05
Iggalur to
Chikkabommanahalli
Garakalli
6.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 58 Good
6
2006-
07
Kallapura Gate –
Bhuvapura –
Nelamakanahalli
6.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 62.00 Good
7
2006-
07
Honiganahalli (BM
Road)
1.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 80.00 Good

DISTRIBUTION OF SEEDLINGS

S.
No
Taluk/
Range
Hobli Village
Name of the
Farmer
Species
received
Num
ber
Survi
val %
Remarks
1 Magadi Kasaba Karalamangala
Hucchahanuma
iah
Nilgiri 1300 90 Good
2 Kanakapura Kasaba Malagalu
Ventaramanas
wamy
Eucalyptus 4000 90 Good
3 Channapatna VPura Menasignahalli Naggegowda Teak 1000 65 Good
4 Ramanagara Kasaba
Qubar-Ul-Stan-
Burrial Ground,
Ramanagara
Syed Ziaulla,
President
Honge,
Teak,
Silver Oak,
Hebbevu,
Bevu
1500 90 Good
5 Ramanagara Kasaba
Qubar-Ul-Stan-
Burrial Ground,
Ramanagara
Syed Ziaulla,
President
Honge,
Teak,
Silver Oak,
Hebbevu,
Bevu
1000 85 Good

™ 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 survival percentage varies from 33 to 81%.

™ 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.
™ The roadside plantations are promising but mortality has resulted due to road
widening work.
126


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.


Chief Conservator of Forests,
Evaluation
& Team Leader.







































127

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 15
0
50’ and 16
0
45’
north and between longitudes 75
0
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 18
0
C in December- January
to a maximum of 40
0
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
128

2) Badami
3) Hungund
4) Jamkhandi
5) Mudhol
6) Bilagi
List of Plantations evaluated in Bilagi Range

Sl
No.
Year
Sche
me
Range Village
Survey
No.
Area
in
(ha)
% of
Survival
Latitude
Longitude
Remarks
1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11
1
2004-
05
FDF
(OP)
Bilagi
Kandagal
Block-I
Fsy.No.
18-A
80.00
64.16%
N-16
0
19’ 24.8”
- 75
0
45’ 08.6”
Good
Kandagal
Block-II
69.16%
N-16
0
19’ 26.9”
E- 75
0
45’ 06.0”
Good
2
2007-
08
CSS-
NAP
(AR)
Bilagi Yalligutti
(Yallgutti
VFC )
FS
No.118
80 75.45%
N-16
0
14’ 50.6”
E- 75
0
39’ 55.1” V. Good

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
No.
Year Scheme Range Village Surve
y No.
Are
a in
(ha)
% of Survival Latitude
Longitude
Remarks
1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11
1 2004-
05
CSS.NAP
(AR)
Badami Ugal
wat
Fsy.N
o.182
20.0
0
46.42% N-15
0
34’ 36.8”
E- 74
0
51’ 42.8”
Not
promising
plantation
2 2006- KSFMBC Badami Keroor Fsy.N 45.0 53% trench-53.15% N-15
0
34’ 36.8” Average
129

07 Model-4 o.321 0 pits-60.39% E- 74
0
51’ 42.8” Plantation
Other Works

Sl.
No.
Year Scheme Hobli/Taluk Work Sanctioned
cost
Remarks
3
2005-
06
KSFMBC
Model-04
Badami (Karur) Nalaband 150000 Good
4
2005-
06
KSFMBC
Model-01
Badami (Kallapur)
(Kirsur & Mallapur)
Nalaband 75000
CPT in Measured Top width
1.70m Bottom width 1.10m
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.
No
Year Scheme Range Location
Area in
Ha.
% of
Survival
Latitude
Longitude
Remarks
1
2004
-05
CSS.NAP
(AR)
Mudhol
Chichkandi
F.Sy.No. 113
20 89%
N-16
0
14’ 34.4”
E- 75
0
17’ 37.2”
Good
2
2006
-07
KSFMBC
model 4
Mudhol
Petalur
F.Sy. No 99
40 84.72%
N-16
0
13’ 53.1”
E- 75
0
17’ 49.4”
Good
3
2004
-05
CSS-NAP
(AR)
Mudhol Halagali 20 93%
N-16
0
20’ 46.4”
E- 75
0
28’ 43.8”
Not
promising,seedli
ngs are
struggling to
survive
4
2006
-07
CSS-NAP
(AR)
Mudhol
(Chichak
andi
VFC)
Chichakandi
F. Sy. No
113
20 63.66%
N-16
0
14’ 34.7”
E- 75
0
17’ 31.5”
Moderate
5
2007
-08
CSS-
NAP(AN
R)
Mudhol
Laxanatti
F.Sy .No.34
20 91%
N-160 10’
01.2” E- 750
20’ 58.0”
V.Good
6
2007
-08
CSS-NAP
(AR)
-do-
Chichakandi
FS No.113
20 95%
N-160 15’ 7.9”
E- 750 21’.8”
V.Good

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
130

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

Sl
No.
Year Scheme Range Village
Survey
No.
Area
in
(ha)
% of
Survi
val
Latitude
Longitude
Remarks
1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11
1
2003-
04
CSS.NAP
(AR)
Jamkhandi Kajibilgi
Fsy.No.
140
20
35.46
%
N-16
0
42’
34.6”E- 75
0

22’ 51.8”
Poor
2
2004-
05
CSS.NAP
(AR)
Jamkhandi Tungal Fsy.No.39 20
42.95
%
N-16
0
42’
29.8”E- 75
0

17’ 48.9”
Average
3
2004-
05
Comp-
Plant
Jamkhandi Hangandi
Fsy.No.
13
1.39 25%
N-16
0
29’
49.9” E- 75
0

04’ 10.6”
Does not
serve
purpose
of the
scheme
131

4
2005-
06
CSS NAP
(Silvi)
Jamkhandi Jakanur
F Sy No.
34/1
20.00
52.40
%
N-16
0

31’12.6” E-
75
0
23’ 40.3”
Good
5
2007-
08
CSS NAP
FDA
Jamkhandi Siddapur
FS No.
73/1
40.00 77.67
N-16
0
29’
17.4” E- 75
0

16’ 10.5”
Good
6
2007-
08
KSHIP Jamkhandi
Chikkalgi
to Shirol
Road Side
-- 29.8 98%
N-16
0
36’
40.9” E- 75
0

28’ 28.6”
Good

Jhamakhandi Other Works

Sl.
No.
Year Scheme Hobli/ Taluk Work
Sanctioned
cost
Remarks
1 2004-05 CSS -NAP
Jamkhandi (Khaji
Bilgi)
Gully checks 30000 Good
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
132

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

Sl
No.
Year Scheme Range Village
Survey
No.
Area
in
(ha)
% of
Survival
Latitude
Longitude
Remarks
1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11
1 2005-
06
KSHIP Hunagund Hunagund
Kamatgi
road
-- 20.00 89% N-16
0
03’ 24.8”
E- 75
0
59’ 55.0”
Good
2 2005-
06
CSS.
NAP
(AR)
Hunagund Kelur Fsy.No
. 261
20.00 90% N-15
0
58’ 19.6”
E- 75
0
55’ 50.1”
Choice of
species
and site is
not proper
poor
protection,
plantation
is
struggling
3 2007-
08
CSS-
NAP
(AR)
Hungund Dammur
(Dammur
VFC)
FS
No.1 60.00 100%
N-15
0
54’ 27.3”
E- 75
0
57’ 16.4” Moderate

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.


133



List of Plantations evaluated in Bagalkot Range

Sl
No.
Year Scheme Range Location
Area
in
(ha)
% of
Survival
Latitude
Longitude
Remarks
1 2 3 4 6 8 9 10 11
1 2005-06 KSFM
BC
Model
–(1)
Bagalkot Govind-
koppa
50.00 -- N-16
0
10’
51.4” E- 75
0

32’ 22.3”
3600 RMtr CPT
Gully checks G.C.S-
length –5.9M
B.length-3M Height-
45M
2 2005-06 KSFM
BC
Model
–(1)
Bagalkot Kirsur &
Mallapur
50.00 -- N-16
0
12’
16.4” E- 075
0

43’47.6”
3600 Rmtr CPT has
been done wherever
biotic interference is
there planting of
Agave Sucker &
P.J.,Siamea has not
been successful
3 2006-07 KSFM
BC
Model
–(1)
Bagalkot Kirsur 20.00 -- N-16
0
12’
00.9” E- 075
0

44’40”
1440 Rmtr CPT has
been done & 28 No.
Gully Checks has
been done planted
Agave P.J.Sowing,
C. Siamea Jatropa
has come up well
4 2007-08 CSS-
NAP(A
NR)
Bagalkot Nilanagar
FS No.
88/A
(Nilanagar
VFC )
20 95%
N-16
0
05’
37.6” E- 75
0

44’ 23.7”
Excellent Plantation
5 2007-08 CSS-
NAP
(ANR)
-do- Alur FS
No. 52P
(Alur
VFC) 40 96%
N-16
0
19’
01.3” E- 75
0

51’ .55.4”
Good
6 2007-08 CSS-
NAP

Bagalkot Hiregulab
al FS
No.47P
(Hiregula
bal VFC)
50 89%
N-16
0
17’
56.8” E- 75
0

50’ 49.3”
Average

Other Works

Sl.
No.
Year Scheme Hobli/Taluk Work
Sanctioned
cost
Remarks
4 2006-
07
KSFMBC
Model-01
Bagalkot
(Kirsur)

Trench 26900 Earthen bunds across Gully has been
done by digging trench of size
Length -9.30m width – 1.2m depth –
75cm.
5
2006-
07
KSFMBC
Model-05
Bagalkot
(Devanal)
Trench 79300 Good
134

6
2006-
07
Land &
Building
Bagalkot
(Bagalkot)
Building
Maintenance
work
400000
Forester & Range Clerk, Twin Quarters
has been Constructed Apparently good
Construction N-16
0
10’56.2” E-
075
0
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)
Sl.
No
Year Scheme Range Village
Area
in
(ha)
% of
Survival
Latitude
Longitude
Remarks
1 2004-05 KSFMBC
Badami
(SF)
:..¬:c¬¬ ¯.c:c
·: c..c./.c
1.00 -- -- --
2 2004-05 SGRY (ZP)
Badami
(SF)
.c¬:c t:c.:,
/.-.¬/.¬ -¯¯) . ..c
356 35% Not available Poor
3 2004-05 SGRY (TP)
Badami
(SF)
.·¬.:c .¬: ·c¬
tc:c
700 0%
N-160 00’
32.1” E-750
33’ 02.9”
Failed
4 2004-05 SGRY (TP)
Badami
(SF)
¬.¬. ¬.¬. ¬¸·:c
./.¬:.
320 46%
N-150 34’
36.8” E-740
Good
135

51’ 42.8”
5 2004-05 SGRY (TP)
Badami
(SF)
c..¬..¬ /:.¬
:- ¬:c ·:- .c..:¯
1364 21%
N-160 04’
48.4” E-750
55’ 05.5”
V.Bad

Bilagi Range (SF)

Sl.
No
Year Scheme Range Village
Area
in
(ha)
% of
Survival
Latitude
Longitude
Remarks
1 2004-05 SGRY (ZP)
Bilagi
(SF)
¬ctc c· .: ¬.:.
/:¬ .
1000 36%
N-16
0
16’ 01.0”
E-75
0
41’ 35.5”
Good
2 2004-05 SGRY (TP)
Bilagi
(SF)
c:.- .·.·í.·...
.:..
500 50%
N-15
0
06’ 41.4”
E-75
0
50’ 06.1”
Moderate
3 2004-05 SGRY (TP)
Bilagi
(SF)
^c·:/c ·::.-!!+,
¬.:. /:¬.¬ c·
.:-¯¯:.
600 28%
N-16
0
21’ 08.9”
E-75
0
41’ 57.2”
Poor

Mudhol Range (SF)

Sl.
No
Year Scheme Range Village
Area
in
(ha)
% of
Survival
Latitude
Longitude
Remarks
3
2004-
05
SGRY (ZP)
Mudhol
(SF)
¬.:÷t.:c /:¬ .
¬.:. ::c.
166 81%
N-16
0
14’ 17.8”
E-75
0
23’ 47.1”
Good
4
2004-
05
SGRY (ZP)
Mudhol
(SF)
.. :c /:¬. ¬.:.
::c.
178 -- -- --
11
2004-
05
SGRY (TP)
Mudhol
(SF)
¬.¬ .. ::c ¬ .: .
/:¬.
227 30%
N-160 17’ 41.7”
E-750 22’ 39.6”
Good

Bagalkot Range (SF)

Sl.
No
Year Scheme Range Village Area in
(ha)
% of
Survival
Latitude
Longitude
Remarks
1
2004-
05
SGRY
(ZP)
Bagaklot
(SF)
¬..c:c. ¬.·::.
¬ · . ::c :c :c -¯))
500 70%
N-16
0
05’
49.4” E-75
0

46’ 10.5”
V. Good

Hunagund Range (SF)

Sl.
No
Year Scheme Range Village Area in
(ha)
% of
Survival
Latitude
Longitude
Remarks
1
2004
-05
SGRY
(ZP)
Hungund
(SF)
¬../ .c¬ ¬:..·
¬ · . /¬ -!)).
¬.. / .c¬ t .c¬.
513 9.7%
N-16
0
03’
06.2” E-76
0

03’ 44.1”
Good
2
2004
-05
SGRY
(ZP)
Hungund
(SF)
1)·c/¬ .:. :-¬:c
!).t¬ ·c/¬ :-¬:c
1364 -- -- --

Jamakhandi Range (SF)

Sl.
No
Year Scheme Range Village Area
in
(ha)
% of
Survival
Latitude
Longitude
Remarks
3
2004
-05
SGRY
(TP)
Jamkhan
di (SF)
.¬.:c.-../.c.
c· .¬.::.¬..
16100
Pits-36%
Trench
10%
N-16
0
30’ 25.9”
E-75
0
18’ 34.46”
Not Good

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.
136

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
No
Range No of
Plantations
Extent Has Survival
Per Cent
Species
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.
137

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.
No.

Year Scheme Location/Sy. No. Species
Area
Ha.
Survival
Survival
%
X Ha.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 2004-05 KFDF (OP) Mundawad
FSY. No. 45, 84,
78, 73, 21, 23
Acacia 15.60 100.00 1560.00
2 2004-05 KFDF (OP) Hemmadaga
FSY. No. 69
Acacia 8.00 90.68 725.44
3 2004-05 KFDF (OP) Mohishet
FSY.No. 10, 47
Acacia 4.35 100.00 435.00
4 2005-06 02-Cultural
Operation
Shiroli
FSY. No. 10, 47
Acacia 5.00 90.00 450.00
5 2006-07 FDA Diggegali
FSY. No. 49/A
Acacia 20.00 95.50 1910.00
6 2006-07 FDA Diggegali
FSY. No. 49/A
Acacia, Bamboo 20.00 95.00 1900.00
7 2006-07 REFL Mundwad
FSY. No. 105
Acacia 10.00 100.00 1000.00
8 2006-07 KSFMBC Hemmadaga
FSY. No. 53, 100,
140
Matti, Nandi, Sissam,
Bamboo, Neral, Honne
etc.
14.00 93.80 1313.20
9 2006-07 FDA Mohishet
FSY. No. 10,47
Acacia, Bamboo 20.00 99.50 1990.00
10 2007-08 FDA Kapoli
FSY.No. 93
Acacia 20.00 97.75 1955.00
138

11 2007-08 FDA Bhalka
FSY. No. 29
Halasu, Sissum,
Bamboo, Shivane
20.00 96.75 1935.00
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.
No.

Year of
Sanction
Taluk Hobli Village
Survey
Nos.
Scheme Work
Sanc-
tioned
Cost (Rs.)
Remarks
(Name of
the VFCs)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 2005-06 Khanapur Gunji Mohishet 10, 47 S & MC Excavation of
Percolation
tank
20500.00 Mohishet
2 2005-06 Khanapur Gunji Diggegali 49A/6 Excavation of
Percolation
tank
22400.00 Diggegali
3 2006-07 Khanapur Gunji Diggegali 49A/6 S & MC Excavation of
Percolation
tank
23400.00 Diggegali
4 2006-07 Khanapur Gunji Mohishet 10,47
Watra
71
NAP-
FDA
Excavation of
Percolation
tank
52300.00 Mohishet

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.
No.
Year Hobli Village Number of seedlings

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.
139

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
1. Performance of Plantations
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.
No.

Year Scheme
Location/Sy.
No.
Species
Area
Ha.
Survi
val
Survival
%
X Ha.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 2004-
05
KFDF-
03-OP
Suvatwadi
FSY. No. 18,
46, 61
Acacia 2.50 86.00 215.00
2 2004-
05
NAP-
FDA
Balgund
FSY. No. 10
Lagerstroemia lanceolate, Terminalia
paniculata, Anacardiumoccidentale,
Pongamia pinnata,
Mitragyanaparviflora,Tectona
grandis, Phyllanthus emblica,
Pterocarpus marsupium, Terminalia
tomentosa, Bamboo
15.00 77.33 1159.95
3 2004-
05
NAP-
FDA
Bamankoppa
FSY. No. 32
Mitragyna parviflora, Bamboo,
Dalbergia latifolia, Lagerstroemia
lanceolata, Pterocarpus marsupium,
Terminalia tomentosa, Terminalia
billirica, Syzygium cumini, Pongamia
pinnata
10.00 84.00 840.00
4 2004-
05
NAP-
FDA
Balgund
FSY. No. 10
Acacia 15.00 93.33 1399.95
5 2005-
06
NAP-
FDA
Kodagai
FSY.No.
39,12,11
Terminalia tomentosa, Terminalia
bellerica, Terminalia paniculata,
Phyllanthus emblica, Terminalia
chebula, Mitragyna parviflora,
Dalbergia latifolia, Pongamia
pinnata, Syzygium cumini
Grewiateliaefolia
10.00 85.00 850.00
6 2005-
06
NAP
FDA
Bustawada
FSY. No. 62
Acacia, Bamboo 35.00 87.11 3048.85
7 2005-
06
KSFM
BC
(Model
Tarwad
FSY. No. 73
Terminalia tomentosa,Terminalia
paniculata, Xylia xylocarpa,
Pongamia pinnata, Terminalia
50.00 - -
140

1) bellerica, Emblica officinalis
Lagerstroemia lanceolata, Machilus
macranta, Emblica officinalis
8 2005-
06
NAP-
FDA
Avaratbail
FSY. No. 32
Acacia, Tectona grandis 20.00 79.00 1850.00
9 2005-
06
NAP-
FDA
Avaratbail
FSY. No. 32
Acacia, Bamboo 30.00 79.80 2394.00
10 2006-
07
REFL Suvatwadi
FSY. No. 48,
46, 61, 57
Acacia 10.00 95.00 950.00
11 2006-
07
KSFM
BC
(Model
1)
Jambegali
FSY. No. 41
Terminalia tomentosa, Teminalia
paniculata, Xylia xylocarpa,
Terminalia bellerica, Lagerstronemia
lanceolata, Syzygium cumini Emblica
officinalis.
50.00 - -
12 2007-
08
NAP-
FDA
Kirahalashi
FSY. No. 64
Syzygium cumini, Teminalia
paniculata, Machilus macranta,
Terminalia tomentosa, Phyllanthus
emblica
20.00 89.69 1793.80
13 2007-
08
NAP-
FDA
Sullegali
FSY.No. 23
Acacia 20.00 89.00 1780.00
Total: 287.50 945.26 16011.55
Total area = 287.50 – 100 (of KSFMBC Model-1 50+50) = 187.50 Ha.
Total survival percentage = 16011.55 = 85.39%
187.50

2. Performance of Species
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.
3. Protection Aspects
The protection and soil working has certainly enhanced the growth of the natural
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.
Sl.
No.

Year of
Sanc-
tion
Taluk Hobli Village
Surve
y
Nos.
Scheme Work
Sanc-
tioned
Cost
(Rs.)
Remarks
(Name of
the
VFCs)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 2003-
04
Khanapur Bidi Balgund S &
MC
Deeping of tank of
Balgund kere
5322.00 Balgund
2 2003-
04
Khanapur Bidi Bastwad EPA Construction of
Bastwad kere
50000.00 Bastwad
3 2004-
05
Khanapur Bidi Bastwad 55 NAP-
FDA
Excavation of
staggered contour
trenches
59600.00 Bastwad
4 2005-
06
Khanapur Bidi Kalkoppa 11, 12 NAP-
FDA
Excavation of
contour trenches
22300.00 Kodagai
5 2005-
06
Khanapur Bidi Kodagai NAP-
FDA
Connection for
water supply &
GLSR tank
78000.00 Kodagai
6 2005-
06
Khanapur Gunji Bastwad NAP-
FDA
Formation of
approach road to
Bastwad
120000.0
0
Bastwad
7 2005- Khanapur Bidi Ghotali 2, 3, 4 01- Extraction of older 101500.0
141

06 1995 rains
10 Ha.
Timber Acacia plantation 0
8 2005-
06
Khanapur Bidi Karajagi
XVII-1995
Rains Pltn.
15 Ha.
18–22,
62, 63,
66
01-
Timber
Extraction of older
Acacia plantation
202600.0
0

9 2006-
07
Khanapur Gunji Balgund EPA Construction of
sinking open well
77000.00 Balgund

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.
7. 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.
8. Supervision
The DCFs and even ACFs remarks were significantly absent in most of the journals.
9. General Observations
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
1. Performance of Plantations
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.
No.

Year Scheme Location/Sy. No. Species
Area
Ha.
Survival
Survival
% X Ha.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 2005-06 DDF Jangamanatti
FSY. No. 16, Gundolli
FSY. No. 60
Bamboo 15.00 100 1500.00
2 2006-07 REFL Sagare FSY. No. 66
Golihalli FSY No. 283
Acacia 20.00 76.00 1520.00
3 2006-07 TFC Degaon
FSY. No. 268
Nelli, Hulgul 20.00 100.00 2000.00
4 2006-07 KSFMBC
(Model-IV)
Chicknandihalli
FSY. No. 109
Acacia,Hulgul,
Anjan, eelgeri
15.00 91.00 1365.00
5 2006-07 NAP-FDA Kerawad Hulgul, Nerale, 20.00 79.75 1595.00
142

FSY. No. 324 Sirsal, Misc.
6 2006-07 NAP-FDA Degaon
FSY. No. 163
Neelgeri 20.00 84.75 1695.00
7 2006-07 NAP-FDA
(ANR)
Degaon
FSY. No. 279
Nerala, Hulgul,
Sirsal, Misc.
20.00 99.00 1980.00
Total: 140.00 730.50 12655.00
Total survival percentage = 12655.00 = 90.39 %
140.00
2. Performance of Species
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.
3. Protection Aspects
The protection and soil working has certainly enhanced the growth of the natural
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.

Sl.
No.

Year of
Sanctio
n
Taluk Hobli Village
Sur
vey
Nos
.
Scheme Work
Sanc-
tioned
Cost (Rs.)
Remarks
(Name of
the
VFCs)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 2004-
05
Bailhongal Kittur Honnapur -- S &
MC
Desilting of
Dumgatti water
tank
44700.00 Honnapur
2 2004-
05
Bailhongal Kittur Honnapur -- S &
MC
Desilting of
Dumgatti water
tank
20500.00 Honnapur
3 2005-
06
Khanapur Khanapur Mudu-
ganoor
62 TFC Anti-poaching
and anti-
smuggling
camp
37500.00 --
4 2005-
06
Bailhongal Ambada-
gatti
Kerowad 306,
307,
309,
311

NAP-
FDA
SMC work,
Staggered
trenches
23400.00 Kerowad
5 2006-
07
Bailhongal Kittur Degaon -- NAP-
FDA
Purchase of
tractor trailer
with water tank
80000.00 Degaon

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.

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.
7. Supervision
143

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.
Sl.
No
Year of
Planting
Scheme Extent & Model
No.of
sample
Plots
No.of
seedlings
planted
in sample
plot
No.of
Seedlings
survival in
the sample
plot
Survival
percentage
Survival
percenta
ge X
aera
1 2004-05 NAP-
FDA
25 ha. Bamboo Model
,manturgawada
5 373 122 32% 800
2. 2004-05 NAP-
FDA
9 ha. A.R Model,Zad
navga
2 558 531 95% 855
3 2004-05 KFDF OP 20 Ha Acacia and
bamboo and mixed
plantation ,kalmani
4 70 50 70% 1400
4 2005-06 NAP-
FDA
10 ha A.R.Model Zad
navga sy no 106,91
2 284 263 92.6% 926
5 2005-06 KSFMBC 100 Ha model 1,
Kapoli
Model 1 plantation
6 2006-07 NAP-
FDA
25 Ha. ANR Model,
Zad navaga sy no
17,18,23,24,106
5 253 187 74% 1850
7 2006-07 KSFMBC 20 Ha Model IV
Betageri
4 160 156 97% 1940
144

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
145

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.

Sl.
No
Year of
Planting
Scheme Extent & Model
No.of
sample
Plots
No.of
seedlings
planted in
sample
plot
No.of
Seedlings
survival in
the sample
plot
Survi
val
(%)
Survi
val
percentage
X area
1 2004-05 K.F.D.F.
(O.P)
14.55 Ha. Acacia
Model parwad.sy no
21,23,24,30,31,37,38
3 110 84 76
%
1106
2. 2005-06 Compensa
tory
Plantation
(REF)
5 Ha. Acacia Model
Sada sy no 42
2 110 40 36
%
180
3 2005-06 Gouse
NAP/FDA
20Ha gouse sy no 4
Acacia model
4 110 93 85
%
1700
4 2006-07 12
th

Finance
Commissi
on
20 Ha. Acacia Model
Parwad sy no 63
4 160 118 74
%
1480
5. 2006-07 K.S.F.M.
B.C
50 Ha. Model-1
Sada sy no 45
8 - - -
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.
146

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.

Sl.
No.

Year of
Sanction
Taluk Hobli Village
Sur
vey
Nos
.
Scheme Work
Sanc-
tioned
Cost (Rs.)
Remarks
(Name of
the VFCs)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 2003-04 Khanapur Jobati Gouse - S&MC Construction of
Nala bund
44800.00 Gouse
2 2005-06 Khanapur Jobati Gouse - NAP –
FDA
Supply of
Generator and
Plastic Chairs
48500.00 Gouse

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
1. Performance of Plantations
The number of plantations selected for the evaluation in this Range were 10 with
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
147

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.
No.

Year Scheme
Location/Sy.
No.
Species
Area
Ha.
Survival
Survival
%
X Ha.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 2004-
05
KFDF –
OP
Dhama Village
Sy No.44
Acacia, Hulgal, Tapsi, 20.00 73.60 1472.00
2 2005-
06
REFL Muchandi
Sy No.192
Acacia, Nilgiri, Kasoda,
Hulgal, Nerle,
13.00 69.00 897.00
3 2005-
06
G.U.A. Auto Nagar,
Kanbargi,
Belgaum City
Peltophorum, Bauhinea,
Gulmohar, Raintree, etc.,
4.80 55.00 264.00
4 2006-
07
KSFMB
(IV)
Dhanina
Sy No.44
Acacia, Nilgiri, Seege,
Bamboo, Casuarina, Kasoda,

25.00 96.00 2400.00
5 2006-
07
KSHIP Hungund –
Belgaum State
Highway
Peltophroum, nerle, Halsu,
Honne, etc.,
5.00 91.00 455.00
6 2006-
07
NAP –
FDA
Muchandi
Sy. No.192
Cashew, Nerle, Hulgal, Tapsi,
Nelli,
20.00 70.00 1400.00
7 2005-
06
NAP –
FDA
Kalkamba
Sy. No.207
Cashew, Hulgal, Acacia, Nelli, 10.00 76.00 760.00
8 2006-
07
NAP –
FDA
Kalkamba
Sy. No.207
Cashew, Hulgal, Acacia, Nelli, 10.00 89.00 890.00
9 2007-
08
NAP-
FDA
Asta
Sy. No.117,118
Acacia, 50.00 77.00 3850.00
10 2007-
08
NAP-
FDA
K.K.Koppa,
Sy.No.132,137,
140,145
Bamboo

20.00 71.00 1420.00
Total: 177.80 767.60 13808.00
Total survival percentage = 13808.00 = 76.66%
177.80

2. Performance of Species
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.
3. Protection Aspects
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.


148

Sl.
No.

Year of
Sanction
Taluk
Hobl
i
Village
Sur
vey
Nos
.
Scheme Work
Sanc-
tioned
Cost (Rs.)
Remarks
(Name of
the VFCs)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 2003-04 Belgaum Kakti Kalkamba 207 NAP-
FDA
SMC 27790.00 Kalkamba
2 2003-04 Belgaum Kakti Muchandi - EPA Utencils 49895.00 Muchandi
3 2003-04 Belgaum Kakti Kalkamba - EPA Gymesium
Articles
29650.00 Kalkamba
4 2004-05 Belgaum Kakti Muchandi - EPA B wire fencing
for siddeshwara
temple &
flooring (spent –
61717)
70000.00 Muchandi
5 2004-05 Belgaum Kakti Belgaum
City
- 01 –
Timber
Raising
compound wall
forest campus
42985.00 Belgaum
6 2005-06 Belgaum Kakti Kalkamba - NAP –
FDA
Construction of
Cultural Stage &
Gate
30880.00
9120.00
Kalkambi
7 2005-06 Belgaum Kakti Kanabargi 60 01 –
Timber
Timber
extraction work
22100.00 GTD
Londa
8 2005-06 Belgaum Kakti Belgaum
City
- 01 –
Timber
Repair of
maintenance of
CF Office
41100.00 City

5. Distribution of Seedlings
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.
No.
Year Hobli Village Number of seedlings Survival
1 2004-05 Belgaum Belgaum City 1050 (8"x12") 50%
2 2006-07 Belgaum Belgaum City 13686 (5”x8”) 50%

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. 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.
8. General Observations
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
1. Performance of Plantations
The number of plantations selected for the evaluation in this Range were 7 with
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
149

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.
No.

Year Scheme
Location/Sy.
No.
Species
Area
Ha.
Surviv
al
Survival
%
X Ha.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 2004-05 KFDF-OP Basapur
Sy. No.113,111
Acacia, Cagode,
Nilgiri,
13.50 63.50 857.50
2 2004-05 T.S.P (State) M.Mallapur Bamboo, Nilgiri,
Hunse
9.00 42.00 378.00
3 2004-05 NAP-FDA Malmuradi
12, 13, 14,
Nilgiri, Acacia,
Cagoda, Honge,
21.00 72.40 1520.00
4 2005-06 NAP-FDA Malmuradi
31, 32
Hulgal, Tapsi,
Jutropa
15.00 75.30 1130.00
5 2006-07 MARKUND
AYA
YOJANE
Bharmatti
26 P1
Acacia, Hulgal,
Nilgiri, Cagode,
Anjan
20.00 95.70 1914.00
6 2006-07 D.D.F. Mauanoor
233
Nilgiri, Hulgal,
Acacia, Casoda,
10.00 70.30 703.00
7 2006-07 NAP-FDA Malmuradi
12, 13, 14,
Neerale, Khcir,
Neem, Sitatu, muru
15.00 53.20 798.00
Total: 103.50 472.40 7300.50
Total survival percentage = 7300.50 = 70.53%
103.50

2. Performance of Species
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.
3. Protection Aspects
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.
No.

Year of
Sanctio
n
Taluk Hobli Village
Survey
Nos.
Scheme Work
Sanc-
tioned
Cost (Rs.)
Remarks
(Name of
the VFCs)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 2003-
04
Gokak Gokak Malmardi 93/3 NAP/
FDA EPA
Repair to
Lugelavva
Temple
48200.00 Malmardi
2 2005-
06
Belga
um
Belga
um
Barvatti 16,18, 26,
& 41
Markande
ya Project
Constructio
n of Forest
Boundries
273600.00 -

5. Distribution of Seedlings
Teak seedlings distributed were planted by the farmer. However, due to very poor
maintenance, the survival is 75 per cent.
150

Sl. No. Year Hobli Village Number of seedlings
1 2006-07 Hukkeri Hukkeri 5000

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. 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
journals it is presumed that the supervision has not been given a priority by the supervising
and other officials.


8. General Observations
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
1. Performance of Plantations
The number of plantations selected for the evaluation in this Range were 9 with 143
ha. The survival percentage in the sample plots ranges from 47.5 to 84. The over all survival
percentage across the Range was 71.26.
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.
No.

Year Scheme Location/Sy. No. Species
Area
Ha.
Survival
Surviv
al %
X Ha.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 2004-
05
KFDF – OP Deshnur
Fsy No.177 P II
Acacia 10.00 83.00 830.00
2 2004-
05
KFDF – OP Panjantti
Fsy No.36
Acacia, Casoda 10.00 50.00 500.00
3 2004-
05
NAP-FDA
ANR
Deshnur,
Fsy No.117
Acacia, Nelli, Cashew,
Arali, Hulgal, Bevu,
Sirshal, Khair, Nerale
15.00 73.33 1099.95
4 2004-
05
NAP-FDA
AR
Mohare,
Fsy. No.21,22,23,
24
Acacia, Cashoda, Acacia,
Nelli, Hulgal, Bevu
20.00 52.00 1040.00
5 2005-
06
KSHIP Bagewadi to
Honnamatti Cross
Acacia, Bevu, Gulmohre,
Plantoform, Rain tree,
Ficus (Basari)

15.00 84.00 1260.00
6 2005-
06
NAP FDA
ANR
Mohare, Fsy.
No.21, 22,23, 24
Acacia, Hulugulu, Sitafal,
Sirsal, Bevu, Casoda
10.00 72.00 720.00
7 2005-
06
NAP FDA
Silvi-pasture
Mallapur
Fsy No.88
Acacia, Hulugulu, Bevu 20.00 78.25 1565.00
8 2006-
07
TFC Deshnur
Fsy No.177
Acacia, Honne, Bamboo,
Hulgal, Casoda,
Simarooba, Shivani,
33.00 81.86 2701.05
151

Acacia, Ecyluprus

9 2006-
07
Silvi-pasture Mallapur
Fsy No.88
Acacia, Bamboo, Hulgal,
Hunase, Muttal, Nerale,
Bevu, Tapashi, Seetapahal

10.00 47.50 475.00
Total: 143.00 538.94 10191.0
0
Total survival percentage = 10191.00 = 71.26 %
143.00

2. Performance of Species
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.

3. Protection Aspects
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 12
th
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.
Sl.
No.

Year of
Sanction
Taluk Hobli Village
Sur
vey
Nos
.
Scheme Work
Sanc-
tioned
Cost
(Rs.)
Remarks
(Name of
the
VFCs)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 2003-04 Bailhongal Nesargi Mohare - S&MC Desilting of
existing
Tank
44000.00 Mohare
2 2003-04 Bailhongal Nesargi Mohare - EPA Constructio
n Of Public
Godown
50000.00 Hogarthi
3 2005-06 Bailhongal Nesargi Honabaratti Fsy
No.
289
12
th
Finance
Commission
Soil
conservatio
n
47000.00 Honabarat
ti

5. Distribution of Seedlings

Except Nilgiri other miscellaneous species are not taken care by the farmers. The
Survival is less than 50%.

Sl. No. Year Hobli Village Number of seedlings

1

2005-06

Nesargi

Hoskoty

800(5”x8”)
2 2006-07 Nesargi Bailhongal 2100 (5”x8”) 3900 (6”x9”)

6. Maintenance of Records
152

Maintenance of recorded is very poor. The officers who have inspected the works
have not recorded their observation in the plantation journals.
7. Supervision
As there are no entries of any observations made by the officers in the plantation
journals it is presumed that the supervision has not been given a priority by the supervising
and other officials.
8. General Observations
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
1. Performance of Plantations
The number of plantations selected for the evaluation in this Range were 8 with 131
ha. The survival percentage in the sample plots ranges from 80 to 96. The overall survival
percentage across the Range was 90.71.
The performance of Acacia in almost all the areas is very good except in areas where
the canopy is very dense.
Sl.
No.

Year Scheme Location/Sy. No. Species
Area
Ha.
Survi
val
Survival
%
X Ha.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 2004-05 KFDF –
OP
Yamanapur
Fsy No.93
Acacia, Casia,
Eucalyptus
10.00 96.00 960.00
2 2004-05 KFDF –
OP
Kakati,
Fsy No.176/P
Acacia, Casia,
Eucalyptus
10.00 95.00 950.00
3 2004-05 NAP FDA Halbhavi,
Fsy No.100,101,
102, 103,
Cashew, Hulgal 15.00 81.00 1215.00
4 2005-06 D.D.F Ramdurag,
Fsy. No.12P, 13,14
Acacia, Casoda,
Hulgal, Nilgiri
11.00 94.00 1034.00
5 2005-06 NAP-FDA Halbhavi,
Fsy. No.92,93, 101
Cashew, Hulgal 10.00 80.00 800.00
6 2006-07 Markandey
139 M.W
Halbhavi & Bharamnatti
Fsy No.70,74(H), 4(B)
Acacia, Eucalyptus,
Casia, Hulgal,
20.00 95.00 1900.00
7 2006-07 Markandey
139 M.W
Godihal,
Fsy No.25
Acacia, Eucalyptus,
Casia, Hulgal,
25.00 93.00 2325.00
8 2007-08 NAP-FDA
A.R Model
Biranoli,
Fsy No.198
Acacia, Hulgal,
Eucalyptus
30.00 90.00 2700.00
Total: 131.00 724.00 11884.00
Total survival percentage = 11884.00 = 90.71 %
131.00

2. Performance of Species
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.
3. Protection Aspects
153

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.

Sl.
No.

Year of
Sanction
Taluk Hobli Village
Survey
Nos.
Scheme Work
Sanc-
tioned
Cost (Rs.)
Remarks
(Name of
the
VFCs)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 2003-04 Belgaum Kakati Sonatti - NAP /
FDA
(EPA)
Construction of
Community
hall
120000.00 Sonatti
2 2003-04 Belgaum Kakati Kattanbhavi Fsy
No.26
NAP /
FDA
(ANR)
Excavation of
contour
trenches
12900.00 Kattanbha
vi
3 2004-05 Belgaum Kakati Kakati Fsy
No.173,
174
NAP /
FDA
Excavation of
Cattle Proof
trenches under
EPA
58500.00 Kakati
4 2004-05 Belgaum Kakati Halbhavi - NAP /
FDA
(EPA)
Construction of
Sri.Laxmi
Temple
79849.00 Halbhavi

5. Distribution of Seedlings
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.
Sl. No. Year Hobli Village Number of seedlings

1

2006-07

Kakati

Kakati

260


6. Maintenance of Records
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.
8. General Observations
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
154

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 17
0
28’ 38” and 16
0
8’ 44” north and between
longitudes 75
0
25’ 8” and 76
0
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 18
0
C in December to
January to a maximum of 42
0
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

No. Year Scheme Range Location
Area
(Ha)
% of
Survival
Latitude
Longitude
Remarks.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1
2004-
05
FDF (OP) Muddebihal
Mural to
Arasnal Road
7.00
km
14.28%
N-16
0
18’ 10.1”
E- 76
0
13’01.2”
Poor
2 2005-
06
NAP FDA
-AR
Muddebihal Keshapur 40 14.5 % N- 16
0
14’54.4 ”
E- 76
0
10’ 47.1”
Poor
3 2006-
07
NAP FDA-
ANR
Muddebihal Ukkali 20 19.2% N- 16
0
43’00.8 ”
E- 75
0
53’ 12.9”
Poor
4 2006-
07
NAP FDA-
ANR
Muddebihal Tallewad 30 23.08% N- 16
0
32’34.0 ”
E- 75
0
48’ 14.6”
Poor
5 2007-
08
NAP FDA-
ANR
Muddebihal Kalgurki 25 56.78% N- 16
0
33’58.3 ”
E- 75
0
45’ 12.0”
Average

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.
155

Indi Range
Sl
N
o
Year
Sche
me
Range Village Location
Area
in
(ha)
% of
Survival
Latitude
Longitude
Remarks
1 2004-
05
FDF
(OP)
Indi Indi Atharga
Town
2.00 35%
N-16
0
59’
65.1” E- 75
0

53’29”
Average
2 2006-
07
NAP
FDA -
ANR
Indi Babalad Babalad 20.00 51.57%
N-17
0
08’
38.3” E-75
0
49’ 62.4”
Average

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
No
Year Scheme Range Village Location
Area in
(ha)
% of
Survival
Latitude
Longitude
Remarks
1
2005
-06
GUA Bijapur Bijapur Bijapur Town 12.00 90.22%
N-16
0
48’ 37.0”
E- 75
0
43’ 05.5”
Good
2
2005
-06
KSFM
BC-01
Bijapur Mamdapur
Mamdapur-I
50 Ha
200.00
7.27%
N-16
0
33’ 15.5”
E- 75
0
35’ 32.0”
Poor
Mamdapur-II
50 Ha
14.3%
N-16
0
32’ 49.3”
E- 75
0
36’ 7.1”
V. Poor
Mamdapur-III
100 Ha
25.5% N-16
0
33’ 13.2”
E- 75
0
36’ 24.8”
Poor
3
2005
-06
KSFM
BC-04
Bijapur Mamdapur
Kakhandki
35.00 Ha
100.00
7.01%
N-16
0
33’ 33.4”
E- 75
0
37’ 3.2”
Poor
Madagunki
35.00 Ha
28.1%
N-16
0
32’ 56”
E- 75
0
35’ 12.6”
Poor
MRCP Block
30.00 Ha
-- --
Failed
(Submerge
d)
4 2006
-07
NAP
FDA -
AR
Bijapur Babanagar
Babanagar
50 7.50% N- 16
0
53’ 23.4”
E- 75
0
27’ 12.7” Poor
5
2007
-08
NAP
FDA –
Bijapur Madbhavi
Madbhavi-I
20.00
97 37.3%
N-16
0
51’ 13.7”
E-75
0
50’ 12.2 ”
Poor
156

AR
Madbhavi-II
20.00
22.36%
N-16
0
51’ 14. 4”
E - 75
0
50’
21.8”
Poor
Madbhavi-III
10.00
31.31%
N-16
0
50’ 42.6”
E-75
0
48’ 59.5”
Poor
Madbhavi IV
10.00
26.35%
N-16
0
51’ 10.3”
E- 75
0
50’ 5.01”
Poor
Madbhavi-V
10.00
18.80%
N- 16
0
50’.45.1”
E-75
0
50’ 11.8” Poor
Madbhavi-VI
17.00
67.13%
N- 16
0
50’ 92”
E- 75
0
50’ 1.16”
Average
6
2007
-08
NAP
FDA -
AR
Bijapur Ittangihal
Ittangihal –I
20.00


50
28.75%
N- 16
0
53’ 19.4”
E- 75
0
39’ 58.8”
Average
Ittangihal –II
20.00
16.97%
N- 16
0
53’ 21.2”
E- 75
0
39’ 40.4”
Poor
Ittangihal –III
10.00
17.95%
N- 16
0
53’ 29.5”
E- 75
0
39’ 40.2”
Average

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

Sl
No
Year Scheme Range Village Location
Area
in
(ha)
% of
Survi
val
Latitude
Longitude
Remarks
157

1
2006-
07
GUA
Basavana
Bagewadi
Basavana
Bagewadi
APMC
Yard,
KSRTC,
BCM
Hostel,
Vivekanand
school
5.00
90 %

N-16
0
34’
40.6” E - 75
0

57’ 54.6”

Good
40 %
N-16
0
34’ 21.
6” E - 75
0

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
Sl
No
Year
Sche
me
Range Village Survey No.
Area in
(ha)
% of
Survi
val
Latitude
Longitude
Remarks
1 2006-
07
FDF
(OP)
Sindagi Sindagi
Devarhippargi
Junior college
(250 plnts)
5.00
94 %
N-16
0
48’ 948” E-
76
0
03’700”
Good
Christ
Compound
(112)
89 %
N-16
0
48’ 681” E-
76
0
04’136”
Good
Shadi Mahal
(25)
40%
N-16
0
48’ 652” E-
76
0
04’405”
Average
Kondagal
School (45)
88%
N-16
0
40’ 924” E-
76
0
12’334”
Average
B.B.Ingalagi
Hostel (55)
81%
N-16
0
38’ 558” E-
76
0
14’669”
Average
Sindagi Court
(21)
90%
N-16
0
55’ 434” E-
76
0
14’057”
Good
2006-
07
NAP
FDA -
ANR
Sindagi Ganiyar
147,148
20
29.75
%
N-16
0
57’ 460” E-
76
0
12’ 4.48”
Poor

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)


158

Sl.
No
Year Scheme Taluk Location Area in
(ha/Km)
% of
Survival
Latitude Longitude Remarks
1
2004-
05
SGRY(
TP)
Indi
Road Zalaki-
Margur
10.00 10%
N-17
0
16’ 118”
E- 75
0
48’380”
Poor
2
2004-
05
SGRY Indi
Road Indi-
Roogi
10.00 47.5%
N-17
0
06’ 268” E-
75
0
15’ 215”
Average
3
2005-
06
SGRY(
TP)
Indi
Road
Gundvan-
Shiganapur
5.5 80%
N-17
0
12’ 327”
E- 75
0
46’223”
Good
4
2006-
07
SGRY
(TP)
Indi
Road
Kenginal-
Tumba
5.00 40%
N-17
0
0’ 58” E-
75
0
59’ 327”
Average
5
2006-
07
SGRY(
TP)
Indi
Road
Atharga-
Thamba
10.00 70%
N-16
0
59’ 089”
E- 75
0
57’193”
Good

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.
No
Year
Sche
me
Taluk/
Range
Location
Area in
(ha/ km)
% of
Survival
Latitude
Longitude
Remarks
1 2004-05
SGRY
(ZP)
Sindagi
Babaleshwar-
Madari
5.00 53.4%
N-17
0
00’ 658”
E-76
0
15’ 207”
Average
2 2004-05
SGRY
(TP)
Sindagi
Road Almel-
Kadani
5.00 37%
N-17
0
07’ 241”
E- 76
0
12’589”
Average
3 2005-06
SGRY
(TP)
Sindagi
Road
B.B.Ingalagi-
Ambalnur
5.00 40.5%
N-160 38’ 567”
E- 760 14’664”
Average

Evaluation of Sindagi Social Forestry Plantations:
159

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)
Sl.
No
Year
Sche
me
Range Location
Area
in
(ha/Km)
% of
Survival
Latitude
Longitude
Remarks
1 2004-05 SGRY Bijapur
Roadside
Yakkundi-Hokkundi
5.00 48.2%
N-16
0
39’ 59.2”
E-75
0
32’ 07.4”
Average
2 2004-05
SGRY
(ZP)
Bijapur
Road Shirnal-
Kannur
5.00 27%
N-17
0
00’ 09.5”
E- 75
0
41’14.8”
Poor
3 2006-07
SGRY
(TP)
Bijapur Women University. 2.00 30%
N-16
0
49’ 97”
E-75
0
38’ 44”
Poor
4 2005-06
SGRY
(TP)
Bijapur
Road Mamdapur-
Kilaratti
5.00 84.8%
N-16
0
34’ 04.7”
E- 75
0
35’26.5”
V.Good
5 2006-07
SGRY
(ZP)
Bijapur
Road NH 13 cross-
Kannal LT
4.50 95.5%
N-160 56’
07.5” E- 750
45’ 8.3”
Excellent

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.
No
Year Scheme Range Location Area
in (ha/
km)
% of
Survival
Latitude Longitude Remarks
160

1 2004-05
SGRY
(ZP)
B.Bagewadi
Managoli-
Ukkali
5.00
km
43%
N-16
0
42’ 00.7” E-
75
0
51’ 08.8”
Average
2 2005-06
SGRY(
TP)
B.Bagevadi
Hangaragi-
Unnibavi
5.00
km
78.3%
N-160 28’ 321” E-
750 57’184”

Good
3 2006-07
SGRY
(TP)
B.Bagewadi
K.Salwadagi-
Somanal
5.00
km
83%
N-16
0
37’ 210” E-
76
0
06’ 190”
Average
2006-07
Flood
relief
B.Bagevadi Muttige block 9.9 0%
N-160 31’ 902” E-
750 52’ 304”
Failed

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.
No
Year Scheme Range Location Area
in(ha/
km)
% of
Survi
val
Latitude
Longitude
Remarks
1
2004-
05
SGRY
Muddebiha
l
Handral-Muddebihal 22.00 35%
N-16
0
15’ 01.6”
E-76
0
11’ 48.6”
Good
2
2004-
05
SGRY(Z
P)
Muddebiha
l
Nalatwad-Areshankar 5.00 30.9%
N-16
0
15’ 26.0”
E-76
0
18’ 41.9”
Poor
3
2004-
05
SGRY(T
P)
Mudebihal
b) ALBC (Canal)
40km to 45km left
side 5 km,
40km to 45kms right
side 5km,
45 km to 50 kms left
side 5 km,
45km to 50 km right
side 5km.
20.00 26%
N-16
0
14’ 42.7”
E- 76
0
11’11.8”
Poor
4
2005-
06
SGRY(T
P)
Mudebihal
Nagarabetta-
Chivanabavi
6.25
23.36
%
N-16
0
16’ 00.9”
E- 76
0
19’37.4”

Poor
5
2006-
07
SGRY(T
P)
Mudebihal Nalatwad-Jainapur 5.00 26.1%
N-16
0
18’
01.04” E-76
0

30’51.1”
Poor

Evaluation Muddebihal Social Forestry Range:
161

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
No
Range No of
Plantations
Extent
Has
Survival
Per Cent
Species
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

162

The Range wise reports are in the following pages.
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
under following headings.
• Performance of Plantations
• Performance of Species
• Protection Aspects
• SMC Works
• Other works
• Effectiveness of VFCs
• Distribution of Seedlings
• Maintenance of Records
• Supervision
• General Observations, if any.
I. GOKAK RANGE
1. Performance of Plantations
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.
No.

Year Scheme
Location/Sy.
No.
Species
Area
Ha.
Survi
val
Survival
%
X Ha.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 2004-05 FDF OP Khanagao
Fsy No.735,
736
Nilgiri, Acacia, Cashew, Honge,
Somarida
30.00 96.00 2880.00
2 2004-05 FDA AR Khanagao
Fsy No.755,
763
Eucalyptus, Anjana, Shishu, Bore,
Bevu, Hulugulu, Ala
50.00 97.62 4881.00
3 2005-06 KSFMBC
Model – 1
Jamnal Neem, Hunse, Hulugulu 150.00 --- ---
4 2006-07 Greening of
Urban Area
Gokak Town Bevu, Badam, Hulugulu, Boralu 2.5 64.00 160.00
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
Total survival percentage = 12106.00 = 84.04%
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
163

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).
2. Performance of Species
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.
3. Protection Aspects
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.
No.

Year of
Sanction
Taluk Hobli Village
Surv
ey
Nos.
Scheme Work
Sanc-
tioned
Cost (Rs.)
Remarks
(Name of
the VFCs)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 2004-05 Gokak Kadabgatti Kadabgatti 291,
292
FDA –
EPA
Construction
of gully
Checks
47600 Kadabgatti
2 2004-05 Gokak Maradimath Konnur 664,
665
FDA –
AR
Construction
of Check
Dam
103000 Maradimath
3 2004-05 Gokak Shiltibhanvi Shiltibhanvi FS
No.5
0
FDA –
ANR
Construction
of Earthen
Percolation
Tank
172740 Shiltibhanvi
4 2005-06 Gokak Maradimath Konnur 679,
680
CRF Construction
of Earthen
Dam

1000000 Maradimath
5 2006-07 Gokak Jammnal Jamnal 71 KSFMB
C SMC
Improvement
of Check dam
75500.00 Jamnal
6 2007-08 Gokak Gada Gada - FDA
EPA
Construction
of
Community
Hall
250000.00 Gada
7 2006-07 Gokak Khangaon Gada 755,
763
FDA
SMC
Construction
of Gully
Checks
150000.00 Khangaon
8 2006-07 Gokak Midaknatti Midaknatti - FDA
EPA
Purchase of
7.5 KV
Kirloskar
Generator
89000.00 Midaknatti

5. Distribution of Seedlings

164

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.
7. 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.
8. Supervision
Plantation journals are updated, however remarks of ACF and DCF need to be
entered.
9. General Observations
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
1. Performance of Plantations

The number of plantations selected for the evaluation in this range were 6 with an
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.
No.

Year Scheme Location/Sy. No. Species
Area
Ha.
Survi
val
Survival
%
X Ha.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 2004-05 KFDF-OP Karlakatti
Somangudi
Srirangapur
Fsy No.41-43 9/181
Ecyluptus, Cashew,
Anjana, Hunase,
Honge,
50.00 54.89 2744.50
2 2004-05 FDA AR Aladakatti KY
Fsy No.42-43
Ecyluptus 30.00 71..60 2148.00
3 2005-06 02
Compensatory
afforestation
Hire Budanur Fsy
No.373 P
Ecyluptus, Honge,
Tapasi, Anjana,
Sitafala, Jatropa
25.00 69.60 1740.00
4 2006-07 FDA – ANR Muragod
Fsy No.517
Neem, Honge, Tapasi,
Sirsal,
27.00 63.85 1723.85
5 2006-07 KSHIP Yaragatti to Gokak
Tq. Boundary,
Hulugulu, Ficus,
Tapasi, Tamarind,
Neem, Others
10.00 95.00 950.00
6 2006-07 FDA – MP Katamalli
Fsy No.54, 56
Eucalyptus, Tapasi,
Hulugulu, Anjana,
Neem, Sirsal
50.00 87.62 4381.00
Total: 192.00 442.56 13687.45
165

Total survival percentage = 13687.45 = 71.28%
192.00

As could be seen from the above statement the average survival percentage of the evaluated
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.
2. Performance of Species
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.
3. Protection Aspects
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.

Sl.
No.

Year of
Sanction
Taluk Hobli Village
Surv
ey
Nos.
Scheme Work
Sanc-
tioned
Cost
(Rs.)
Remarks
(Name of
the
VFCs)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 2004-05 Saundatti Munavalli Aladakatti
KY
42,43 FDA –
AR
Construction of
Earthen dam
88,686 Munavalli
2 2007-08 Saundatti Murgod Subbapur 521 FDA –
ANR –
EPA
Construction of
Water
retaining wall
and Gully
Checks
140000 Murgod

5. Distribution of Seedlings
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
166

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.
7. 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. 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.
9. General Observations
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
1. Performance of Plantations
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.
No.

Year Scheme Location/Sy. No. Species
Area
Ha.
Survi
val
Survi
val %
X Ha.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 2004-05 13 –
Compensatory
afforestation
Narasapura
Fsy. No.181,191,
192
Eucalyptus, Casoda, Hulugulu,
Bevu, Nelli, Tapase, Hunse,
Mavu
20.00 100.00 2000.0
0
2 2004-05 FDA – ANR Chilmur,
Fsy No.140
Eucalyptus, Sitafala, Bevu,
Tapasi, Hulugulu,
20.00 79.20 1584.0
0
3 2004-05 FDA – AR Hanumapur
Fsy No.9
Eucalyptus, Anjana, Hulugulu,
Bamboo, Tapasi
50.00 63.60 3180.0
0
4 2005-06 KSHIP Sollapur Cross to
Yaragatti Road

Bevu 6.00 90.00 540.00
5 2005-06 FDA – ANR Mudakavi F.S.
No.103, 107
Anjana, Bevu, Hulugulu, Tapasi,
Zatropa
50.00 76.50 3825.0
0
6 2006-07 KSHIP Panchagaon Cross
to Yaragatti Road
Bevu, Honge, Tapasi, Sirsal 18.00
Kms.
60.00 1080.0
0
Total: 164.00 469.30 12209
167

Total survival percentage = 12209 = 74.44 %
164
As could be seen from the above statement the average survival percentage of the evaluated
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.
2. Performance of Species
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.
3. Protection Aspects
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 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.
Sl.
No.

Year of
Sanction
Taluk Hobli Village
Survey
Nos.
Scheme Work
Sanc-
tioned
Cost
(Rs.)
Remarks
(Name of
the
VFCs)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 2005-06 Ramdurg Mudakavi Mudakavi 103,
107
FDA –
AR
Barbed Wire
Fencing
340800 Mudakavi
2 2006-07 Ramdurg Katkol Khanpeth 285 KSFMBC
M -2
Construction
of Gully
checks
68900 Katkol
3 2006-07 Ramdurg Mudakavi Kallapur 72 KSFMBC
M -1
Fire line
cutting
138000 Mudakavi

5. Distribution of Seedlings
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.

Sl. No. Year Hobli Village Number of seedlings
1 2006-07 Sureban Sureban 125
2 2006-07 Katkol Sullikere 400
3 2006-07 Ramdurga Hlagatti 207

6. Maintenance of Records
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
168

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.
8. General Observations
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
1. Performance of Plantations

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.
No.

Year Scheme Location/Sy. No. Species
Area
Ha.
Survi
val
Survival %
X Ha.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 2004-05 FDA AR Nagarala
102, 103, 104, 94
Sirsal, Sisu, Bore,
Nilagiri, Nelli,
Hulugulu
20.00 73.50 1470.00
2 2004-05 FDA MP Shahapur
374, 375, 379,
380, 381,
Sirsal, Sisu, Anjana,
Nilagiri, Nelli,
Hulugulu, Muttuga,
Cashwad
50.00 54.70 2735.00
3 2004-05 FDA – MP Bastwada
162, 163, 169
Sirsal, Sisu, Bevu,
Nilagiri, Muttuga,
Anjana
20.00 64.50 1290.00
4 2006-07 KSFMBC
Model – IV
B.Soudatti
190, 191, 192
Nilgiri, Sisu, Jatropa,
Seetafala, Honge, Bevu,
Anjana, Sisu (Pit)
30.00 51.16 1534.80
Total: 120.00 243.86 7029.80
Total survival percentage = 7029.80 = 58.58 %
120.00
As could be seen from the above statement the average survival percentage of the evaluated
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.
2. Performance of Species
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.
3. Protection Aspects
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 most of the areas.
169

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.

Sl.
No.

Year
of
Sancti
on
Taluk Hobli Village
Survey
Nos.
Scheme Work
Sanc-
tioned
Cost
(Rs.)
Remarks
(Name of
the VFCs)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 2006-
07
Raibhag Raibhag B.Soudatti 67,68,73,18
4,190, 191,
192
KSFMB
C M-IV
Providing
Barbed wire
fencing to 06
plantation
255000 Raibhag
2 2006-
07
Raibhag Raibhag Raibhag 584, 586,
589, 605
KSFMB
C M-IV
Construction of
Gully Checks
146400 Raibhag
3 2006-
07
Raibhag Raibhag Raibhag KSFMB
C M-IV
Raising of 5x8
size 72,000 PBs
108000 Raibhag
4 2005-
06
Raibhag Raibhag Raibhag 580, 588B,
643C, 612,
605, 608,
615,
01 –
Timber
Extraction of
Timber, Poles
and Fire wood
05-06
340607 Raibhag
5 2004-
05
Raibhag Raibhag Shahu
Park
374, 375,
379, 380,
381
FDA –
MP
Construction of
Percolation
Tank 04-05
110000 Raibhag
6 2004-
05
Raibhag Raibhag Shahu
Park
374, 375,
379
FDA –
MP
Providing
Barbed wire
Fencing to 04-
05 Plantation
163000 Raibhag
7 2007-
08
Raibhag Raibhag Byakude 239, 242,
243, 251,
252
FDA Purchase of
Grain Separator
60000 Raibhag
8 2007-
08
Raibhag Raibhag Byakude 239, 242,
243, 251,
252
FDA Construction of
Gully Checks
62500 Raibhag

5. Distribution of Seedlings
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.
Sl. No. Year Hobli Village Number of seedlings
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

6. Maintenance of Records
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
170

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.

8. General Observations
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
1. Performance of Plantations
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.
No.

Year Scheme
Location/Sy.
No.
Species
Area
Ha.
Survi
val
Surviv
al %
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
Total survival percentage = 1000.00 = 50.00 %
20.00

2. Performance of Species
Almost all the species like Honge, Eucalyptus, Casoda, and Jatropa, are struggling to
establish.
3. Protection Aspects
The protection and soil working has certainly enhanced the growth of the natural
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.
Sl.
No.

Year of
Sanction
Taluk Hobli Village
Survey
Nos.
Scheme Work
Sanc-
tioned
Cost (Rs.)
Remarks
(Name of
the
VFCs)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 2004-05 Athani Telsang Telsang 767 JBIC
Model
– II
Construction
of Earthen
Percolation
Tank
175000.00 Telsang

5. Distribution of Seedlings
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
171

seedlings
1 2005-06 Telsang Desaratti (Krishna Sugar works) 1076
2 2006-07 Telsang Kottalagi 200

6. Maintenance of Records

Plantation journal has been up dated by the RFO. However, entries of other officers
is lacking
7. Supervision
Supervision is average.

8. General Observations
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
1. Performance of Plantations
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.
No.

Year Scheme Location/Sy.
No.
Species Area
Ha.
Surviv
al
Survival
%
X Ha.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 2005-06 KSHIP Sankeshwar to
Yargatti Road
Bevu, Arali, May
flower, Hulugula,
Peltoform, Ala,
Suirshal, Rain tree,
Sishu, Hunse, Aakasha
mallige
20.00 95.00 1900.00
2 2006-07 DDF Pattankudi
268, 269

Eucalyptus, Honge 20.00 40.00 800.00
Total: 40.00 135.00 2700.00
Total survival percentage = 2700.00 = 67.50 %
40.00

2. Performance of Species
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.
3. Protection Aspects
The road side plantation Sankeshwar to Yargatti road has been taken care by means of
proper protection and maintenance.
172

4. Maintenance of Records
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.
6. General Observations
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.
No
Range No. of
Planta-tions

Extent Has Survival
Per Cent
Species
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 --

The Range wise reports are in the following pages.
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
173

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
under following headings.
• Performance of Plantations
• Performance of Species
• Protection Aspects
• Other works
• Distribution of Seedlings
• Maintenance of Records
• Supervision
• General Observations.
I. BAILHONGAL SF RANGE
1. Performance of Plantations
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.
No.

Year Scheme Location/Sy. No. Species
Area
Ha.
Survival
Survival
%
X Ha.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 2004-05 SGRY – TP Bailahongal Ayurvedic
College / Kannada
Convent Bailhongal
Hulugulu, Nelli, Ala,
Hunase
5.00 95.00 495.00
2 2005-06 SGRY – TP Navodaya School
Bailahongal
Acacia, Nilagiri 5.00 10.00 50.00
3 2006-07 SGRY – TP Jakkanayakana Koppa
to Honnekeri
Hulugul, Arali, Ala,
Tapasi, Basari,
Hunase, Sankeshwar,
Beete
5.00 35.00 175.00
Total: 15.00 140.00 720.00
Total survival percentage = 720.00 = 48.00 %
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.
2. Performance of Species
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.
3. Protection Aspects
174

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.
4. Maintenance of Records
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.
6. General Observations
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
1. Performance of Plantations
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.
No.

Year Scheme
Location/Sy.
No.
Species
Area
Ha.
Survi
val
Survival
%
X Ha.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 2004-05 SGRY TP Chikkodi City Ala, Arali, Tapasi,
Hulugula & Sirsal
0.50 54 27
2 2005-06 SGRY TP Nagaramuna-
valli to
Kabbur Road
Ala, Arali, Tapasi,
Hulugula & Sirsal
4.50
Kms.
55 247.5
3 2006-07 SGRY TP Tornalli Block
FS-167
(Gross area
20.5 Ha.)
Casoda, Jatropa, Bamboo,
Hulugula, Nilgiri
10.00 70 700
4 2006-07 SGRY TP Bambalwad to
Bennihalli
Road
Ala, Arali, Tapasi,
Hulugula & Sirsal
3.00
Kms.
65 195
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.
2. Performance of Species
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.
3. Protection Aspects
175

As these plantations are raised under district sectors scheme like SGRY-TP releases
of funds are not in time, thus the protection aspects hampered.
4. Maintenance of Records
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 the existing status of the plantations.
6. General Observations
Almost all the plantations raised under district sector schemes are allowed to fend for
themselves, due to belated releases and lack of funds.

III. GOKAK SF RANGE
1. Performance of Plantations
The number of plantations selected for the evaluation in this range were 7 with an
area of 46.63 ha. The survival percentage in the sample plots ranges from 30 to 97.
However, the weighted survival percentage across the plantations was 78.63.

Sl.
No.

Year Scheme Location/Sy. No. Species
Area
Ha.
Survival
Survival
%
X Ha.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 2004-05 SGRY TP Pamaldinni H &
Bairappa compound
Hunse, Honge,
Paltoform, Gulmorh &
Neem
7 50 350
2 2005-06 SGRY ZP Bilkundi Block
FS-92
Zatropa & Honge 12 96.33 1155.96
3 2005-06 SGRY ZP KGI Hospital
Ghatprabha
Neem 12 97 1164
4 2006-07 SGRY TP Kulgod – Yalwad
Road.
Gulmourh,
Peltoforum, Neem &
Honge
6 kms. 75 450
5 2006-07 SGRY GP Hunshyal GP

Gulmourh, Badami,
Neem & Honge
3.24 30 97.2
6 2006-07 SGRY GP Ankalagi GP Hunse, Badami,
Gulmourh, Peltaforum
& Honge
3.23 100 323
7 2006-07 SGRY GP Naganur GP

Neem, Badami,
Gulmourh, Peltaforum
& Honge
3.16 40 126.4
Total: 46.63 488.33 3666.56
Total survival percentage = 3666.56 = 78.63%
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.

2. Performance of Species

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.
3. Protection Aspects
176

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.
4. Maintenance of Records
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 the existing status of the plantations, which
are raised in open patches.
6. General Observations
Almost all the plantations raised under district sector schemes are allowed to fend for
themselves, due to belated releases and lack of funds.
II. HUKKERI SF RANGE

1. Performance of Plantations
The number of plantations selected for the evaluation in this range were 7 with an
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.
No.

Year Scheme Location/Sy. No. Species
Area
Ha.
Survi
val
(%)
Survival
%
X Ha.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 2004-05 SGRY_TP Nidasoshi
(School Area)
(Gross Area 5.00
Ha.)
Ashoka, Honge,
Badam, Sishu,
Basari, Arali, Neem,
Sirshal, AAkasha
Mallige
2.5 70 175
2 2004-05 SGRY_ZP Ammanagi to
Yadagudi
(Road side)
Neem, Arali,
Tapasi, Sirshal,
Sishu, Honge &
Others
3 kms. 52 156
3 2005-06 SGRY_TP Hukkeri City Bypass
and Ag. Seed farm
area.
FS-425, 426
(Gross Area 20.00
Ha.)
Neem, Honge,
Sirshal & Gulmohre
10 91 910
4 2006-07 FDA Khangaon
Gadi FS-755, 763
Eucalyptus, Anjana
& Ageva
25 83 2075
5 2006-07 KSFMBC Demostration plots in
farmers land
Balabi FS-570
Eucalyptus, clones 1.1 47 51.7
6 2006-07 SGRY_ZP Madamkanal to
Godbal
(Roadside)
(Gross area 8.00
kms)
Neem, Basari,
Sishu, Arali,
Gulmohra, Honge,
Nerale, Bangalo,
Sirshal,
Basavanapada,
Tapasi
5 kms 72 360
7 2006-07 SGRY_ZP Gudgeri to Nadegudi
(Roadside)
Neem, Arali,
Raintree, Peltoform,
Honge, Others
1 kms. 64 64
Total: 47.6 479 3791.7
Total survival percentage = 3791.7 =79.65 %
47.60

177

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.
2. Performance of Species
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.
3. Protection Aspects
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.
4. Maintenance of Records
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 the existing status of the plantations, which
are raised in open patches.
6. General Observations
Almost all the plantations raised under district sector schemes are allowed to fend for
themselves, due to belated releases and lack of funds.
V. KHANPUR SF RANGE
1. Performance of Plantations
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.
No.

Year Scheme Location/Sy. No. Species
Area
Ha.
Survi
val
Survi
val %
X Ha.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 2005-06 SGRY (GP) Topinkatti
Sy. No. 112, 113
Teak & Cashew

2.00 50.63 101.26
2 2005-06 SGRY (GP) Kasaba, Nandagad

Acacia - 70.90 -
3 2005-06 KSFMBC Padalwadi
Sy. No. 109
Mango & Bamboo

1.00 54.15 54.15
4 2006-07 SGRY (GP) Parishwad Miscellaneous

- 50.00 -
5 2006-07 SGRY (TP) Thirthkunde
Sy. No. 102, 103
Mango & Cashew - - -
6 2006-07 SGRY (TP) Bidi to Sagare Road
side

Hulgul, Halasu, Nerala,
Peltoforum, Kasoda,
Rain tree-3 Km.
3.00 69.00 207.00
7

2006-07 SGRY (TP) Tolagi Block-1
Sy. No. 27 to 31 & 149

Hulgal 6.00 87.00 522.00
178

8 2006-07 SGRY (ZP) Bidi SC/ST
Sy. No. 85

Mango 2.00 64.00 128.00
9 2006-07 SGRY (GP) Itagi High School &
Hospital compound area
Sy. No. 85
Gulmohar, Peltoforum,
Holedasaval Kasoda,
Basavanpada, Hulgul,
Halsu

- 86.00 -
10 2006-07 SGRY (GP) Kakkeri
Sy. No. 85
Gulmohar, Peltoforum,
Holedasaval Kasoda,
Basavanpada, Hulgul,
Halsu Badam, Tapasi

- 66.00 -
11 2006-07 SGRY (GP) Londa GP Area Road
side
Gulmohar, Peltoforum,
Basavanpada, Rain tree,
Bevu, Bela, Halasu,
Mavu, Saga, Nerala
- 94.66 -
Total: 14.00 692.34 1012.4
1
Total survival percentage = 1012.41 = 72.315 %
14.00

2. Performance of Species
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.
3. Protection Aspects
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.
Sl. No. Year Hobli Village Number of seedlings
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.
6. Maintenance of Records
Records are not maintained properly. It has been suggested to include location maps
and polygon maps on topo sheets.
7. Supervision

179

The DCF and even ACFs remarks were significantly absent in most of the journals.
8. General Observations
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
1. Performance of Plantations
The number of plantations selected for the evaluation in this range were 5 with an
area of 38.46 ha. The survival percentage in the sample plots ranges from 43.33 to 66.
However, the weighted survival percentage across the plantations was 50.54.

Sl.
No.

Year Scheme Location/Sy. No. Species
Area
Ha.
Survival
Survi
val %
X Ha.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 2004-05 SGRY TP Raibag Bevu, Honge, Tapasi &
Sishu
15 43.33 649.95
2 2005-06 SGRY TP Jodatti IB to Mamdapur
(Roadside)
Bevu, Honge, Tapasi,
Sirsal & Sishu
5.5
Kms.
50 275
3 2006-07 SGRY TP Kattakbavi cross to
Kanakanavadi Roadside
Bevu, Honge, Tapasi,
Sirsal & Sishu
7
Kms.
66 462
4 2006-07 SGRY TP Mughalkod to Khandal
Roadside
Bevu, Honge, Tapasi,
Sirsal & Sishu
3
Kms.
45 135
5 2006-07 SGRY GP Gram Panchayat lands
(Gross area 1.96 Ha.)
Bevu, Badam,
Sankeshwar &
Peltoform
7.96 53 421.88
Total: 38.46 257.33 1943.8
3
Total survival percentage = 1943.83 = 50.54%
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.
2. Performance of Species
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.
3. Protection Aspects
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 neglected in
most of the areas.
4. Maintenance of Records
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.
6. General Observations
Almost all the plantations raised under district sector schemes are allowed to fend for
themselves, due to the belated releases and sometimes lack of funds.
180


VII. RAMDURG SF RANGE
1. Performance of Plantations

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.
No.

Year Scheme Location/Sy. No. Species
Area
Ha.
Surviv
al
Surviv
al %
X Ha.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 2004-05 SGRY – TP Gattigoli
198 P
Hulugulu, Sisho, Anjana 6.00 59.50 357.00
2 2004-05 SGRY – TP Dodibhari to Sollapur
Road
Bevu, Hulugulu, Sirsal
Hunase and Others
4.00 63.00 252.00
3 2005-06 SGRY – ZP Chandaragi Kreeda
Shale
Bevu, Hunse, Hulugulu, 2.00 80.00 160.00
4 2005-06 SGRY – ZP Totagatti to Katkol Bevu, Hulugulu, Tapsi,
Hunase, Sirsl
3.00 75.00 225.00
5 2005-06 SGRY – TP Malaprabha River side
at Chikkamulangi
Bevu, Hulugulu, Hunase,
Teak, Bamboo,
Eucalyptus
1.34 12.10 16.21
6 2006-07 SGRY – GP Begaum Bannur GP Ala, Arale, Bevu, Tapasi,
Hulugulu,
2.38 17.00 40.00
7 2006-07 SGRY – GP D – Solapur GP Ala, Arale, Bevu, Tapasi,
Hulugulu,
2.38 52.00 123.76
8 2006-07 SGRY – GP Gram Panchayat Sangal Ala, Arale, Bevu, Tapasi,
Hulugulu
2.22 54.00 119.88
Total: 23.32 412.60 1293.85
Total survival percentage = 1293.85 = 55.48 %
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.
2. Performance of Species
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.
3. Protection Aspects
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 neglected in
most of the areas.
4. Maintenance of Records
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.
181

6. General Observations

Almost all the plantations raised under district sector schemes are allowed to fend for
themselves, due to the fact of belated releases and some times lack of funds.
III. SAUNDATTI SF RANGE
1. Performance of Plantations
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.
No.

Year Scheme Location/Sy. No. Species
Area
Ha.
Survival
(%)
Survival
%
X Ha.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 2004-05 SGRY ZP Gorvankolla TFS
FS-177, P II
Kirijali, Hunase, Tapasi,
Sisho, Arali
2.50 83 207.5
2 2005-06 SGRY ZP Hosur block Bevu,, Honge, Tapsi,
Sirsal & Arali
8.00 70 560
3 2006-07 SGRY ZP Munavalli, Bevu, Hunase, Raintree,
Kadu Badam, Ashoka,
Arali & Sirsal
2.97 -- --
4 2006-07 SGRY ZP Kadabi GP School
and Temple area

Bevu, Kada Badami,
Tapasi, Tamarin & Sirsal
2.68 70 187.6
5 2006-07 SGRY ZP Mallur GP School
and Burial Ground
(Gross area 2.00 Ha.)
Bevu, Honge, Tapasi,
Rain tree, Basavanapada
& Arali
1.58 60 94.8
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.
2. Performance of Species
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.
3. Protection Aspects
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.
4. Maintenance of Records
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 on the part of field and supervision staff. However, in
some of the institutional plantations the authorities have taken care.
182

6. General Observations
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.
Sl. No. Year Hobli Village Number of seedlings

1

2006-07

Kakati

Kakati

10,000


Sd/- Sd/-
Dy. Conservator of Forests,
SF (Urban), Bangalore.
Conservator of Forests,
Kanara Circle, Sirsi.
Sd/-
Chief Conservator of Forests,
(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.
183

4. Distribution of seedlings: In irrigated condition the distributed seedlings are 90-
100% successful. The spots visited showed good maintenance also.
5. Maintenance of records: The record maintenance is satisfactory.
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.
5. Distribution of seedlings: In irrigated condition the distributed seedlings are 90-
100% successful. The spots visited showed good maintenance also.
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.
4. Maintenance of records: The record maintenance is satisfactory.
5. General Observations: The overall performance of the plantations is satisfactory.












Annexure-III-Detailed Cirlce Reports

184

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
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:
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
Method of selection of plantation and other works for evaluation:
™ 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 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.
™ 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.
™ 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
185

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.
No
Year Scheme Range Hobli Village Sy.No
Area
(Ha)
Surviv
al %
1 2004-05
Compensatory
Plantation Bellary Kurugodu Kudithini 12,51 33 63.5
2 2004-05
Compensatory
Plantation Bellary Kurugodu Kudithini 12,51 42 56
3 2004-05
Cultural
Operation Sandur Toranagallu P.K.Halli 38 91
4 2004-05
FDF-other
plantations Hadagali Itagi
Sovenahalli
(Koilaragatta
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
7 2004-05
Compensatory
Plantation Kudligi Hosahalli Jarmali RF 215 18 59
8 2004-05 TSP (state) Kudligi Yarrobonahatti 5 benificiaries 2.5 15
9 2005-06
Compensatory
Plantation Bellary Toranagallu Metriki 162 30 77
10 2005-06 SGRY
H.B.Halli
(SF)
Punjarhegdal
to
Hampapattana Roadside 3 41
11 2005-06 GUA Hadagali Hadagali
Hadagahalli
(Urban
Plantation) 4 68
12 2005-06 KSFMBCP-01 Kudligi Kudligi Shivapur RF
22,23,24,
37, 39 73 Sowing
13 2006-07 KSFMBCP-04 Hospet M.M.Halli
Ontigodu
Thanda 138 50 73
14 2006-07 AOA Bellary Bellary Siruguppa Roadside 40 61
186

15 2006-07
Grant 12th Fin
Commission H.B.Halli Hampapatna Halagapura 176 25 90
16 2006-07
Compensatory
Plantation H.B.Halli Kogali Hosakeri 1001 26.27 76
17 2006-07
KSFMBC-01
model Hadagali Hirehadagali
Linganayakana
halli thanda 170 A, B 40 Sowing
18 2006-07
Compensatory
Plantation Kudligi Baruvikallu
228, 232,
235 31 70
19 2006-07 KSFMBC -01 Kudligi Kakkuppi RF 620, 621 40 sowing


Summary of Evaluation of Individual plantations:

S.
No
Year Village
Are
a
(Ha
)
Model
Pit/
Trench
Spa
cing
Spp.
planted
Mainte
-nance
Status
of
VFC
Micro
plan
Plnt
Journal
1 2004-05 Kudithini 33 yes yes yes yes yes
No
VFC ----- updated
2 2004-05 Kudithini 42 yes yes yes yes yes
No
VFC ----- updated
3 2004-05 P.K.Halli 38 yes yes yes yes yes
No
VFC ----- updated
4 2004-05
Sovenahalli
(Koilaragatta
RF) 35 yes yes yes yes yes
No
VFC ----- updated
5 2004-05 Malvi 3 yes yes yes yes yes
No
VFC ----- updated
6 2004-05 Hirehadagalli 1 yes yes yes yes yes
No
VFC ----- updated
7 2004-05 Jarmali RF 18 yes yes yes yes yes
No
VFC ----- updated
8 2004-05 5 benificiaries 2.5 yes yes yes yes yes
No
VFC ----- updated
9 2005-06 Metriki 30 yes yes yes yes yes
No
VFC ----- updated
10 2005-06
Punjarhegdal
to
Hampapattana 3 yes yes yes yes yes
No
VFC ----- updated
11 2005-06
Hadagahalli
(Urban
Plantation) 4 yes yes yes yes yes
No
VFC ----- updated
12 2005-06 Shivapur RF 73 yes yes yes yes yes yes yes updated
13 2006-07
Ontigodu
Thanda 50 yes yes yes yes yes yes yes updated
14 2006-07 Siruguppa 40 yes yes yes yes yes
No
VFC ----- updated
15 2006-07 Halagapura 25 yes yes yes yes yes
No
VFC ----- updated
16 2006-07 Hosakeri 26.3 yes yes yes yes yes
No
VFC ----- updated
17 2006-07
Linganayakan
ahalli thanda 40 yes yes yes yes yes Yes yes updated
18 2006-07 Baruvikallu 31 yes yes yes yes yes
No
VFC ----- updated
19 2006-07 Kakkuppi RF 40 yes yes yes yes yes yes yes updated

Summary of Evaluation of Qualitative aspects of Individual plantations:

187

S.No Year Village
Extent
(in Ha/
km)
Selection
of site
Selection
of
Plantatio
n model
Choice
of
Species
Protectio
n aspects
Survi
val %
General
condition
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
4 2004-05
Sovenahalli
(Koilaragatta
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
10 2005-06
Punjarhegdal to
Hampapattana 3 proper proper proper proper 41 fair
11 2005-06
Hadagahalli
(Urban
Plantation) 4 proper proper proper proper 68 good
12 2005-06 Shivapur RF 73 proper proper proper proper
Sowin
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
17 2006-07
Linganayakanaha
lli thanda 40 proper proper proper proper
Sowin
g good
18 2006-07 Baruvikallu 31 proper proper proper proper 70 good
19 2006-07 Kakkuppi RF 40 proper proper proper proper
sowin
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%
Details of other works selected randomly for evaluation:

S.
No
Year Scheme Range Hobli Village Location
Name of the
Work
Quality
of work
1 2004-05 JBIC-EKAP Bellary Toranagallu Marutla Marutla RF Farm pond Good
2 2004-05
Compensato
ry Plantation Bellary Toranagallu Metriki Metriki RF CPT (1.5 Km) Good
3 2005-06 HKADB Bellary Bellary Bellary Town Bellary town
Fencing with
cement pillar Good
188

4 2005-06 HKADB Bellary Bellary Bellary Town
Tree park near
Polytechnic
college
Gate & Cattle
trap Good
5 2005-06 HKADB Bellary Bellary Bellary Town
Tree park near
Polytechnic
college
Repairs to
Watcher shed
& platforms Good
6 2004-05 Eco-tourism Hospet MM Halli Vyasanakere
Gunda
Ecotourism spot
Painting to
chain link
mesh Good
7 2004-05 Eco-tourism Hospet MM Halli Vyasanakere
Gunda
Ecotourism spot
Repairs to
Forest
Resthouse Good
8 2005-06
KSFMBC-
04 Hospet MM Halli T.B.Thanda Shivpura RF
Cattle proof
trench Good
9 2005-06
KSFMBC-
04 Hospet MM Halli T.B.Thanda Shivpura RF
Construction
of Nalabund Good
10 2004-05 JBIC-EKAP Kudligi Jumbonahalli CPT- 2 Kms Good
11 2004-05 JBIC-EKAP Kudligi Jumbonahalli
Barbed-wire
fence - 1.2
Kms Good
12 2005-06 KSFMBCP Kudligi Jumbonahalli Nalabund Good
13 2005-06 KSFMBCP Kudligi Jumbonahalli CPT-5 Kms
Poor
quality
14 2005-06 KSFMBCP Kudligi Gollarahatti Shivpur RF CPT-4 Kms
15 2005-06 HKADB Kudligi Laklahalli Kakkuppi RF Nalabund Good
16 2005-06 KSFMBC Hadagali Hadagali
Honnayakanah
alli
Kohilarghatta
RF
Construction
of Nalabund Good
17 2005-06 KSFMBC Hadagali Itagi Halemudlapur
Kohilarghatta
RF
Construction
of Nalabund Good
18 2005-06 KSFMBC Hadagali Hadagali
Honnayakanah
alli
Kohilarghatta
RF
Construction
of Nalabund Good
19 2006-07 RSPD H.B. Halli Kogali Malvi Nursery Water tank Good
20 2006-07
Grant -12th
Finance
Commission
(Rs 115000) H.B. Halli Halagapura Nandibanda RF
Construction
of checkdam Good
21 2006-07
Grant -12th
Finance
Commission
(Rs 57600) H.B. Halli Hampapatna Halagapura Nandibanda RF
Construction
of checkdam Good
22
2006-07
KSFMBC H.B. Halli Hampapatna Halagapura Nandibanda RF
Construction
of checkdam Good
23 2005-06 KSFMBC
H
.B. Halli Kogali Hosakere
Construction
of Nalabund Good

All the other works evaluated are of good in terms of quality and quantity





Distribution of seedlings:

189

S.
No Year
Taluk/
Range Village Name of the Farmer Species
Num
ber
Survival
% Remarks
1
2005-
06 Bellary Belagal Yuvaraj Vibhtigudda
Bevu,
honge,
Hunse etc 4190 70 Good
2
2005-
06 Bellary Belagal Prathap Reddy
Bevu,
honge,
Eucalyptus,
Hunse etc 1480 65 Good
3
2006-
07 Sandur Tharanagara
Mine area
(thungabadra ML area)
Subabul,
Honge,
Teak
3251
3 75 Good
4
2005-
06 Sandur Sandur
Institutions &
Individuals (9) 8200 75 Good
5
2006-
07 Hospet Vyasanakere M.S.P.L limited Honge
1100
0 90 Very Good
6
2006-
07 Hospet Vyasanakere M.S.P.L limited Kamara 180 90 Very Good
7
2004-
05 Hospet
Mariyamman
ahalli K.Marutesha Eucalyptus 250 0 failure
8
2004-
05 Hospet
Mariyamman
ahalli B.M.C Kotresh
Eucalyptus,
Honge 250 0
Land is used
for storing
iron ore
9
2004-
05 Hospet
Mariyamman
ahalli
C.U.M
Dwarakaradhya
Eucalyptus,
Honge,
Neem 200 0
Land is used
for storing
iron ore
10
2004-
05 Hospet
Mariyamman
ahalli M. Ramalingappa
Kamara,
Honge,
Neem 250 0
Land is used
for storing
iron ore
11
2004-
05 Hospet
Mariyamman
ahalli H.Manjunatha
Eucalyptus,
Honge 250 0
Land is used
for storing
iron ore
12
2004-
05 Kudligi Kakkuppi M. Basavarajappa
Bevu,
Honge 250 95 Very Good
13
2004-
05 Kudligi Kakkuppi Gundappa
Bevu,
Honge 250 80 Very Good
14
2004-
05 Hadagali Hadagali
Eranna s/o
Sannaveerappa Bevu, Teak 37 90 Very Good
15
2004-
05 Hadagali Hadagali Honnappanavar Teak, Bevu 18 88 Very Good
16
2004-
05 Hadagali Hadagali Dr subhas Teak 20 90 Very Good
17
2004-
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.
No Year Scheme Range Hobli Village Sy.No
Area
(Ha)
Surviv
al % Remarks
1
2004-
05 SGRY Siriguppa Hacholi Siruguppa Roadside 3 25 poor
2
2006-
07 SGRY Siriguppa Karur Darur-Karur Roadside 5 57 fair
3
2004-
05
KSFM
BCP Bellary Bellary Mincheri 113/A2 10 0 failure
4
2006-
07 SGRY
Sandur
(SF) Chorunur
Yaradhammana
halli 3 63 good
5
2006-
07 SGRY Hospet(SF)
Dharmasagar to
Upparahalli Roadside 5 14 failure
6
2006-
07
KSFM
BCP-
Demo_ Hospet(SF) Dharmasagar 72 5 11 failure
190

plot
7
2004-
06
KSFM
BCP-
Demo_
plot Hospet-SF Hampasagar
157,160,
161
10 0 failure
8
2005-
06
KSFM
BC-
Demo
plot
Hadagali
(SF) Itagi Holagundi
380, 518
A, B,506 11 0 failure
9
2005-
06
KSFM
BC -
Demo
plot Kudligi SF
Demonstration
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.
List of plantations taken up for evaluation:

S.No Year Scheme Range Hobli Village Sy No Extent
Survival
%
1
2004-
05 NAP(FDA) Koppal Irakalgada Methagal 82 20
65
2
2005-
06 NAP(FDA) Koppal Itnal Hosakanakapura 75 30
50
3
2005-
06 NAP(FDA Koppal Yelburga Ballutgi 157 10
49
4
2006-
07 DDF Koppal Itnal Kasanakadi 13 20
67
5
2004-
05 NAP(FDA) Kustagi Hanamanal Tuggal Doni 55 50
27.5
6
2004-
05 03-0P Kustagi Kustagi
Rampur
BlockI&II 20.7
50
7
2004-
05 03-OP Kustagi Kustagi Hiremannapur 210,224,114 12.5
31
8
2004-
05 NAP(FDA) Kustagi Hanamanal Rampur 68 20
60
9
2005-
06 KSFMBC Kustagi Hanamanal Kadival 120
sowing
10
2006-
07 KSFMBC Kustagi Tavargera Gadderahatti
112 to 115,
532,534 50
79
11
2006-
07 NAP(FDA) Kustagi Hanamanal Tuggal Doni 35,58 30
76
12
2006-
07 GUA Kustagi Tavaregera Tavergera Roadside 5
73.5
13
2004-
05 NAP(FDA) Kustagi Hanamanal Vokkandurga 72,70,74 20
57
14
2005-
06 NAP(FDA) Kustagi Hanumasagar Mavina Itagi 72, 70, 74 25
61
191

15
2004-
05 NAP(FDA) Gangavathi Siddapura Kakkargola 129 40
95
16
2004-
05
KSHIP
(COP) Gangavathi Karatagi Karatagi Roadside 5
80
17
2004-
05 COP Gangavathi Siddapura
Kuntoji (Daggi
Camp) 90 30
53
18
2004-
05 COP Gangavathi Siddapura Kakkargola 128,129 50
76
19
2006-
07 KSFMBC Gangavathi Siddapura Kuntoji 90 50
71.3

Summary of Evaluation of Individual plantations:

S.
No Year Village
Extent
(in Ha/
km) Model
Pit/
Trench
Spa
cing
Spp.
planted
Mainte
-nance
Status
of
VFC
Micro
plan
Plnt
Journal
1
2004-
05 Methagal 20 yes yes yes yes yes yes Yes updated
2
2005-
06
Hosakanaka
pura 30 yes yes yes yes yes yes Yes updated
3
2005-
06 Ballutgi 10 yes yes yes yes yes yes Yes updated
4
2006-
07 Kasanakadi 20 yes yes yes yes yes updated
5
2004-
05
Tuggal
Doni 50 yes yes yes yes yes yes Yes updated
6
2004-
05
Rampur
BlockI&II 20.7 yes yes yes yes yes
No
VFC ----- updated
7
2004-
05
Hiremannap
ur 12.5 yes yes yes yes yes
No
VFC ----- updated
8
2004-
05 Rampur 20 yes yes yes yes yes yes Yes updated
9
2005-
06 Kadival 120 yes yes yes yes yes yes Yes updated
10
2006-
07
Gadderahatt
i 50 yes yes yes yes yes yes Yes updated
11
2006-
07
Tuggal
Doni 30 yes yes yes yes yes yes Yes updated
12
2006-
07 Tavergera 5 yes yes yes yes yes
No
VFC ----- updated
13
2004-
05
Vokkandurg
a 20 yes yes yes yes yes yes Yes updated
14
2005-
06
Mavina
Itagi 25 yes yes yes yes yes yes Yes updated
15
2004-
05 Kakkargola 40 yes yes yes yes yes yes Yes updated
16
2004-
05 Karatagi 5 yes yes yes yes yes
No
VFC ----- updated
17
2004-
05
Kuntoji
(Daggi
Camp) 30 yes yes yes yes yes
No
VFC ----- updated
18
2004-
05 Kakkargola 50 yes yes yes yes yes
No
VFC ----- updated
19
2006-
07 Kuntoji 50 yes yes yes yes yes yes Yes updated


Summary of Evaluation of Qualitative aspects of Individual plantations:

192

S.
No
Year Village
Extent
(in
Ha/
km)
Selection
of site
Selection
of
Plantation
model
Choice
of
Species
Protection
aspects
Survi
val
%
General
condition
1
2004-
05 Methagal 20 Proper Proper Proper Proper
65 good
2
2005-
06
Hosakanaka
pura 30 Proper Proper Proper Proper
50 fair
3
2005-
06 Ballutgi 10 Proper Proper Proper Proper
49 fair
4
2006-
07 Kasanakadi 20 Proper Proper Proper Proper
67 good
5
2004-
05
Tuggal
Doni 50 Proper Proper Proper Proper
27.5 poor
6 2004-
05
Rampur
BlockI&II
20.7 Proper Proper Proper Proper 50 fair
7
2004-
05
Hiremannap
ur 12.5 Proper Proper Proper Proper
31 poor
8
2004-
05 Rampur 20 Proper Proper Proper Proper
60 good
9
2005-
06 Kadival 120 Proper Proper Proper Proper
sowin
g

10
2006-
07
Gadderahatt
i 50 Proper Proper Proper Proper
79 good
11
2006-
07
Tuggal
Doni 30 Proper Proper Proper Proper
76 good
12
2006-
07 Tavergera 5 Proper Proper Proper Proper
73.5 good
13
2004-
05
Vokkandur
ga 20 Proper Proper Proper Proper
57 fair
14
2005-
06
Mavina
Itagi 25 Proper Proper Proper Proper
61 good
15
2004-
05 Kakkargola 40 Proper Proper Proper Proper
95 very good
16
2004-
05 Karatagi 5 Proper Proper Proper Proper
80 very good
17 2004-
05
Kuntoji
(Daggi
Camp)
30 Proper Proper Proper Proper 53 fair
18
2004-
05 Kakkargola 50 Proper Proper Proper Proper
76 good
19
2006-
07 Kuntoji 50 Proper Proper Proper Proper
71.3 good

• 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.
Details of other works selected randomly for evaluation:

S.
No
Year Scheme Range Hobli Village Location
Name of the
Work
Remarks
1 2006-07 KSFMBC Kustagi Gadderatti
Sy No 112,
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
193

5 2004-05 NAP (FDA)
Vokkanadur
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.
No
Year Scheme Range Hobli Village Sy.No
Ext
ent
Surviv
al %
Remarks
1 2004-05 SGRY Koppal Koppal Halwarti roadside 6 0.00 Failure
2 2004-05 KSFMBCP Koppal Koppal Kinal 164,165,16
6
10 75.00 Good
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
(Demo
plantation)
Yalburga Mangalore Muradi 126, 126A,
126 B, 144,
11 92.00 very
good
7 2006-07 SGRY-
ZP(Roadside)
Yalburga Yalburga Goralli cross
to Thallur
Roadside 6 30.00 poor
8 2005-06 HKADB Yalburga Kukanoor Balgera 326 14 68.00 good
9 2004-05 KSFMBC
(Demo
plantation)
Gangavathi Navale Hatti 19, 22 5 40.00 fair
10 2004-05 SGRY-TP Gangavathi Hulihydar Kanakapur Roadside 6 8.50 failure
11 2006-07 CRF
(Roadside)
Gangavathi Venkatagiri Honnagaddi Adarabavi
to
Managaddi
Roadside
6 29.50 poor

• 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.
List of plantations taken up for evaluation:

S.No Year Scheme Range Hobli Village Sy.No
Area
(Ha)
Surviv
al %
1 2004-05
NAP
(FDA) Davanagere Harihar Kondajji 162, 170 20 40
2 2004-05 GUA Davanagere Davanagere Davanagere town Roadside 23 55
3 2004-05
NAP
(FDA) Jagalur Sokke
Gode
(Rangaiahnadurga
SF) 65 20 60
4 2004-05
FDF-other
plantations Harapanahalli
Nichavanahalli -
thoudur 267 35 75
5 2004-05
NAP
(FDA) Honnali Belagutti Kugenahalli 49 20 70
194

6 2004-05
Cultural
operation Honnali Belagutti
Dodderi
(Haramghatta RF) 87 25 52
7 2004-05
NAP
(FDA) Harapanahalli Adavimallapura 267 20 50
8 2005-06
NAP
(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
12 2005-06
NAP
(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
15 2005-06
KSFMBC-
Model 1 Harapanahalli
Kodihalli (Sogi
RF) 1 25
Seed
sowing
16 2005-06
NAP
(FDA) Harapanahalli Jittinakatte 35 15 55
17 2005-06
NAP
(FDA) Harapanahalli Adavimallapura 354 20 60
18 2005-06 TBOS Harapanahalli Jittinakatte RF 464 15 30
19 2005-06 NFFW Honnali Belagutti
Dodderi
(Haramghatta RF) 20 75
20 2005-06 DDF Harapanahalli Thoudur 469 17 52
21 2006-07
NAP
(FDA) Davanagere Harihar Kondajji 169 15 71
22 2006-07
KSFMBC-
Model 4 Davanagere Palakihalli 46 25 75
23 2006-07 DDF Davanagere
Nirthadi
(Oblapura) 86 15 50
24 2006-07 NAP(FDA) Davanagere Avagodu
Bevinahalli
(Gudal) 165, 166 15 80
25 2006-07 12th FC Jagalur Jagalur Guheshwara gudda 221 20 65
26 2006-07
KSFMBC-
Model 4 Jagalur Sokke Venkateshpura 82, 83 50 67
27 2006-07
NAP
(FDA) Jagalur Kariyappanahalli 1 20 30
28 2006-07
KSFMBC-
Model 4 Harapanahalli
Kodihalli (Sogi
RF) 1 50 71
29 2006-07
NAP
(FDA) Harapanahalli Halikere 117 15 20
30 2006-07
NAP
(FDA) Honnali Mussinal 42, 19 20 5

Summary of Evaluation of Individual plantations:

S.
No
Year Village
Extent
(in Ha/
km)
Model
Pit/
Trench
Spac
ing
Spp.
planted
Mainte
-nance
Status
of
VFC
Micro
plan
Plnt
Journal
1
2004-
05 Kondajji 20 yes yes yes yes yes yes yes updated
2
2004-
05
Davanagere
town 23 yes yes yes yes yes yes updated
3
2004-
05
Gode
(Rangaiahna
durga SF) 20 yes yes yes yes yes yes yes updated
4
2004-
05
Nichavanaha
lli -thoudur 35 yes yes yes yes yes yes updated
195

5
2004-
05 Kugenahalli 20 yes yes yes yes yes yes yes updated
6
2004-
05
Dodderi
(Haramghatt
a RF) 25 yes yes yes yes yes yes updated
7
2004-
05
Adavimallap
ura 20 yes yes yes yes yes yes yes updated
8
2005-
06 Kondajji 15 yes yes yes yes yes yes yes updated
9
2005-
06 Kondaji 25 yes yes yes yes yes
No
VFC ------ updated
10
2005-
06
Kenchemara
nahalli 25 yes yes yes yes yes
No
VFC ------ updated
11
2005-
06
Kenchemara
nahalli 15 yes yes yes yes yes
No
VFC ------ updated
12
2005-
06
Byatagarana
halli 20 yes yes yes yes yes yes yes updated
13
2005-
06 Anabur 19 yes yes yes yes yes
No
VFC ------ updated
14
2005-
06
Konganahos
ur 25 yes yes yes yes yes
No
VFC ------ updated
15
2005-
06
Kodihalli
(Sogi RF) 25 yes yes yes yes yes yes yes updated
16
2005-
06 Jittinakatte 15 yes yes yes yes yes yes yes updated
17
2005-
06
Adavimallap
ura 20 yes yes yes yes yes yes yes updated
18
2005-
06
Jittinakatte
RF 15 yes yes yes yes yes
No
VFC ------ updated
19
2005-
06
Dodderi
(Haramghatt
a RF) 20 yes yes yes yes yes
No
VFC ------ updated
20
2005-
06 Thoudur 17 yes yes yes yes yes
No
VFC ------ updated
21
2006-
07 Kondajji 15 yes yes yes yes yes yes yes updated
22
2006-
07 Palakihalli 25 yes yes yes yes yes yes yes updated
23
2006-
07
Nirthadi
(Oblapura) 15 yes yes yes yes yes
No
VFC ------ updated
24
2006-
07
Bevinahalli
(Gudal) 15 yes yes yes yes yes yes yes updated
25
2006-
07
Guheshwara
gudda 20 yes yes yes yes yes
No
VFC ------ updated
26
2006-
07
Venkateshpu
ra 50 yes yes yes yes yes yes yes updated
27
2006-
07
Kariyappana
halli 20 yes yes yes yes yes yes yes updated
28
2006-
07
Kodihalli
(Sogi RF) 50 yes yes yes yes yes yes yes updated
29
2006-
07 Halikere 15 yes yes yes yes yes yes yes updated
30
2006-
07 Mussinal 20 yes yes yes yes yes yes yes updated

Summary of Evaluation of Qualitative aspects of Individual plantations:

S.
No
Year Village
Extent
(in Ha/
km)
Selecti
on of
site
Selection
of
Plantation
model
Choice
of
Species
Protection
aspects
Survival
%
General
condition
1
2004
-05 Kondajji 20 proper proper proper proper 40 fair
2
2004
-05
Davanagere
town 23 proper proper proper proper 55 fair
196

3
2004
-05
Gode
(Rangaiahnadu
rga SF) 20 proper proper proper proper 60 good
4
2004
-05
Nichavanahalli
-thoudur 35 proper proper proper proper 75 good
5
2004
-05 Kugenahalli 20 proper proper proper proper 70 good
6
2004
-05
Dodderi
(Haramghatta
RF) 25 proper proper proper proper 52 fair
7
2004
-05
Adavimallapur
a 20 proper proper proper proper 50 fair
8
2005
-06 Kondajji 15 proper proper proper proper 45 fair
9
2005
-06 Kondaji 25 proper proper proper proper 74 good
10
2005
-06
Kenchemarana
halli 25 proper proper proper proper 72 good
11
2005
-06
Kenchemarana
halli 15 proper proper proper proper 60 good
12
2005
-06
Byatagaranahal
li 20 proper proper proper proper 68 good
13
2005
-06 Anabur 19 proper proper proper proper 50 fair
14
2005
-06 Konganahosur 25 proper proper proper proper 55 fair
15
2005
-06
Kodihalli (Sogi
RF) 25 proper proper proper proper
Seed
sowing
16
2005
-06 Jittinakatte 15 proper proper proper proper 55 fair
17
2005
-06
Adavimallapur
a 20 proper proper proper proper 60 fair
18
2005
-06 Jittinakatte RF 15 proper proper proper proper 30 poor
19
2005
-06
Dodderi
(Haramghatta
RF) 20 proper proper proper proper 75 good
20
2005
-06 Thoudur 17 proper proper proper proper 52 fair
21
2006
-07 Kondajji 15 proper proper proper proper 71 good
22
2006
-07 Palakihalli 25 proper proper proper proper 75 good
23
2006
-07
Nirthadi
(Oblapura) 15 proper proper proper proper 50 fair
24
2006
-07
Bevinahalli
(Gudal) 15 proper proper proper proper 80 very good
25
2006
-07
Guheshwara
gudda 20 proper proper proper proper 65 good
26
2006
-07 Venkateshpura 50 proper proper proper proper 67 good
27
2006
-07
Kariyappanaha
lli 20 proper proper proper proper 30 poor
28
2006
-07
Kodihalli (Sogi
RF) 50 proper proper proper proper 71 good
29
2006
-07 Halikere 15 proper proper proper proper 20 poor
30
2006
-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.
197

• One plantataion was under KSFMBC-model 1 with only sowing.

Details of other works selected randomly for evaluation:

S.
No
Year Scheme Range Village Location
Name of the
Work
Remarks
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:

S.No Year Scheme Range Hobli Village Sy.No
Area
(Ha)
Survival
%
Remarks
1 2004-05 JBIC Jagalur Jagalur
Rasthe
makunte
Demonstration
plot - 10
farmers 10 5 failure
2 2006-07 KSFMBC Harapanahalli Teligi
Shigirihalli,
Shankar
halli
Demo-plot :
two farmers 2 20 poor
3 2005-06 KSFMBC Harihara harihara Udayapura
Demonstration
plot - 11
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.
List of plantations taken up for evaluation:

S.
No
Year Scheme Range Hobli Village Sy.No
Area
(Ha)
Survival
%
1 2004-05 GUA Chitradurga Chitradurga Chitradurga town 10.8 68.8
2 2004-05 FDF-OP Molakalmuru Nayakanahatti Mallurahalli 125 6 94.5
3 2004-05
Cultural
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
6 2005-06
KSFMBC
P-01 Chitradurga Chitradurga Kennedulu 40 75
seed
sown
7 2005-06
KSFMBC
P-01 Hosadurga Srirampura N.N.Katte 1 71.5
seed
sown
8 2006-07 DDF Holalakere Bharamsagara
Medakeripura
(Nerthadi RF) 10 55.7
198

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
12 2006-07
KSFMBC
P-04 Holalkere Talya Malasinganahalli
104 to
106 40 82.7
13 2006-07
KSFMBC
P-04 Molakalmuru Nayakanahatti
Buklarahalli
Bandekatta 12 40 86
14 2006-07
KSFMBC
P-04 Hosadurga Madadakere Devarahatti 303 50 88
15 2006-07
KSFMBC

P-04 Challakere Oblapura 98 50 71.5
16 2006-07
KSFMBC
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

Summary of Evaluation of Individual plantations:

S.
No
Year Village
Extent
(in Ha/
km)
Model
Pit/
Trench
Spa
cing
Spp.
planted
Mainte
-nance
Status
of
VFC
Micro
plan
Plnt
Journal
1
2004-
05
Chitradurga
town 10.75 yes yes yes yes yes
No
VFC ------ updated
2
2004-
05 Mallurahalli 6 yes yes yes yes yes
No
VFC ------ updated
3
2004-
05 Gilakanahalli 24.45 yes yes yes yes yes
No
VFC ------ updated
4
2005-
06
Molakalmuru
town 2 yes yes yes yes yes
No
VFC ------ updated
5
2005-
06 Gowadanahalli 10 yes yes yes yes yes
No
VFC ------ updated
6
2005-
06 Kennedulu 75 yes yes yes yes yes yes yes updated
7
2005-
06 N.N.Katte 71.5 yes yes yes yes yes yes yes updated
8
2006-
07
Medakeripura
(Nerthadi RF) 10 yes yes yes yes yes
No
VFC ----- updated
9
2005-
06 Muthigaharalli 25 yes yes yes yes yes yes yes updated
10
2005-
06 Kattehole 25 yes yes yes yes yes yes yes updated
11
2005-
06 Bukkasagara 32 yes yes yes yes yes yes yes updated
12
2006-
07
Malasinganaha
lli 40 yes yes yes yes yes yes yes updated
13
2006-
07
Buklarahalli
Bandekatta 40 yes yes yes yes yes yes yes updated
14
2006-
07 Devarahatti 50 yes yes yes yes yes yes yes updated
15
2006-
07 Oblapura 50 yes yes yes yes yes yes yes updated
16
2006-
07 Mallurahalli 40 yes yes yes yes yes yes yes updated
17
2006-
07 Dasarahalli 25 yes yes yes yes yes yes yes updated
18
2006-
07 Kennedulu 25 yes yes yes yes yes yes yes updated
Summary of Evaluation of Qualitative aspects of Individual plantations:
199


S.No Year Village
Extent
(in Ha/
km)
Selection
of site
Selection
of
Plantation
model
Choice
of
Species
Protecti
on
aspects
Survi
val %
General
condition
1 2004-05
Chitradurga
town 10.75 proper proper proper proper 68.8
Very
good
2 2004-05 Mallurahalli 6 proper proper proper proper 94.5
Very
good
3 2004-05 Gilakanahalli 24.45 proper proper proper proper 83
Very
good
4 2005-06
Molakalmuru
town 2 proper proper proper proper 90
Very
good
5 2005-06 Gowadanahalli 10 proper proper proper proper 99
Very
good
6 2005-06 Kennedulu 75 proper proper proper proper
seed
sown
Very
good
7 2005-06 N.N.Katte 71.5 proper proper proper proper
seed
sown
Very
good
8 2006-07
Medakeripura
(Nerthadi RF) 10 proper proper proper proper 55.7 good
9 2005-06 Muthigaharalli 25 proper proper proper proper 81
Very
good
10 2005-06 Kattehole 25 proper proper proper proper 87
Very
good
11 2005-06 Bukkasagara 32 proper proper proper proper 86
Very
good
12 2006-07
Malasinganaha
lli 40 proper proper proper proper 82.7
Very
good
13 2006-07
Buklarahalli
Bandekatta 40 proper proper proper proper 86
Very
good
14 2006-07 Devarahatti 50 proper proper proper proper 88
Very
good
15 2006-07 Oblapura 50 proper proper proper proper 71.5
Very
good
16 2006-07 Mallurahalli 40 proper proper proper proper 86
Very
good
17 2006-07 Dasarahalli 25 proper proper proper proper 70
Very
good
18 2006-07 Kennedulu 25 proper proper proper proper 93
Very
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.
Details of other works selected randomly for evaluation:

S.No Year Scheme Range Hobli Village Location
Name of the
Work
Remarks
1 2004-05
RCP-
REFL Molakalmuru Kasaba Tumkurlahalli Sy No 78 Rubble Checks Good
2 2004-05
RCP-
REFL Molakalmuru Kasaba Tumkurlahalli Sy No 78
Percolation
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.

200

SOCIAL FORESTRY DIVISION, CHITRADURGA:

S.No Year Scheme Range Hobli Village Sy.No
Area
(Ha)
Survival
%
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:
201

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 11
0
92’ North to 76
0
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 Forest administration:
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.
Each division is headed by a Deputy Conservator of Forests under the administrative
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.
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:12.102007 has constituted evaluation teams and issued guidelines for evaluation.
The evaluation team for Chamarajnagar circle is
1. Chief Conservator of Forests (Evaluation) Bangalore : Team leader
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
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 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
202

™ 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 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 11
0
57’
to 12
0
21’ N latitude and 77
0
15’ to 77
0
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:
Total number of plantations raised in the division during the period under
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.
S.No Year Scheme Range Hobli Village Sy.No
Extent(in Ha/
km)
1 2005-06 TFC MM Hills Ramapura Gopinatham
Compt 88
(Alambadi)
5.00
SEED SOWING:
1 2006-07 KSFMBC
Kankapura
WL
Halguru Muthathi
Bannane Block
II
75.00
2 2005-06 KSFMBC
Kankapura
WL
Kodihalli Soligeri Basavanabette 82.00
FDA_NAP: Model
203

1 2006-07 FDA Hanur WL Palya
Rachappajinagara
EDC
Chikkalur SF
Compt 12
30.00 AR
2 2006-07 FDA
Cowdally
WL
Ramapura Arabegere EDC
Chikkalur SF
Compt 72
30.00 Pasture
3 2006-07 FDA
MM Hills
WL
Ramapura Gopinatham EDC
Eswara temple
plantation
30.00 ANR
4 2006-07 FDA
MM Hills
WL
Ramapura Pudur EDC
Pudur Bamboo
plantation
40.00 Bamboo
5 2006-07 FDA
MM Hills
WL
Ramapura Indiganatha EDC
Indiganatha
plantation
20.00 Mixed

Summary of Evaluation of Individual plantations:

S.
No
Year Village
Extent
(in Ha/
km)
Model
Pit/
Trench
Spac
ing
Spp.
planted
Mainte
-nance
Status
of
VFC
Micro
plan
Plnt
Journal
1
2005
-06
Gopinat
ham
5.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes No
No
VFC
---
Up
dated
SEED SOWING:

1
2006
-07
Muthath
i
75.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
Up
dated
2
2005
-06
Soligeri 82.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
Up
dated
FDA_NAP:

1
2006
-07
Rachapp
ajinagar
a EDC
30.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes --- --- --- ---
2
2006
-07
Arabege
re EDC
30.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Up
dated
3
2006
-07
Gopinat
ham
EDC
30.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes --- Yes No Partial
4
2006
-07
Pudur
EDC
40.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes --- --- --- Partial
5
2006
-07
Indigana
tha EDC
20.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes --- Yes No Partial

Summary of Evaluation of Qualitative aspects of Individual plantations:
S.No Year Village
Extent
(in
Ha/
km)
Selection
of site
Se;ection
of
Plantation
model
Choice
of
Species
Protection
aspects
Survival
percentatge
General
condition
1
2005-
06
Gopinatham 5.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 59.00 Satisfactory
SEED SOWING:
1
2006-
07
Muthathi 75.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 20.0 Poor
2
2005-
06
Soligeri 82.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 16.6 Poor
204

FDA_NAP:
1
2006-
07
Rachappajinagara
EDC
30.00 Improper Proper Proper Improper 0.00 Failure
2
2006-
07
Arabegere EDC 30.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 29.40 Average
3
2006-
07
Gopinatham
EDC
30.00 Improper Improper Improper Improper 0.00 Failure
4
2006-
07
Pudur EDC 40.00 Improper Improper Proper ---- 0.00 Failure
5
2006-
07
Indiganatha EDC 20.00 Improper Improper Proper Improper 0.00 Failure

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:
Details of other works selected randomly for evaluation:
S.
No
Year Scheme Range Hobli Village Location Work
1. Building Maintenance:
1 2005-06 RB&BM
Kanakapura
WL
Halaguru Muthathi Muthathi
Renovation of
twin staff qtrs
2 2004-05 PADF
Kanakapura
WL
Halaguru Muthathi Muthathi
Construction of
Garbage bin
3 2006-07
Eco_tour
ism
Kanakapura
WL
Halaguru Muthathi
Muthathi Nature
camp
Renovation of IB
4 2006-07 RB&BM
Kanakapura
WL
Kodihalii Kanaka pura Kanakapura
Maintenance of
twin staff qtrs
5 2004-05
Project
Elephant
Cowdally WL Ramapura Arabagere
Gorjaguli hall
compt.72
Construction of
anti-poaching
camp
205

6 2004-05 DNPS Cowdally WL Ramapura Dontolly Doddabolop
Repairs to cause
way
7 2006-07
Roads &
Bridges
Cowdally WL Ramapura Dontolly Dontolly
Maintenance of
staff qtrs
8 2005-06
Project
Elephant
MM hills WL Ramapura MM Hills Dudu duduki
Construction of
anti-poaching
camp
2. Maintenance of Roads:
1 2004-05 PADF
Kanakapura
WL
Halaguru Muthathi
Uganidoddi to
Galibore
Maintennce of
8.5km Sanctuary
road.
2 2005-06 TFC Hanur WL Hanur ---
Rachappjinagar
chain gate to
Cauvery river
Maintennce of
6.0km Patrolling
road.
3 2005-06 DNPS Hanur WL Hanur ---
Mastigodanadoddi
to udupeane
&Balagunase to
Kongahalli
Maintennce of
7.0+3.0km
Patrolling road.


4 2004-05 DNPS Hanur WL Hanur ---
Shogyam
chaingate to
Basavanakada
(7km)
&Rachappajinagar
to Byatarayana
Devstana 3Km
Maintenance of
sanctuary road
5 2006-07 DNPS Cowdally WL Ramapura Donlolly
Donlolly to
Changady (compt
74 &77)
Maintenance of
patrolling road.
6 2005-06 TFC Cowdaly WL Ramapura ----
Donlolly towards
Dobaguli
Maintenance of
track road
7 2005-06 DNPS Cowdaly WL Ramapura Arabegere
Donlolly towards
Gorjagulihalla
Maintenance of
patrolling road.
3.SMC WORKS:
1 2004-05 JBIC Hanur WL Hanur --- Hitmaranahalla
Construction of
Gully checks
2 2005-06 DNPS Hanur WL Hanur
Rachappaji
nagara
Aldamaradakere
CD
Deepening and
desilting of check
dam
3 2006-07 DNPS Hanur WL Hanur --- Hitmaranahalla Creation of Tank
4 2005-06 PADF Cowdaly WL Ramapura Arabegere Otukunte kere
Deepening and
desilting of tank
5 2005-06 DNPS Cowdaly WL Ramapura Donlolly
Aldamaradakere
haggur kere
Deepening and
desilting of tank
6 2007-08
Project
Elephant
Cowdaly WL Ramapura Donlolly
Kurubanakere
Compt-74
Creation of Tank
7 2004-05 DNPS
Kanakapura
WL
Kodihalli
Ulyahosa
doddi
Kolkote
Desilting and
pitcing of check
dam
8 2005-06 DNPS MM hills WL Ramapura
MM hills
RF
Bnakobe halla
Deepening and
desilting of
checkdam
4.FIRELINE MAINTENANCE & ECO TOURISM
1 2005-06 DNPS
Kanakapura
WL
Kodihalli Sangama Sangama
Drilling of
Borewell
206

2 2005-06 DNPS
Kanakapura
WL
Kodihalli Sangama Sangama
Fixing of Motor to
Borewell
3 2004-05
Project
Elephant
Hanur WL Hanur ---
Kanchikatte D
line to Sundrally
D line
Reconditioning of
EPT
4 2005-06 DNPS
Kanakapura
WL
Halaguru Muthathi Sujikalu
Mantenance of
Fireline

5 2006-07 DNPS
Kanakapura
WL
Halaguru Muthathi
Kolkote –
Muthathi 6km,
Thirugana mada –
Bhemeswari 6km,
Uganidoddi to
Galibore 8km.
Creation of new
fireline
Observation and comments by the Evaluation team:
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 11
0
43’ and 12
0
49’ North
latitudes and 77
0
01’ and 77
0
15 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:
Total number of plantations raised in the division during the period under
Evalution in all schemes excluding FDA : 3 (100 ha)
207

Total Number of the plantation visited by the Team : 2 (50 ha)
Details of afforestation works selected randomly for evaluation in all schemes.
S.No Year Scheme Range Hobli Village Sy.No
Extent(in
Ha/ km)
SEED SOWING:
1 2005-06 KSFMBC Punajur
Chandaka
vadi
Budipadaga
Punjeir SF,
Yarekatte Bl-I
50.00
2 2006-07 KSFMBC Punajur
Chandaka
vadi
Budipadaga
Punjeir SF,
Yarekatte Bl-II
25.00
3 2006-07 KSFMBC Bylore ---- Arepalya
Kurubanakatte
Doddasampige RF
30.00
PLANTING:
4 2005-06 KSFMBC Yellandur Yerambahally K.Devarahally 54 &55 45.00
5 2006-07 TFC
K.Gudi
WL
Haradanahalli Attigulipura --- 10.00

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

Summary of Evaluation of Qualitative aspects of Individual plantations:
S.
No
Year Village
Extent
(in
Ha/
km)
Selection
of site
Se;ection
of
Plantation
model
Choice
of
Species
Protection
aspects
Survival
percentatge
General
condition
1
2005-
06
K.Devarahally
54
&55
Proper Proper Proper Proper 70.00 Not healthy
2
2006-
07
Attigulipura Proper Proper Proper Proper 87.00 Satisfactory

Details of afforestation works and Entry Point Activities selected randomly for
evaluation in FDA_NAP scheme.
S.
No
Year Range Hobli VFC/ EDC Village Sy.No
Extent
(in
Ha/
km)
Model
1
2004-
05
K.Gudi
WL
Chandakawadi Attigulipura Attigulipura
Back waters of
Suvarnavathi
dam
10.00 ANR
2
2005-
06
K.Gudi
WL
Chandakawadi
Mahadeswara
colony
Mahadeswara
colony
Gantasalakatte 20.00 ANR
3
2005-
06
K.Gudi
WL
Chandakawadi Hongalvadi II Hongalawadi Hongalvadi II 16.00 ANR
4
2005-
06
Punjeer Chandakawadi Kodipalya Kodipalya
Kirubanakatte
Punjeer SF
15.00 ANR
5
2005-
06
Punjeer Chandakawadi Punjeer gate Punjeer gate
Kirubanakatte
Punjeer SF
15.00 ANR
208

6
2004-
05
Bylore -- Havinamoole Havinamoole
Neeragundi
area, near
Hunasepalya
10.00 ANR
7
2004-
05
Yellandur Yellandur Vibuthigudda T.Hosur
BRT extension
forest
10.00 ANR
8
2004-
05
Yellandur Yellandur Desanahundi Desanahundi
Devarahally
mala
10.00 ANR
9
2005-
06
Kollegal
WL
--- Thimmarajipura Thimmarajipura
Maduvanahalli
gudda
35.00 ANR
10
2004-
05
K.Gudi
WL
Chandakwadi Hongalvadi I Hongalwadi I
Near Ganesna
temple
10.00 Mixed
11
2004-
05
K.Gudi
WL
Chandakwadi Kuntagudi Kuntagudi Kuntagudi 10.00 Mixed
12
2005-
06
K.Gudi
WL
Chandakwadi
Kumbeswara
colony
Kumbeswara
colony
Kumbeswara
colony
4.00 Mixed
13
2004-
05
Punjeer Chandakwadi
Muneswara
colony
Muneswara
colony
Deverekere 10.00 Mixed
14
2004-
05
Bylore Lokkanahally Kathegal podu Hiriyambala Kallihoddu area 10.00 Mixed
15
2005-
06
Yellendur Yellendur Gangavadi Gangavadi Gangavadi 15.00 Mixed
16
2004-
05
K.Gudi
WL
Chandakvadi Kullur Kullur colony Kullur 16.00
Silvi-
pasture
17
2005-
06
Punjeer Chandakvadi Chikkamudehalli Chikkamudehalli
Maraligudde
area
25.00
Silvi-
pasture
18
2005-
06
Bylore Lokkanally Uddatti Uddatti
Belada marada
padaga
25.00
Silvi-
pasture
19
2005-
06
Yellendur Gowdally Budethitta Budethitta Shanthanakatte 20.00
Silvi-
pasture
20
2005-
06
K.Gudi
WL
Chandakvadi Hongalavadi -II Hongalavadi -II Hongalavadi -II 16.00 Bambooo
21
2005-
06
Punjeer Chandakvadi Kolipalya Kolipalya Kalkere 25.00 Bambooo
22
2005-
06
Kollegal --- Thimmarajipura Thimmarajipura
Madhuvanahalli
gudda
25.00 Bambooo
23
2005-
06
Yellendur Yellendur A.Devarahalli A.Devarahalli A.Devarahalli 20.00 Bambooo
NAP_FDA Entry Point Activities:
S.No Year Range Hobli VFC/ EDC Village Entry Point Activity
1
2004-
05
K.Gudi
WL
Chandakvadi
Attigulipura
Girijana colony
Attigolipura Construction of Temple
2
2005-
06
K.Gudi
WL
Chandakvadi
Hongalvadi
EDC-II
Hongalvadi
Providing Shamiyana, Chairs &
Tables for community use.
3
2005-
06
K.Gudi
WL
Chandakvadi Kullur Kullur Erection of Flour mill
4
2004-
05
Bylore --- Kothegalpodu Kathegal podu Formation of New tank
5
2004-
05
Punjur Chandakvadi
Muneswar
colony
Muneswar
colony
EPT
209

6
2005-
06
Punjur Chandakvadi Chikkamudahalli Chikkamudahalli Purchase of Vessels
7
2005-
06
Punjur Chandakvadi Kollipalya EDC Kollipalya Purchase of Shamiyana set

Summary of Evaluation of Individual plantations:
S.
No
Year Village
Extent
(in
Ha/
km)
Model
Pit/
Trench
Spacing
Spp.
planted
Mainte-
nance
Status
of
VFC
Micro
plan
Plnt
Journal
1
2004-
05
Back waters of
Suvarnavathi
dam
10.00 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Submerged
2
2005-
06
Gantasalakatte 20.00 Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Up dated
3
2005-
06
Hongalwadi II 16.00 Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Up dated
4
2005-
06
Kirubanakatte
Punjeer SF
15.00 Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Updated
5
2005-
06
Kirubanakatte
Punjeer SF
15.00 Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Updated
6
2004-
05
Neeragundi area,
near
Hunasepalya
10.00 Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Up dated
7
2004-
05
Vibhthigudda 10.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Up dated
8
2004-
05
Devarahally
mala
10.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Up dated
9
2005-
06
Madhuvanahalli
gudda
35.00 Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Up dated
10
2004-
05
Hongalvadi I
(Near Ganesna
temple)
4.00 Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Up dated
11
2004-
05
Kuntagudi 10.00 Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Up dated
12
2005-
06
Kumbeswara
colony
4.00 Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Up dated
13
2004-
05
Deverekere 10.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Up dated
14
2004-
05
Kathegal podu
Kallihoddu area
10.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Up dated
15
2005-
06
Gangavadi 15.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Up dated
16
2004-
05
Kullur 16.00 Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Up dated
17
2005-
06
Chikkamudehalli
(Maraligudde
area)
25.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Up dated
18
2005-
06
Belada marada
padaga
25.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Up dated
19
2005-
06
Shanthanakatte 20.00 Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Up dated
20
2005-
06
Hongalavadi -II 16.00 No Yes Yes No Yes Yes yes Up dated
210

21
2005-
06
Kalkere 25.00 Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes yes Up dated
22
2005-
06
Madhuvanahalli
gudda
25.00 Yes No Yes Yes No No No Up dated
23
2005-
06
A.Devarahalli 20.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Up dated

Summary of Evaluation of Qualitative aspects of Individual plantations:
S.No Year Village
Extent
(in
Ha/
km)
Selection
of site
Se;ection
of
Plantation
model
Choice
of
Species
Protection
aspects
Survival
%
General
condition
1
2004-
05
Back waters of
Suvarnavathi
dam
10.00 --- --- --- --- ---
Sub-
merged
2
2005-
06
Gantasalakatte 20.00 Proper Proper Improper Proper 69.00 Satisfactory
3
2005-
06
Hongalwadi II 16.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 80.00 Satisfactory
4
2005-
06
Kirubanakatte
Punjeer SF
15.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 75.00 Satisfactory
5
2005-
06
Kirubanakatte
Punjeer SF
15.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 71.00 Satisfactory
6
2004-
05
Neeragundi area,
near
Hunasepalya
10.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 85.50 Good
7
2004-
05
Vibhuthigudda 10.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 95.0 Not healthy
8
2004-
05
Devarahally
mala
10.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 89.0 Not healthy
9
2005-
06
Maduvanahalli
gudda
35.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 90.3 Good
10
2004-
05
Hongalvadi I
Near Ganesna
temple
4.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 78.3 Satisfactory
11
2004-
05
Kuntagudi 10.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 58.0 Satisfactory
12
2005-
06
Kumbeswara
colony
4.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 61.0 Satisfactory
13
2004-
05
Deverekere 10.00 Proper Proper Improper Proper 70.0 Satisfactory
14
2004-
05
Kallihoddu area 10.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 90.0 Good
15
2005-
06
Gangavadi 15.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 90.0 Not healthy
16
2004-
05
Kullur 16.00 Proper Proper Improper Proper 64.0 Satisfactory
17
2005-
06
Chikkamudehalli
Mardigudde area
25.00 Proper Proper Improper Improper -- --
18
2005-
06
Belada marada
padaga
25.00 Proper Proper Improper Proper 80.7 Good
19
2005-
06
Shanthanakatte 20.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 85.0 Not healthy
211

20
2005-
06
Hongalavadi -II 16.00 Proper Improper Proper Proper 73.0 Satisfactory
21
2005-
06
Kalkere 25.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 72.0 Satisfactory
22
2005-
06
Madhuvanahalli
gudda
25.00 Improper Improper Improper Improper 29.5 Poor
23
2005-
06
A.Devarahalli 20.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 90.0 Not healthy

Observation and comments by the Evaluation team:
ƒ 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.
ƒ In an extent of 340 ha, seed sowing operations were carried out and 105 ha of area
taken up for evaluation on random basis.
ƒ 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.
ƒ 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%.
ƒ 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.
ƒ 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.
ƒ 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.
ƒ 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.
ƒ 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.
ƒ 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.
212

ƒ 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.
ƒ 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.
ƒ 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.
ƒ 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%.
ƒ 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%.
ƒ 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:
ƒ 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.,
ƒ 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.
ƒ 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:
Details of other works selected randomly for evaluation:

S.
No
Year Scheme Range Hobli Village Location Work
1
2006-
07
DNPS(C) Yellendur --- --- Amekere beat
Construction
Gully checks
213

2
2006-
07
DNPS(C) Yellendur --- --- ----
Construction of
Cause way at
Munda sampige
halla
3
2005-
06
DNPS(C) Yellendur Cowdally ---
Doddahalla,
Purani section
Construction of
Checkdam
4
2004-
05
DNPS(C) K.Gudi WL Chandakwadi --- Hulibiddahalla
Improvement to
Tank
5
2006-
07
DNPS© Punjur Chandakwadi Bhorewadi Bale area
Construction
Gully checks
6
2006-
07
Project
elephant
Bylore Lokkanahally Havinamule Havinamulepodu
Excavation of
600 mts of EPT
7
2006-
07
Project
elephant
Bylore Lokkanahally Mavathur Mavathur
Excavation of
2000 mts of EPT
8
2005-
06
Project
elephant
Punjur Chandakawadi Punasanur
Kadagadamarada
halla
Construction of
Causeway
9
2006-
07
Nature
conservation
Yelendur Yelendur ---- Kullikothale
Excavation of
1000 mts of EPT
10
2006-
07
Nature
conservation
Bylore Lokkanahalli Yergabalu ----
Excavation of
1000 mts of EPT

11
2006-
07
Nature
conservation
K.Gudi WL Chandakawadi
Kumbeswara
colony
From 9
th
mile to
Kumbeswara
colony
Excavation of
EPT
12
2006-
07
147-Land
and
Buildings
Chamarajanagar Kasabu Chamarajnagar
Central Nursery
area
Construction of
Compound wall
at North block
13
2004-
05
Nilagiri
Biosphere
reserve
K.Gudi WL Chandakawadi
Jyothigowdara
pura
Jyothigowdara
pura
Improvement to
Maramonkatte
tank
14
2005-
06
Nilagiri
Biosphere
reserve
K.Gudi WL
Santhe-
maranahalli
Honganoor
Honganoor
(Kurubarahundi)
Improvement of
Nallimaradakatte
water hole
15
2005-
06
Nilagiri
Biosphere
reserve
Punjur Chandakwadi Mudahalli
Mudahalli new
nursery
Creation of
water hole

Observation and comments by the Evaluation team:
• 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:
214

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.
No
Year Scheme Range Hobli Village Sy.No
Extent(in Ha/
km)
Survival
percentage
1 2005-06 KSFMBC
Kollegal
SF
Palya Chikkalur 1075 1.00 5.4
2 2005-06 KSFMBC
Yellendur
SF
Kasaba Yergemballi 210 0.40 0.00
3 2004-05 KSFMBC
Gundlupet
SF
Kasaba Kandegala 197 1.00 35.6
4 2005-06 KSFMBC
C.Nagar
SF
Kasaba Badanaguppe
444/1 & 2
446/1 & 2
3.00 83.0
5 2005-06 KSFMBC
C.Nagar
SF
Kasaba Badanaguppe 70 1.00 54.0
6 2005-06 KSFMBC
C.Nagar
SF
Kasaba Badanaguppe
38/1&2,
41/12A,
581
2.00 74.0
7 2006-07 KSFMBC
C.Nagar
SF
Kasaba Gowdahally 1010 1.00 27.0

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.

DISTRIBUTION OF SEEDLINGS:
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
215

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.
No
Taluk/
Range
Hobli Village
Name of the
Farmer
Species
received
Num
ber
Survi-
val %
Remarks
1 Kollegal Palya
Dodda
indavadi
Masanasetty Eucalyptus 4000 48 Good
2 Kollegal Palya Sathegala Prakash Eucalyptus 1000 62 Good
3 Kollegal Kasaba Kempanapalya
Jachani
Ashrama
Teak 2000 62 Good
4 Kollegal Palya Kamagere
Saint Margaret
Vasathi School
Teak 2000 68 Good
5 Kollegal Palya Palya Maleyappa Eucalyptus 1000 72 Good
6 Kollegal Bandalli Halagumoole
T.S.Shankara
narayana
Casuarina 700 87 Good
7 Kollegal Lokkanahalli Kondainapalya Mariabhovi Eucalyptus 1000 48 Poor
8 Kollegal Lokkanahalli Kondainapalya V.Muttegowda Eucalyptus 1200 82 Good
9 Kollegal Palya Sathegala
M.Vasanth
kumar
Casuarina
Eucalyptus
Teak
600
400
200
55 Poor
10 Kollegal Palya Sathegala Basavalingaiah
Casuarina
Teak

1000
600
86 Good
11 Gundlupet Kasaba
Doddathu-
ppuru
G.V.Venkateaha
Teak
Eucalyptus
Acacia
400
350
350
30 Poor
12 Gundlupet Beguru Kurubarahundy K.K.Mahesha
Teak
Eucalyptus
Acacia
200
500
400
40 Poor
13 Gundlupet Hangala Mangala K.Santhosh
Teak
Casuarina
Nugge
300
300
100
55 poor
14 Gundlupet Terakanambi Kandegala
Chikka-
thimmayappa
Teak
Eucalyptus
Acacia
200
260
200
60 Good
15 Gundlupet Kasaba Gundlupet S.Rajashekara
Teak
T.Bevu
Eucalyptus
200
100
300
85 Good
16 Gundlupet Hangala
Maddaiahna
hundy
Shivashankara Teak 600 68 Good
17 Gundlupet Hangala
Maddaiahna
hundy
Radhakrishana Teak 400 72 Good
18 Gundlupet Begur Thoravalli Basappa Eucalyptus 3000 86 Good
19 Gundlupet Beguru
Halladamandal
ly
Sunder
Turukabev
u
3000 65
Good

20 Gundlupet Beguru Thondavady Yathiraj
Turukabev
u
Teak
500
200
82 good
216

21 Gundlupet Terakanambi Kodasoge Nagamallappa

Eucalyptus
Turukabev
u
Others

250
240
020
82 Good
22 Gundlupet Kasaba Hasagooty H.S.Nagaraj
Teak
Nugge
800
200
50 Good
23 Gundlupet Terakanambi Hullepura
N.K.Chandra-
shekar
Turukabev
u
200 81 Good
24 Yellandur Kasaba Yellandur Nagesh Teak 500 0 Failure
25 Yellandur Agara Basavapura Shesha Rao
Teak
Eucalyptus
Casuarina
Silver Oak
160
200
200
40
80 Good
26 Yellandur Kasaba Gumbally Karuna trust
Teak
Casuarina
Honge
25
100
75
70 Good
27 Yellandur Kasaba Yeragambally Soma naika Teak 112 70 Good
28 Yellandur Kasaba Yeragambally Kappana Teak 72 60 Good
29 Yellandur Kasaba Gumbally
Thammaiah
naika
Teak 126 60 Good
30 C.Nagar Kasaba Vedapura Mysore minerals
Eucalyptus
& others
1000 60
Very
Good
31 C.Nagar Harave Kalpure M.Subbanna
Teak &
others
2600 35 Poor
32 C.Nagar Chadakwadi Hondarawadi Rajendra Hebbevu 1000 25 Poor
33 C.Nagar Harave Kalpure
Mahadeswara
temple
Honge &
others
890 6 Poor
34 C.Nagar Kasaba Shivapura
Gram Panchayat
main road
Honge 1250 60 Good
35 C.Nagar
Chandaka
wadi
Rechamballi Renukamba Teak 1000 80 Good
36 C.Nagar
Chandaka
wadi
Kotamballi Nanjaiah Teak 1000 20 Poor
37 C.Nagar
Heradana
halli

Virayana pura Nagibai Teak 500 30 Poor
38 C.Nagar
Heradana
halli

Virayana pura M.G.Naika Teak 500 65 Poor
39 C.Nagar
Heradana
halli
Virayana pura Ramanaika Teak 500 45 Good
40 C.Nagar
Heradana
halli
Kolipalya Sacrenaika
Teak
Casuarina
300
200
40 Poor
41 C.Nagar
Heradana
halli
Punjur
Dore
Muthugowda
Teak
Casuarina
300
200
40 Poor

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
217

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 11
0
45’ and 12
0
24’north and between
longitudes 77
0
06’ to 77
0
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:
Total number of plantations raised in the division during the period under
Evaluation in all schemes excluding FDA : 34 (533 ha)
Total Number of the plantation visited by the Team : 6 (101 ha)
218

Details of afforestation works selected randomly for evaluation in all schemes except
FDA_NAP.
S.No Year Scheme Range Hobli Village Sy.No
Extent(in
Ha/ km)
1 2004-05
Comp.
plantation
Kollegal Lokkanalli
Yedeyaralli
RF
Compt:107 5.00
2 2004-05 KFDF-03 OP Kollegal Palya Sattegal 174 15.00
3 2005-06 DDF Kollegal Lokkanalli
Yedeyaralli
RF
Compt:108 15.00
4 2005-06
Forest protection
&Regeneration &COP
Gundlupet Gundlu pet Road side 16.00
5 2006-07 TFC Ramapura Ramapura Konankere
MM Hills
RF
20.00
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.
Summary of Evaluation of Individual plantations:
S.
No
Year Village
Extent
(in
Ha/
km)
Model
Pit/
Trench
Spacing
Spp.
planted
Mainte-
nance
Status
of
VFC
Micro
plan
Plnt
Journal
1
2004
-05
Yedeyar
alli RF
5.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
No
VFc
--
Up
dated
2
2004
-05
Sattegal 15.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
No
VFc
--
Up
dated
3
2005
-06
Yedeyar
alli RF
15.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
No
VFc
--
Up
dated
4
2005
-06
Road
side
16.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
No
VFc
--
Up
dated
5
2006
-07
Konanke
re
20.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
No
VFc
--
Up
dated
6
2006
-07
Hosado
ddi
30.00 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Up
dated






Summary of Evaluation of Qualitative aspects of Individual plantations:
S.No Year Village
Extent
(in
Ha/
km)
Selection
of site
Se;ection
of
Plantation
model
Choice
of
Species
Protection
aspects
Survival
percentatge
General
condition
1
2004-
05
Yedeyaralli
RF
5.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 81.25 Satisfactory
219

2
2004-
05
Sattegal 15.00 Proper Improper Proper Improper 93.00 Satisfactory
3
2005-
06
Yedeyaralli
RF
15.00 Proper Proper Proper Improper 94.00 Satisfactory
4
2005-
06
Road side 16.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 48.00 Average
5
2006-
07
Konanakere 20.00 Proper Proper Proper Proper 73.50 Good
6
2006-
07
Hosadoddi 30.00 Proper Proper Improper Proper 73.00 Good

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.
Details of afforestation works selected randomly for evaluation in FDA_NAP scheme.
S.
No
Year Range Hobli VFC Village Sy.No
Extent(in
Ha/ km)
Model
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
220

5 2006-07 Ramapura Ramapura Bidrally Bidrally
MM hills RF
Compt.98
30.00 AR

Summary fo Evaluation of Individual plantations:

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

Summary of Evaluation of Qualitative aspects of Individual plantations:

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

Observation and comments by the Evaluation team:
™ 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.
221

™ 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:
Details of other works selected randomly for evaluation:
S.
No
Yea
r
Scheme Range Hobli Village Location Sy.No
Extent(i
n Ha/
km)
1.Seed sowing:
1
2004
-05
FP.CoP Hanur Palya Chikkalur Chikkalur RF Compt.6,7 100.00
2
2005
-06
DDF Ramapura Ramapura Cowdally Konanker Compt.98 100.00
3
2006
-07
KSFMB
C
Gundlupet Hangala
Hangala
Dahosahalli
Somanathpura
sandal reserve
101 50.00
4
2005
-06
DDF MM Hills Ramapura MM Hills MM hills RF. Compt.56,57 20.00
2. Building maintenance:
1
2005
-06
Land&
Building
s
Hanur Palya Kothanur Kothanur Maintenance of staff qtrs
2
2005
-06
Building
Maintena
nce
MM Hills Ramapura Cowdally Cowdally Maintenance of RFO qtrs
3
2006
-07
Land&
Building
s
Kollegal Kollegal Kollegal Kollegal Maintenance of DCF qtrs
4
2006
-07
Land&
Building
s
Kollegal Kollegal Satthegal Satthegal Maintenance of staff qtrs
5
2006
-07
Building
Maintena
nce
Kollegal Kollegal Kollegal Kollegal Maintenance of staff qtrs
3. Other works:
1
2005
-06
Project
Elephant
Gundlupet
Terakana
mbi
Kadabur
Shattarakatte
Tank
Desilting of tank
2
2006
-07
Nature
Conserva
tion
Gundlupet
Terakana
mbi
Ramaiahpura
Beladahalla to
suvarnanagara Excavation of new EPT
222

3
2005
-06
TFC MM Hills Ramapura MM hills
Palar to
Garikekandy
Maintenance of forest
Road
4
2006
-07
TFC MM Hills Ramapura MM hills
Chengadi to
Marapala
Maintenance of forest
Road

Observation and comments by the Evaluation team:
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.
DISTRIBUTION OF SEEDLINGS:
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

223

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: 9
th
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:
224

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
225

Evaluation of Bhadra Wildlife division (Plantations)
Sl.
No.
Year Scheme Range Village
Area
(Ha)
Species
Planted
Survival
%
Remarks
1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9
1 2006-07
NAP-
FDA
Hebbe Vaddihatti 40
Bamboo &
other
miscellaneous
55%
Damaged by wild
animals. Instead of
planting activities
distribution of suitable
seedlings to the
neighbouring villages
under farm forestry can
be taken up.
2 2006-07
NAP-
FDA
Hebbe Madla (I) 30
Bamboo &
other
miscellaneous
52%
Damaged by wild
animals. Instead of
planting activities
distribution of suitable
seedlings to the
neighbouring villages
under farm forestry can
be taken up.
3 2006-07
NAP-
FDA
Hebbe Madla (II) 30
Bamboo &
other
miscellaneous
53%
Damaged by wild
animals. Instead of
planting activities
distribution of suitable
seedlings to the
neighbouring villages
under farm forestry can
be taken up.

226

Table-B
Evaluation of Bhadra Wildlife Division (Other works)

Sl.
No.
Year of
Sanction
Taluk Village
Sy.
No.
Scheme Work
Sanctioned
Cost
Remarks
1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 2004-05
Chikmag
alur
Khodi -
Project Tiger
(Central)
Excavation
of EPT at
Gangegiri
Block (Near)
Khodi Estate
58,000.00 Good
2 2004-05
Chikmag
alur
Khodi -
Project Tiger
(Central)
Construction
of pipe
culvert at
Terugudda
62,500.00 Good
3 2004-05
Chikama
galur
Sugudavani -
Project Tiger
(Central)
Excavation
of EPT at
Uddinakatte
Block
100,000.00 Good
4 2004-05
Chikama
galur
- -
Project Tiger
(Central)
Survey
demarcation
works, map
preparation
55,000.00
Maps not
prepared
5 2004-05
N.R.
Pura
Dandubittah
ara
36
Project Tiger
(Central)
Desilting
tank and
formation of
embankment
at Saldhana
waterhole
90,000.00 Good
6 2004-05
Chikmag
alur
Hipla 37
Project Tiger
(Central)
Construction
of pipe
culvert at
Hipla,
Karuvana-1
68,000.00 Good
7 2004-05
N.R.
Pura and
Tarikere
Dandubittah
ara Manna
jungli
36
Project Tiger
(Central)
Survey
demarcation
works, map
preparation
35,000.00
Maps not
prepared
8 2004-05 Shimoga Umbalebyle -
Project Tiger
(Central)
Excavation
of EPT
(Jungle
Clearance
work)
Kangalsara
cross to
Aldhara
Anti-
poaching
camp
10,800.00 Good
9 2004-05
N.R.
Pura
Nagalapura 79
Project Tiger
(Central)
Construction
of staff
quarter at
Chikkagraha
ra
332,850.00 Good
10 2005-06
Chikmag
alur
Bidare - D.P.A
Formation of
trekking
path
Kudreabbi to
Deepadakall
u
25,000.00 Good
11 2005-06
Chikmag
alur
Sugadavani 366
Project Tiger
(State)
Digging of
open well at
Uddinakatte
75,000.00 Good
12 2005-06
Chikmag
alur
Kesuve -
Project Tiger
(Central)
Construction
of Foresters
residential
435,000.00 Good
227


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 75
0
30’ and 76
0
25’ Eastern longitude and 12
0
56’ and 13
0
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 30.7
0
C while
quarters at
Muthodi
13 2005-06
N.R.
Pura
Dandubittah
ara
36
Project Tiger
(Central)
Construction
of semi
permannet
shed at
Kesarahalla
41,000.00 Good
14 2005-06
N.R.
Pura
Dandubittah
ara
36
Project Tiger
(State)
Formation of
Bund and
protection
work to
Kesarahall II
tank
47,200.00 Good
15 2005-06 Tarikere Lakkavalli -
Project Tiger
(State)
Improvemen
t to road
from
Sukalhatti to
Saave
90,000.00 Good
16 2005-06 Tarikere - -
Project Tiger
(Central)
Contruction
of semi
permanent
shed at
kundur
30,000.00 Good
17 2006-07
Chikmag
alur
Khodi -
Project Tiger
(State)
Forest
Checking
gate, Khodi
(Repair)
9,900.00 Good
18 2006-07
Chikmag
alur
Sugudavani 366
Project Tiger
(Central)
Construction
of Forest
Guard
quarters
400,000.00 Good
19 2006-07
Chikmag
alur
Hipla -
Project Tiger
(State)
Developmen
t of
Grassland
42,300.00
Result not
satisfactor
y
20 2006-07
Chikmag
alur
Jagara -
Project
Elephant
Excavation
of EPT
330,000.00 Good
21 2006-07
Chikmag
alur
Kesuve - 12th Finance
Construction
of Culvert
23,000.00 Good
22 2006-07 Tarikere
Muttinakopp
a
-
Project
Elephant
Excavation
of EPT
330,000.00 Good
228

minimum temperature of the day is 19
0
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.

229

(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.
No.
Year of
Sanction
Range Village Sy.No. Scheme
Nature of
Works
Survi
val %
Remarks
1 2005-06 Kadur Manjihalli 63 FDA 40 Ha. Misc
plantation
85.09 Good condition.
Micro Plan
completed.
2 2004-05 Kadur Udugere 117,
114
DDF 24 Ha. Misc
plantation
73.85 Trench planting
should have been
done. Acacia
should be
avoided.
3 2005-06 Kadur Manjihalli 103 FDA 15 Ha. Misc
Trench
plantation
71.76 Good condition.
Micro Plan yet to
be approved.
4 2006-07 Kadur Hanumapura 60, 61 KSFMBC 42 Ha. Misc
Trench
plantation
85.85 Good condition.
Micro Plan yet to
be approved.
5 2006-07 Chikma
galur
Churchegud
da
1 12th
Finance
40 Ha. Misc
plantation
93.36 Good condition
of the plantation.
6 2005-06 Chikma
galur
Ardoralli 337,
338
FDA 16.5 Ha
Misc
plantation
92.94 Good condition
average height is
3 - 4 mtrs.
230

7 2004-05 Chikma
galur
Chikmagalur
Town
- Greening
of Urban
areas
5 Ha. Mis.,
plantation
40.00 Survival %age is
40% some plants
damaged due to
road widening.
8 2004-05 Mudger
e
Paddy field
of Tathkola
2, 13,
15
KFDF 12 Ha.
Misc.,
Plantation
62.50 Performance of
Acacia is good.
9 2005-06 Mudger
e
Toruve 155,
158,
162
FDA 40 Ha. Cane
plantation
55.00 Satisfactory.
10 2006-07 Muthod
i
Kolagmane
(Malgaru)
285,
286
NAP -
FDA
25 Ha. Misc
plantation
79.00 Growth is
average some
wild life damage
is observed.
11 2005-06 Aldur K. Talagur,
Koove
49, 256,
179
KSFMBC 40 Ha. Misc
plantation
10.00 Eviction of
encroachment is a
good work. Seed
sowing in Thalis
showed poor
result.
12 2006-07 Aldur Bikkankere 51, 52,
57
NAP -
FDA
50 Ha.
Bambo
plantation
75.00 Growth of
seedlings is not
good due to wild
life damage.






Table-B
Evaluation of distribution of seedlings of Chikmagalur Division for 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07






Sl.
No.
Year of
Sanction
Range Village Nature of Works Remarks
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.
231

11 2006-07 Mudgere B. Hosahalli Distribution of Seedlings 90% Survival. Good condition.
12 2006-07 Mudgere Halekote,
Mudgere
hand post
Distribution of Seedlings 90% Survival. Good condition.
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.
No.
Year of
Sanction
Taluka Range Village Sy.No. Scheme
Nature of
Works
Remarks
1 2004-05 Kadur Kadur Thangli
Sandal
Reserve
- 01
Timber
Uprooting of
Sandal Trees
Work carried out
satisfactorily as per
depot receipts.
2 2005-06 Kadur Kadur Thangli R.F - 12th
Finance
Anti
smuggling
camp
PCP watchers were
engaged for protection
duty.
3 2004-05 Kadur Kadur GTD Kadur - 01
Timber
Fixing of
Irong gate at
GTD
Work carried out
satisfactorily.
4 2006-07 Kadur Kadur GTD Kadur - 01
Timber
Digging bore
well at GTD
Kadur
Work carried out
satisfactorily.
5 2006-07 Chikma
galur
Chikma
galur
Bilchanhalli
Kamenhalli
1 KSFM
BC
SMC Works
(Boulder
Checks)
Satisfactory.
6 2004-05 Chikma
galur
Chikma
galur
Nagenhalli 28, 33 01
Timber
Transportatio
n of FOC
material
Depot receipts checked,
works carried out
satisfactorily.
7 2006-07 Chikma
galur
Chikma
galur
Payagondan-
halli
66, 67 KSFM
BC
Contruction
of Check
Dam
Carried out
satisfactorily.
8 2006-07 Chikma
galur
Chikma
galur
Halelakya 85, 30 KSFM
BC
Gully Checks Carried out
satisfactorily.
9 2004-05 Chikma
galur
Chikma
galur
GTD
Chikmagalu
- 01
Timber
Fencing work Part of the fencing was
removed due to
construction of
compound wall.
Approximately 300
mtrs existing.
10 2006-07 Chikma
galur
Chikma
galur
Srinivasnaga
r in
Chikmagalur
- 01
Timber
Construction
of pipe
culvert and
compound
wall.
Carried out
satisfactorily.
232

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
11 2006-07 Chikma
galur
Chikma
galur
Chowdihara - 12th
Finance
Anti
smuggling
camp
PCP watchers were
engaged for protection
duty.
12 2005-06 Mudger
e
Mudger
e
Ghattadahall
i
15 01
Timber
Uprooting of
Acacia
stumps
Extraction &
transportation of Acacia
was done by KSFIC.
KFD did only uprooting
of stumps. And
expenditure incurred
was Rs. 33,000/- only.
13 2004-05 Mudger
e
Mudger
e
Bankal 353 11 -
Forest
Protecti
on
Formation of
fire lines
Carried out
satisfactorily.
14 2006-07 Mudger
e
Mudger
e
Bankal
B. Hosahalli
212,
213
12th
Finance
Anti
smuggling
camp
Work carried out
satisfactorily.
15 2004-05 Mudger
e
Mudger
e
Phalguni 306 11 -
Forest
Protecti
on
Uprooting of
coffee stumps
at Tathkola
encroachment
eviction area
Work carried out
satisfactorily.
17 2005-06 Mudger
e
Mudger
e
Mudgere Range
Jurisdi
ction
Integrat
ed
Forest
Protecti
on
Creation of
Fire Line
Work carried out
satisfactorily.
18 2004-05 Chikma
galur
Muthod
i
Kolagmane
and Maskali
- KFDF-
03
other
plantati
ons
Fire
protection
wokrs
Works carried out
satisfactorily.
19 2005-06 Chikma
galur
Muthod
i
Maskali,
Muthodi &
other places
- Integrat
ed
Forest
Protecti
on
Creation of
Fire Line
Works carried out
satisfactorily.
20 2005-06 Chikma
galur
Aldur Kundur,
Aldur
- Integrat
ed
Forest
Protecti
on
Creation of
Fire Line
Works carried out
satisfactorily.
21 2004-05 Chikma
galur
Aldur Sargod 205,
202
KFDF -
Other
plantati
ons
Fixing of
stones
Work carried out
satisfactorily.




233

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.



234

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.
Distribution of seedlings:
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.

235

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.







































236

Table-A
Sl.
No
Year Scheme Range Village & Sy.no
Area in
Ha
Model
Survi
val
%
Species
Planted
I.Koppa Division:
1 2004-05 FDA
Balehon
nur
Bannur, 58 10.00 MPC 24%
Medicinal
Plants
2 2004-05 FDA Sringeri
Yadadall
i, Nallur
146, 25 15.00
Cane &
Bamboo
13.36
%
Cane
3 2004-05 FDA Koppa′ Kelakuli 53 10.00 Bamboo 0% Bamboo
4 2004-05 FDA Kalasa
Horanad
u
62 15.00
Artificial
Regenerat
ion
20.60
%
Acacia,
Dhoopa,
Halasu,
Gulmavu,
Murugunah
ulli
5 2004-05
03-Other
Plant.
Chickma
galur
Sarya 73 15.00
Mixed
plantation
'72%
Acacia,
Honge,
Matti,
Neralu,
Halasu
6 2004-05 FDA Sringeri Asagodu
125,
160
10.00
Artificial
Regenerat
ion
89.5
%
Acacia,
Bellale,
Goldmohar,
H.Halasu
etc
7 2004-05 FDA NR Pura
Madaboo
r
57 20.00 Bamboo
23.3
%
Bamboo
8 2004-05 FDA NR Pura Seethur 86 20.00
Artificial
Regenerat
ion
100
%
Acacia,
Mathi,
Neralu
9 2004-05 FDA
Chickma
galur
Bale 39 &81 25.00 Bamboo
69.5
%
Bamboo
10 2005-06 DDF Koppa Herur 9 23.50
Fuel wood
Plantation
90%
Acacia &
others
11 2005-06 FDA NR Pura
K.Kenab
oor
62 & 38 20.00
Bamboo
Model
69.5
%
Bamboo
12 2005-06 FDA Kalasa
Mavinak
ere
496 10.00
Silivipastu
re
82.2
%
Halasu,
Hebalasu,
13 2005-06 FDA Koppa
Herur
(kariman
e)
46 & 55 15.00
Silivipastu
re
50%
Acacia &
Others
14 2005-06 FDA NR Pura
Bellur(
Hathur)
26 10.00 ANR
82.5
%
Hoone,
Halasu,
Nelli,

237








15 2005-06 FDA Sringeri
Vidyaranayapur
a
247, 19 10.00
Mixed
plantation
83%
16 2006-07 FDA Koppa
Kelakuli Block-
II
53 15.00 ANR 80%
17 2006-07 FDA Sringeri Markal 160 10.00 Cane 54%
18 2006-07 FDA
Chickmag
alur
Kanur 19 10.00
Mixed
plantation
92%
19 2006-07
12th
Finance
Kalasa
Mavinakere &
Yedur
123 &
6
13.00 Fuel wood 82.5%
20 2006-07
12th
Finance
Sringeri Masige 119 8.00 Fuel wood 95%
21 2006-07
12th
Finance
Chikkagr
ahara
Nagalapura 28, 49 12.00 Fuel wood 97%
22 2006-07 KSFMBC NR Pura Konakere 74, 90 10.00 Model-IV 78%
23 2006-07
JBIC
KSMBC
Balehonn
ur
B.Kanabur 195 10.00 Model-IV 82%
24 2006-07
Compens
atory
Afforestat
ion
NR Pura
Honnekodige &
Salur
28 &
14, 104
10.00
Artificial
Regeneratio
n
58%
25 2006-07 FDA Kalasa
Kalaseswara
Mavinakere
496 15.00 ANR 42.5%
26 2006-07 FDA NR Pura Kanive
72 &
98
10.00
Artificial
Regeneratio
n
99%
27 2006-07 FDA Sringeri Asagodu 227 15.00
Mixed
plantation
92%

III. Social Forestry Division,
Chikmagalur

1 2004-05 D.W.G Koppa
Hosura
Plantatation
189 10.00 Fuel wood 98%
2 2005-06 S.G.R.Y. Tarikere Krishnepura 22 15.00 Fuel wood 61.3%
3 2006-07 S.G.R.Y.
Chickmaga
lur
Shiravalour
93. 97,
98
14.00
Fuel wood
Pit
plantation
98%

238


Table-B

List of Seedlings distributed Evaluation in Chickmagalur and Social Forestry Division & Koppa Division

Sl
NO
Year Talur Hobli Villlage
Number of
Seedlings
distributed
Species of
seedlings
distributed
Survi-
val %
Remarks
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 2006-07 Tarikere Lakkavalli Gundenahally 580 Nos
Casurina
Acacia, Silver
Oak Oak
90
2 2006-07 Tarikere Amruthapura Vitalapura 1201 Nos
Teak,
Casurina,
Acacia
95
3 2006-07 Tarikere Lingadahalli Lingadahally 165 Nos.,
Honge,
Survey, Silver
Oak
95
4 2006-07 Koppa Megunda Herur 9050 Nos.,
Silver Oak,
Acacia
80
5 2006-07 Koppa Hariharapura Shanuvalli 1000 Nos.,
Silver Oak,
Acacia
90
6 2006-07 Koppa Kasaba Koppa rural 4745 Nos.,
Silver Oak,
Acacia
90
7 2006-07 NR pura Balehonnur Hennagi 465 Nos.,
Silver Oak,
Acacia, Geru,
Saguvani
50
8 2006-07 NR pura Kasaba Honnekodige 1135 Nos.,
Silver Oak,
Acacia, Geru,
Saguvani
70
9 2006-07 NR pura Kasaba Guladhamani 1000 Nos.,
Silver Oak,
Acacia
90
10 2006-07 NR pura Kasaba Hiluvalli 1175 Nos.,
Silver Oak,
Acacia
90
11 2006-07 NR pura Balehonnur Kanooru 1750 Nos., Acacia, Honge 70
12 2006-07 NR pura Kasaba Muluvalli 2100 Nos.,
Silver Oak,
Acacia,
Saguvani
90
13 2006-07 NR pura Kasaba Mudubagilu 800 Nos.,
Silver Oak,
Acacia,
Saguvani
90
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.,
239


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
No.
Year of
sanction
Taluk Village Suvey No. Scheme Work
Sanctione
d cost
Remar
ks
1 2004-05
Chikka
magalur
S.pete (Devadana) Depot 01 Timber Lotting 20600
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
240

14 2004-05 N.R. Pura Neralekoppa Plantation 01 Timber Logging 112244
15 2004-05 N.R. Pura Kolale PF 01 Timber Logging 287888
16 2004-05 N.R. Pura Bale
Other Gove
Land
01 Timber Logging 18902
17 2004-05 N.R. Pura Megaramakki Comp-7 01 Timber Logging 122063
18 2004-05 Sringeri Markal Plantation 01 Timber Logging 79000





19 2004-05 N.R. Pura Aramballi
Scarcity
Relief
Works
Desilting
of Tanks
35000
20 2004-05 N.R. Pura Aramballi
Scarcity
Relief
Works
Desilting
of Tanks
150000
21 2004-05 N.R. Pura Karkeswra PF Plantation 01 Timber Logging 80700
22 2005-06
Chikkamag
alur
S.pete (Devadana) Depot 01 Timber Lotting 22800
23 2005-06
Chikkamag
alur
huigere Plantation 01 Timber Logging 16400
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
241

33 2005-06 N.R. Pura Kusugal Comp-8 01 Timber Logging 29100




34 2005-06 N.R. Pura Megaramakki Comp-4 01 Timber Logging 5200
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
39 2005-06
Chikkamag
alur
Yadadalli Govt. Land 01 Timber Logging 41800
40 2005-06
Chikkamag
alur
S.Pete
2406-01-
105-0-01
Timber
Construc
tion of
Culvert
at
G.T.D.S.
Pete
26000
41 2005-06 N.R. Pura Kusgal
12th Finance
commission
Construc
tion of
antipochi
ng camp
at
KusgalC
ulvert at
G.T.D.S.
Pete
100000
42 2005-06 Koppa Koppa
2406-01-
105-0-01
Timber
Providin
g water
supply to
staff
quarters
and
forest IB
at koppa
25000
43 2005-06 Koppa Koppa KSFMBC
Construc
tion of
staff
(twin
quarter)
at koppa-
Sringeri
Road,
Koppa)
500000
44 2005-06 N.R. Pura Saluru
12th Finance
commission
Construc
tion of
antipochi
ng camp
at Salur
M.F.G.T.
D.S. Pete
100000
242

45 2005-06 N.R. Pura Aramballi
Forest
Protection
and Cultural
Operation
Construc
tion of
Fire
Camp
building
at Sy.
No. 32
of
Aramball
i village
50000
46 2005-06 N.R. Pura Mudubagilu Plantation 01 Timber Logging 91300
47 2006-07
Chikkamag
alur
S.pete (Devadana) Depot 01 Timber Lotting 21200
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
243

62 2006-07 N.R. Pura Hatur Plantation 01 Timber Logging 196400
63 2006-07 N.R. Pura Megaramakki Comp-3 01 Timber Logging 116100
64 2006-07 N.R. Pura Magodu Plantation 01 Timber Logging 32000
65 2006-07 N.R. Pura Nagaramakki
Road side
trees
01 Timber Logging 42100
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
73 2006-07
Chikkamag
alur
S.Pete
2406-01-
105-0-01
Timber
Construc
tion of
Ring
well at
G.T.D.
Premises
at S.Pete
85000
74 2006-07 N.R. Pura Alehalli 68 KSFMBC
Construc
tion of
multipur
pose
earthen
tank at
Alehalli
61500
75 2006-07 N.R. Pura Karkeswra PF 65 KSFMBC
Construc
tion of
multipur
pose
earthen
pond at
Sy. No.
65 of
Karkesh
wara
15000
244











76 2006-07 Mudigere Yadur 50 KSFMBC
Construc
tion of
Water
Storage
Tank at
Sy. No.
50 of
Yedur
Village
80000
Outlet
very
narrow
77 2006-07 Koppa Koppa
2406-01-
105-0-01
Timber
Construc
tion of
compoun
d at
Firewoo
d Depot
Koppa
100000
78 2006-07 Koppa kelakuli 85 KSFMBC
Re
Construc
tion of
Tank at
Kelakulli
35000








79 2006-07 N.R. Pura Kusubar(Sathikoli) 48 KSFMBC
Construc
tion of
Cement
Concrete
check
dam at
Sy. No.
48 of
Kusubar
52000
Improp
er
design
as side
breach
ing
noticed
80 2006-07 N.R. Pura
K. Kanabur
(Varkatte)
68 KSFMBC
Construc
tion of
Multy
purpose
tank at
Sy. No.
68 of K.
Kanabur
97500
81 2006-07 N.R. Pura
K. Kanabur
(Varkatte)
59 KSFMBC
Digging
of CPT
along the
contour
under
SMC
work
39700
82 2006-07 Sringeri Yadadalli Eco-Tourism
Construc
tion of
Steps to
Sirimane
falls
150000
Good
work
245


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)

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


Sl.
No.
Suggestions / recommendation made in the evaluation report
Action taken
by the
implementing
officer
No. Taluk Hobli Village Scheme Work
Sanction
Cost
Remarks
2002-03
1 Chikmag
alu
r
Jagara Jagara 01-Timber Timber-
62.000 M
3

84000.00 Works is not
done as per
Working Plan
Action has
been taken to
implement
Working Plan
prescription
properly and to
ensure that no
violation takes
place in future.

Further action
has been
initiated to
approve the
deviations in
implementation
of the
prescriptions of
the Sanctioned
Working Plan.
2 Mudigere Bankal 1983-87
Bankal B.
Hosahalli
01-Timber Timber-
48.350 M
3

64150.00 Satisfactory
but Working
Plan
prescriptions
are not
properly
followed
Acacia
Plantations.
1 A poles -
524 Nos.
I B Poles -
346 Nos.
Firewood -
272.650 M
3

Billets -
1053.968 M
3


3 Chikmag
alur
Kandya Basthi
Reserve
Forest
Sargod
01-Timber Timber -
455.083 M
3

Firewood -
180.935 M
3

- Works is not
done as per
Working Plan


246

Sl.
No.
Suggestions / recommendation made in the evaluation report
Action taken by
the
implementing
officer
No. Taluk Hobli Village Scheme Work
Sanction
Cost
Remarks
2003-04
4 Kadur Kadur Thangali
Sandal Reserve
01-Timber Uprooting
of Sandal
- 3390 Kg
40000.00 Satisfactory The observation
is noted for future
intervention and
improvement
2002-03

5 Chikm
agalur
Muthodi Maskali 2406-01-
101-2-01-
Protection
from fire
Masakali
Shola - 5
Kms
12265.00 Satisfactory


2003-04
6 Mutho
di
Muthodi Maskali Protection
from fire
Masakali
SF - 26
Kms
10000.00 Satisfactory

2002-03

7 Chikm
agalur
Kasaba Chikmagalur 2406-01-
070-0-03-
Building-
139-Major
works
Providing
sandal
store at
Sandal
Koti,
Chikmaga
lur
20900.00 Good



Sl.
No.
Suggestions / recommendation made in the evaluation report
Action taken by the
implementing officer
No. Taluk Hobli Village Scheme Work
Sanction
Cost
Remar
ks
2003-04

8
Chikm
agalur
Kasab
a
Srinivasana
gar
2406-01-
070-0-03-
Building-
139-Major
works
Repair
works at
ACF, FMS
office
buildings at
Srinivasanag
ar
5100.00 Good
Observations have been
noted for future
intervention and
improvement

2003-04

9
Mudig
ere
- Thatkola
KFDF-03
Other
Plantation
Demolition
of buildings
in Thatkola
R.F
61200.00 Good







247

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 14
0
17’N and 15
0
50’
N and the longitudinal parallels of 74
0
48’ E and 75
0
-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.


248

GADAG DISTRICT
Gadag district lies between latitudes 75
0
16’ E to the West and 76
0
02’E to the East
and longitudes 15
0
52’ N to the North and 14
0
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 14
0
16’ 25” and 5
0
10’ 0” north latitudes and
between 75
0
0’ 45” and 75
0
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
249

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 14
0

C and the highest is 41
0
C. 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 18
0
C in winter to a maximum of 40
0
C 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
250

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.
251

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.
No.
Circle Team leader Other members
1 2 4 5
1




DHARWAD Sri.M.R.Karki, IFS,
Chief Conservator of Forests
(Research & Utilisation)
Bangalore.
1) Sri. Shiv Raj Singh, IFS,
Conservator of Forests, Working Plans, Shimoga.
2) Sri.Nagaraj, IFS,
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
252

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 1
st
patch and
0.50M in 2
nd
patch. In 1
st
patch honge and bamboo has survived well. In 2
nd
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
253

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.
Area has been ripped at 4.00M apart and 12500 trenches of 4.00M length have been
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.
Area has been ripped at 3.00M apart and 8000 trenches of 4.00M length have been
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.

254

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
255

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–12
th
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.





256

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- 12
TH
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.
No.
Scheme Range Location Extent
Survival
%
1 2 3 4 5 6
DHARWAD DIVISION :
FDA PLANTATIONS
1 FDA – NR Kalaghatgi Kudlagi (Birnal
plantation)
30 Ha. 72 %
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
Afforestation
Kalaghatgi Galagi ( Benchi ) 1.5 Ha. 81 %
2 12
th
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 12
th
Finance Dundishi Haralagatta 17 Ha. 83 %
6. 02 Cultural
Operation
Dharwad Neeralkatti 16.59
Ha.0
95%
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
257

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.



258

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
Kalghatagi taluk by recovering cost. Survival percentage is 85% and planted plants- teak
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.
259

7) 2006 rains – Hindsgeri village :
500 Teak seedlings have been given to Sri. Basappa Sangappa Huddar of Hindsgeri village of
Kalghatagi taluk by recovering cost. Survival percentage is 95% and planted plants- teak
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
Kalghatagi taluk by recovering cost. Survival percentage is 97% and planted plants- teak
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
Kalghatagi taluk by recovering cost. Survival percentage is 71% and planted plants- teak
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.
260

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
.
N
o
Range Location Sy. No./ Name of the
farmer.
Name of
the Species
No. of
Seedl-
ings
Survival
%
1 2 3
DHARWAD DIVISION
1 Dharwad Mandyal 79 Teak,
Casuarina
Nugge,
500
50
16
85%
100%
- -
2 Dharwad Alnavar Sri. Deepak kalal Teak 400 10%
3 Dharwad Gamanagatti Sri. Nagaraj S.
Menasinkayi
Nugge
Bevu
100
50
32%
10%
4 Dharwad Mansur 155/P and 154/2 Teak, Halsu
Sampige
1200
5, 2
90 %
5 Kalaghatagi Chalamatti Sri. Satiesh Vivekanand Teak 1000 80%
6 Kalaghatagi Kuruvina
koppa
Sri. C.G. Uppar Teak 2000 85%
7 Kalaghatagi Hindsgeri Sri. Basappa Sangappa
Huddar
Teak 500 95%
8 Kalaghatagi Dasti koppa Sri. Allabhaksh bepari Teak 950 97%
9 Kalaghatagi Sange devara
koppa
Sahadevappa Ningappa
Uganikeri
Teak 100 95%
10 Kalaghatagi Madaki
honnhalli
Srikanth B. Kubhal Teak 280 71%
11 Kalaghatagi Kuruvina
koppa
Adavippa N.
Chanddanavar
Teak 500 80%
12 Kalaghatagi Misri koti Revanappa Pakkirappa Teak 1000 60%
13 Kalaghatagi Malakana
koppa
Sri. Siddappa hulumani Teak 1000 95%
14 Hubli Giriyal Sri. Malleshappa
Narappa Tudikennavar,
Teak 300 85%
15 Hubli Tarihal Sri. Shekappa K.
Chikkannanvar
Teak 300 82%
16 Hubli Sutagatti Concord Developers Basavanpad
,
Bangali,
Neem,
Baradakshi,
Gulmohar


300


95%
General Observation :
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.
261

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.

262

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.
No.
Scheme Range Location Extent
Survival
%
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.

263

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
264

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
planted seedlings are healthy and good.
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.
NAVALGUND S.F. RANGE
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
planted seedlings are healthy and good.
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%.

265

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
planted seedlings are healthy and good.
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.
N0
Range Location Sy. No./ Name
of the farmer.
Name of the
Species
No. of
Seedl-
ings
Survival
%
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,
Causuarina, Acacia
260
200
100
100%
100%
79%
10 Navalgund Tirlapur Sri. Siddappa
sunkad
Bevu, Eucalyptus,
Seeme thangadi,


150



11 Navalgund Shirkol Sri.B.K.
Kadagal
Teak
Eucalyptus
5
5
100%
100%
12 Kalghatgi Ramanhal Sri.
Mahadevappa
Chabbi
Teak,
Acacia,
Casuarina
350
400
500

80%
13 Kalghatgi Surasetti
koppa
Sri.
Mahadevappa
Benni
Acacia,
Casuarina,
Honge,
Jatropha
200
100
100
100


80%
14 Hubli Shiraguppi Sri.G.P.
Shivanagappa
Hunse,
Bevu,
Honge,
Nerale,
Parijata,
Karibevu,
Other species
10
10
10
18
10
16
20



20%
15 Hubli Rayanal M.H. Kappal,
Sy. No. 105,
116/1
Different species 3000
16 Hubli Varur S.G. Kaubali
matt
Different species 2414

General Observation :
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
266

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

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 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.
NAVALGUND S.F. RANGE
3) Village Forest Committee (VFC) – Shanwad
Village Forest Committee has been formed and registered on 20.03.2002 vide Reg.
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.
General Observation :
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
267

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.
The details of plantations and other SMC works evaluated are given below :
A. FDA Plantations :
SHIRAHATTI RANGE
1) 2004 rains Amarapur plantation –Artificial Regeneration– 20 Ha.
5000 trenches of 4.00M X 0.45M X 0.45M have been manually excavated and 15000
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.
5000 trenches of 4.00M X 0.45M X 0.45M have been manually excavated and 15000
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-
268

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.
7500 trenches of 4.00M X 0.45M X 0.45M have been manually excavated and 22500
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.
12500 trenches of 4.00M X 0.45M X 0.45M have been manually excavated and 37500
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.
2500 trenches of 4.00M X 0.45M X 0.45M have been manually excavated and 7500
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-
269

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.
5000 trenches of 4.00M X 0.45M X 0.45M have been manually excavated and 15000
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. 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.
7500 trenches of 4.00M X 0.45M X 0.45M have been manually excavated and 27000
seedlings of Bevu, Hunse, Anjan, Tapasi, Sirsal, Honge, Neelagiri, Seetaphal, Sissoo,
Soymida (5” X 8” - 19500 and 8”X12” – 7500 ) seedlings have been planted in Forest
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.


270

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.
Plantation has been maintained during 2006-07 and 2007-08. The survival percentage is
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.
The survival percentage of the plantations evaluated is as shown below :

Sl.
No.
Scheme Range Location Extent
Survival
%
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 %
271

Plantation
5 Compensatory
Afforestation
Mundargi Kelur 20 Ha. 55 %
6 Compensatory
Afforestation
Mundargi Kelur 30 Ha. 67 %
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.
D. Distribution of Seedlings :
No evaluation regarding distribution of seedlings has been carried out.



272

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.
No.
Scheme Range Location Extent Survival
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.
No evaluation regarding distribution of seedlings has been carried out.




273

XVI. Summary of Observations and Recommendations for Gadag district.

a) Opinion regarding plantation practices :
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
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.

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.
The details of plantations and other SMC works evaluated are given below :
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.


274

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.
Plantation has been maintained during 2004-05 and 2005-06. The survival percentage is
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
275

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.
276

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.
Area has been ripped at 8.00Mtrs. apart and 9600 trenches of 4.00 M length have been
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.
Area has been ripped at 4.00Mtrs. apart and 9340 trenches of 4.00 M length have been
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.
277

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.

The survival percentage of the plantations evaluated is as shown below :

Sl.
No.
Scheme Range Location Extent Survival %
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 –
Plantation
Haveri Haveri town 3 Kms. 95 %
7 12
th
Finance Haveri Melmuri 30 Ha. 93.85 %



278

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
279

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
280

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.
D. Distribution of Seedlings :
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.
Plantation has been maintained during 2005-06 and 2006-07. The survival percentage is
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.
5250 trenches of 4.00 M length have been manually excavated and 15750 eucalyptus
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.
5000 trenches of 4.00 M length have been manually excavated and 16500 eucalyptus
seedlings have been planted in Sy.No. 10 of C & D Lands. Plantation has been
281

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.
Plantation has been maintained during 2005-06 and 2006-07. The survival percentage is
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.
No.
Scheme Range Location Extent Survival
%
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.
No evaluation regarding distribution of seedlings has been carried out.
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.
282

(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
283

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.
Rs.95,789.00 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. 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.
Rs.7,800.00 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 - 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.



284

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.


285

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.
286


XX. Summary of Observations and Recommendations for Haveri district.

a) Opinion regarding plantation practices :
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
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 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.


























287

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
District/
Taluk.
Nor
mal
2002. 2003. 2004. 2005. 2006.
Actual
%
Dep.
Actual
%
Dep.
Actual
%
Dep.
Actual
%
Dep.
Actual
%
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.,

288

(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).
289

• 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

District/
Taluk
Nor
mal.
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Actual
%
Dep.
Actual
%
Dep.
Actual
%
Dep.
Actual
%
Dep.
Actual
%
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
Kalyan
676 706 4 756 12 804 19 770 14 644 -5
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
290

(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
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.
291

• 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:

Sl.
No.
Year of
planting
Area
(ha)
No. of spots
selected at
Random @
10% for
evaluation
Total no. of
sampling
spots
Remarks
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, 12
th
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:

Sl.
No.
Year of
planting
Area
(ha)
No. of spots selected at
Random @ 10% for
evaluation
Total no. of
spots
Remarks
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.
292

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).
Sl.
Name of
the
Range
Location
of the
Plantation
Year of
Planta-
tion
Budget
Head
Model
Planting
Method
Exten
t in ha
Seedli-
ng
Surviv
al %
Weig -
hted
Product
Weig-
hted
Avera
ge
1 Bidar Shahpur 2004-05
NAP
FDA
AR Trench 25 50.10 1252.50
2 Bidar Vilasapur 2006-07
NAP
FDA
AR Trench 21 86.76 1821.96
3 Aurad
Alur-SCP
plots
2004-05 SCP SCP Pits 4 0.00 0
4 Aurad Belur 2006-07
KSFM
BC
M-04 Trench 15 72.32 1084.80
5 Bhalki
Dhanura
thanda
2006-07
NAP
FDA
AR Trench 25 57.70 1442.50
6 Bhalki Kosam 2004-05
NAP
FDA
AR Trench 15 45.56 683.40
7 Bidar Hannikeri 2006-07 DDF Block Trench 20 56.44 1128.80
8 Bidar Vilashapur 2006-07
KSFM
BC
M-04 Trench 20 53.33 1066.60
9 Bidar
Zianstampu
r
2005-06 FDA Block Trench 35 85.41 2989.35
10
Basavak
alyana
Ekloor 2005-06
KSFM
BC
M-01 Thalies 50
Sl.
Name of
the
Range
Location of
the
Plantation
Year of
Planta-
tion
Budget
Head
Model
Planting
Method
Extent
in ha
Seedli-
ng
Surviva
l %
Weig -
hted
Product
Weig-
hted
Avera
ge
11
Basavak
alyana
Kitta 2005-06
NAP-
FDA
AR Trench 25 46.73 1168.25
Sl.
Name of
the
Range
Location of
the
Plantation
Year of
Planta-
tion
Budget
Head
Model
Planting
Method
Extent
in ha
Seedli-
ng
Surviva
l %
Weig -
hted
Product
Weig-
hted
Avera
ge
12
Basavak
alyana
Neelakanth
awali
2004-05 FDA Block Trench 22 60.83 1338.26
13
Basavak
alyana
Lingadalli 2004-05
NAP-
FDA
AR Trench 27.58 59.84 1650.39
14
Humnab
ad
Karkanalli 2004-05
NAP-
FDA
AR Trench 30 74.19 2225.70
15 Humnab Eithabapur 2005-06 FDF Forest Trench 36 54.47 1960.92
293

ad
16
Humnab
ad
Eithabapur 2005-06
KSFM
BC
M-01 Thallies 186
17
Humnab
ad
Vadhamnal
li
2005-06
NAP-
FDA
ANR Pits 50 73.86 3693.00
18
Humnab
ad
Madargi 2006-07
KSFM
BC
M-04 Trench 10 69.40 694.00
19 Bidar Hokrana 2004-05 C.A C&D Trench 15 93.38 1400.70
20 Bidar
Zamistanap
ur SP-1
2005-06 FDF Forest Trench 7.5 77.11 578.33
21 Bidar Chitta 2005-06
NOVO
DA
Forest Trench 15 85.98 1289.70
Total 654.08 50.14 27469.2 42.00

4.1.2 Survival percentage: Bidar Social Forestry 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 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.
Sl.
no

Name of
the Range
Location
of the
Plantation
Year of
Plantatio
n
Budget
Head
Model
Planting
Method
Ext.
in ha
Seedli
ng
Survi
val %
Weighted
Product
Weigh
ted
Avera
ge
1 Humnabad
Othagi
SCP- plots
2004-05
SGRY/
SCP/TS
P
Private
land
Pits 1 82.00 82.00
2 Humnabad
Nandagoun
(Demonstra
- tion
plots – 1
2005-06
KSFM
BC
M-08 Pits 1 55.00 55.00
3 Humnabad
Nandagoun
(Demonstra
tion plots –
2
2005-06
KSFM
BC
M-08 Pits 1 12.00 12.00
4 Humnabad
Karakanaha
lli (SCP-
plots)
2005-06
SGRY/
SCP
Demon
stration
plot
Pits 1 44.40 44.40
5 Humnabad
Chinkera
T.F.S
2005-06 RSVY
Pit
plantati
on
Pits 5 98.00 490.00
6 Humnabad
Changler
TFS,SP-1
2005-06
NFFW
P-MLA
Pit
plantati
on
Pits 10 72.50 725.00
7 Humnabad
Monsoon
various
school
forestry
(Basavathe
ertha vidya
peetha,
Hallikhed
(B)).
2006-07 RSVY
School
Forestr
y
Pits 6 28.18 169.08
8 Humnabad
Sulthanaba
d
Chandanhal
li
2006-07
SGRY/
SCP
Demon
stration
plot
Pits 1 16.00 16.00
294

9 Humnabad
Dubalagun
di to
Varvatti,
Sedam
cross road
side
2006-07 KREGS
Road
side
Pits 5 36.00 180.00
10 Bhalki
Sevanagar
SCP – plot
2006-07
SGRY(
SCP/TS
P)
Private
land
Pits 1 100.00 100.00
11 Bhalki
GHPS
Dhannur
School
2006-07 RSVY School Pits 1 53.33 53.33
12 Bhalki
Kardiyal
Gurukul
School
2006-07 RSVY School Pits 1.5 72.30 108.45
13 Bhalki
Valsang to
Ganeshpur
wadi
2004-05 RSVY
Road
side
Pits 6 49.91 299.46
14 Bhalki
Bus-depot
– Bhalki
2005-06 RSVY
Govt
Land
Pits 2 77.78 155.56
15 Bhalki Bhatandra 2004-05
SGRY/
SCP
Private
land
Pits 1 50.40 50.40
16 Bhalki
GHS
Bhatambur
2005-06 RSVY
School
forestry
Pits 1.4 0.00 0.00
17 Bhalki
Atterga
Demonstrat
ion plot
2005-06
KSFM
BC
M-08 Pits 1 0.00 0.00
18 Bhalki Mehkar 2006-07
SGRY/
SCP/TS
P
Private
land
Pits 1 0.00 0.00
19 Bhalki Balegaon 2005-06 RSVY Forest Trench 20 45.86 917.20
20 Bhalki
Madakati
to approach
road
2006-07 NREGS
Road
side
Pits 1.75 11.14 19.50
21 Aurad Chintaki 2005-06 SGRY
Road
side
Pits 10 6.00 60.00
22 Aurad
Karangi
(B)
2006-07
SGRY/
SCP/TS
P
Private
land
Pits 2.5 79.20 198.00
23 Aurad
G.H.School
Yangunda
2006-07
School
forestry
School Pits 1.84 48.37 89.00
24 Aurad Korayal 2005-07 SGRY
Private
land
Pits 2.5 76.00 190.00
25 Aurad
Kamalanag
ar to murki
road side
2005-06 RSVY
Road
side
Pits 7 39.00 273.00
26 Aurad
G.H.School
Khatgaon
2005-06 RSVY
School
forestry
Pits 1 78.00 78.00
27 Aurad
Sawargaon
to Bhanthi
road side
2006-07 NREGS
Road
side
Pits 5 30.10 150.50
28 Aurad
Lingiwadi-
Demo plot
2005-06
KSFM
BC/SC
P
M-08 Pits 1 38.00 38.00
29 Aurad
Ladha SCP
plot
2004-05
SGRY/
SCP/TS
P
Private
land
Pits 1 36.00 36.00
30
Basavakaly
ana
Kodyal 2006-07
SGRY/
SCP
Private
land
Pits 1 0.00 0.00
31
Basavakaly
ana
Manthal-
school
forestry
2006-07 RSVY
School
forestry
Pits 1 31.50 31.50
32
Basavakaly
ana
Kondihal 2006-07
SGRY-
SCP
Private
land
Pits 1 32.80 32.80
295

33
Basavakaly
ana
Chickanaga
on to
Kalkhora
2006-07
NREG
A
Road
side
Pits 5 49.04 245.20
34
Basavakaly
ana
Govt. High
school,
Mudbi
2005-06 RSVY
School
forestry
Pits 1 81.67 81.67
35
Basavakaly
ana
Toglur-
Goruta
2005-06
NFFW
P
Road
side
Pits 5 0.00 0.00
36
Basavakaly
ana
Rajeshwar 2005-06
KSFM
BC
M-08 Pits 1 80.00 80.00
37
Basavakaly
ana
Chukinala
damsite
2004-05 SGRY
Govt
Land
Pits 11 75.37 829.07
38
Basavakaly
ana
Narayanap
ur
2005-06
KSFM
BC
M-08 Pits 1 58.00 58.00
39
Basavakaly
ana
Murkundi
TFS
2005-06 SGRY
Govt
Land
Pits 17.5 60.36 1056.30
40 Bidar
Gadagi to
Nandagaon
2006-07 NREGP
Road
side
Pits 5 55.00 275.00
41 Bidar
Bidar
college
Norma
Findrock
High
School
2006-07 RSVY
Private
land
Pits 1 30.00 30.00
42 Bidar Kanthana 2005-06
KSFM
BC
M-08 Pits 1 56.67 56.67
43 Bidar Kanthana 2005-06
KSFM
BC
M-08 Pits 1 33.33 33.33
44 Bidar
Tadlapur-
gumma
Malegaon
road
2005-06 RSVY
Road
side
Pits 7.5 58.58 439.35
45 Bidar
Malegaon
School
2005-06 RSVY
Private
land
Pits 1 29.09 29.09
46 Bidar
Nadagaon
patta land
2006-07 SGRY
Private
land
Pits 1 60.00 60.00
Slno
Name of
the Range
Location of
the
Plantation
Year of
Plantation
Budget
Head
Model
Plant ing
Met hod
Ext.
in ha
Seedli
ng
Surviv
al %
Weight-ed
Prod uct
Weig-
hted
Avera
ge
47 Bidar
Khayapur
patta land
2004-05
SGRY
SCP
Private
land
Pits 0.5 60.00 30.00
48 Bidar
Hokrana
Patta land
2004-05
SGRY
SCP
Private
land
Pits 0.5 50.00 25.00
49 Bidar
Morarji
Desai
School,
Bagdal
2006-07 RSVY School Pits 1 60.00 60.00
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).



296


Table 3(a) : Details of planting model wise survival percentage for Bidar Forest
Division (Territorial).

Sl no Planting model
Method of Land
Preparation
Seedling bag
size
No. of
Plantations
evaluated
Extent
(Ha)
Survival
percentage
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.
Sl no Planting model
Method of Land
Preparation
Seedling bag
size
No. of
Plantation
s evaluated
Extent
(Ha)
Survival percentage
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:
Sl no. Name of the Range
Failed
(Survival
percent
0-19)
Poor
(Survival
percent
20-39)
Satisfactory
(Survival
percent
40-59)
Good
(Survival
percent
60-79)
Very Good
(Survival percent
80-100)
1 Aurad 1 1
2 Basavakalyana 2 1
3 Bhalki 2
4 Bidar 3 1 4
5 Humnabad 1 3


297

Table 4(b): Bidar Social Forestry Division:
Sl no
Name of the Range

Failed
(Survival
percent
0-19)
Poor
(Survival
percent
20-39)
Satisfactory
(Survival
percent
40-59)
Good
(Survival
percent
60-79)
Very Good
(Survival percent
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
Plantation
Location
of the
Plantation
Scheme Model Method Area in
ha
Seedling
Survival
%
Species
Planted
General
condition of
Plantaions
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 13
1 2004-05 Shahpur NAP FDA AR Trench 25 50.10
Eucalyptus Satisfactory
Cashew
Agave
2 2006-07 Vilasapur NAP FDA AR Trench 21 86.76
Eucalyptus
Jatropha
Cassia
siamia
Cashew
Good



3 2004-05 Alur-SCP plots SCP SCP Pits 4 0.00
Mango Poor
Teak
4 2006-07 Belur KSFMBC M-04 Trench/pit 15 72.32
Eucalyptus
Jatropha
Glyricedia
Babul
Cassia
siamia
Pongamia
pinnata
Azadirachta
Good






298

indica
5 2006-07 Dhanura thanda NAP FDA AR Trench 25 57.70
Cashew
Satisfactory




Jatropha
Seethapal
Pongamia
pinnata
Glyricedia
6 2004-05 Kosam NAP FDA AR Trench 15 45.56 Eucalyptus Poor
7 2006-07 Hannikeri DDF Block Trench 20 56.44
Eucalyptus
Glyricedia
Cassia
siamia
Satisfactory


8 2006-07 Vilashapur KSFMBC M-04 Trench 20 53.33
Eucalyptus
Agave
Glyricedia
Bare
Khair
Sirsal
Poor





9 2005-06 Zianstampur FDA Block Trench 35 85.41 Cashew Good
10 2005-06 Ekloor KSFMBC M-01 Thalies 50 0
Regeneration
improved
11 2005-06 Kitta
NAP-
FDA
AR Trench 25 46.73
Cashew
Eucalyptus
Phyllanthus
emblica
Poor







Jatropha
Glyricedia
Cassia
siamia
Pongamia
pinnata
Seethapal
12 2004-05 Neelakanthawali FDA Block Trench 22 60.83
Eucalyptus
Hardwickia
binata
Cashew
Good


13 2004-05 Lingadalli
NAP-
FDA
AR Trench 27.6 59.84
Eucalyptus
Hardwickia
binata
Pongamia
pinnata
Poor


14 2004-05 Karkanalli
NAP-
FDA
AR Trench 30 74.19
Pongamia
pinnata
Cashew
Eucalyptus
Good


15 2005-06 Eithabapur FDF Forest Trench 36 54.47
Eucalyptus
Cashew
Pongamia
pinnata
Hardwickia
binata
Holoptelia
integrifolia
Glyricedia
Satisfactory





16 2005-06 Eithabapur KSFMBC M-01 Thallies 186 0
Regeneration
is improved
299

17 2005-06 Vadhamnalli
NAP-
FDA
ANR Pits 50 73.86
Pongamia
pinnata
Cashew
Terminalia
tomentosa
Bamboo
Azadirachta
indica
Good




18 2006-07 Madargi KSFMBC M-04 Trench/pit 10 69.40 Pongamia
pinnata
Glyricedia
Cassia
siamia
Jatropha
Good

19 2004-05 Hokrana C.A C&D Trench 15 93.38
Pongamia
pinnata
Hardwickia
binata
Phyllanthus
emblica
Holoptelia
integrifolia
Pterocarpus
marsupium
Cashew
Eucalyptus
Kadugeru
Good







20 2005-06
Zamistanapur
SP-1
FDF Forest Trench 7.5 77.11
Pongamia
pinnata
Hardwickia
binata
Good

21 2005-06 Chitta NOVODA Forest Trench 15 85.98
Simaruba
glauca
Pongamia
pinnata
Good


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:
Sl.
No.

Range
No. of spots for which
VFC
Micro plans Entry point activities
Formed Not formed Written
Not
written
Carried
out
Not
Carried
out
01 Bidar 2 2
2


02 Bhalki 2 2 2
03 Basavakalyan 4 4 4
04 Aurad 1 1 1
05 Humanabad 5 5 5



300

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).
Sl no Taluka
No. of
farmers
Survival (Average)
%
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.
301

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
inculcated in all future plantations.
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/-
Chief Conservator of Forests,
Head Quarters &Team Leader
The Evaluation Team:

Chief Conservator of Forests,
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:
Sl.
No.
Range Location
Survey
No.
Area
(ha.)
No. of
Sample
plots
GPS Co-ordinates
remarks Lat.
North
Long.
East
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 Bidar Shahpur 40, 43 25 15
o
51’ 06” 77
o
34’ 04”
2 Bidar Vilasapur 108 21 17
o
59’ 09” 77
o
23’ 13”
3
Aurad
Alur-SCP
plots
26
4
8 18
o
05’ 23.4” 77
o
29’ 22.3”
4 Aurad Belur 2/1,3 15 18
o
05’ 52.4”
18
o
06’ 5.30”
18
o
05’ 48.3”
77
o
29’ 11.2”
77
o
38’ 58”
77
o
29’ 07.6”

5 Bhalki Dhanura
thanda
103 25 5 17
o
37’ 17.4”
17
o
57’ 23.3”
17
o
57’ 13.9”
17
o
57’ 9.9”
17
o
57’ 8.5”
77
o
22’ 4.6”
77
o
22’ 11.6”
77
o
21’ 56.1”
17
o
21’ 54.8”
17
o
21’ 47.5”

6 Bhalki Kosam 78 15 3 17
o
59’ 2.6”
17
o
59’ 2.4”
17
o
59’ 11.3”
77
o
22’ 45.1”
77
o
22’ 36.4”
77
o
22’ 35.8”


7 Bidar Hannikeri 20 4 17
o
54’ 08”
17
o
58’ 16”
17
o
58’ 24”
17
o
58’ 24”
77
o
24’ 10”
77
o
24’ 15”
77
o
24’ 02”
17
o
23’ 53”

8 Bidar Vilashapur 20 4 17
o
58’ 43”
17
o
58’ 40”
77
o
23’ 45”
77
o
23’ 42”

302

17
o
58’ 37”
17
o
58’ 29”
77
o
23’ 33”
17
o
23’ 32”
9 Bidar Zianstampu
r
35 4 17
o
52’ 49.3” 77
o
28’ 53.1”
10 Basavakaly
ana
Ekloor

50
17
o
40’ 25.3” 76
o
54’ 12.1”
11 Basavakaly
ana
Kitta
118
25
17
o
52’ 49.3” 77
o
28’ 53.1”
12 Basavakaly
ana
Neelakanth
awali
31
22
17
o
42’ 40.6” 77
o
01’ 01.1”
13 Basavakaly
ana
Lingadalli

27.58
17
o
44’ 34.6” 77
o
01’ 01.1”
14 Humnabad Karkanalli 30 17
o
38’ 54” 77
o
28’ 19”
15 Humnabad Eithabapur 31 36 17
o
34’ 56.5” 77
o
19’ 44.9”
16 Humnabad Eithabapur 81 186 17
o
35’ 12.9” 77
o
18’ 42.4”
17
Humnabad
Vadhamnal
li

50
17
o
39’ 0.9” 77
o
24’ 39.2”
18 Humnabad Madargi 74 10 17
o
37’ 31.5” 77
o
18’ 15”
19 Bidar Hokrana 15 17
o
44’ 17.5” 77
o
29’ 7”
20 Bidar Zamistanap
ur SP-1
28,36 7.5 2 17
o
52’ 28.6” 77
o
28’ 31.9”
21 Bidar Chitta 154,155
, 156
15 17
o
50’ 44.3” 77
o
29’ 11.2”

Table details of sample plots and their GPS Co-ordinates in Bidar Division:
Bidar Social Forestry Division:
Sl.
No.
Range Location
Surve
y No.
Are
a
(ha.)
No. of
Sample
plots
GPS Co-ordinates
Rem-
arks
Lat.
North
Long.
East
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 Humnabad Othagi SCP-
plots
2
1
1 17
o
52’ 5.8” 77
o
29’
11.2”

2 Humnabad Nandagoun
(Demonstrati
on plots – 1

1
1 17
o
47’ 57.1” 77
o
11’
14.4”

3 Humnabad Nandagoun
(Demonstrati
on plots – 2

1
1 17
o
47’ 5.8” 77
o
11’
12.6”

4 Humnabad Karakanahalli
(SCP-plots)
8
1
1 17
o
36’ 21.4” 77
o
26’
46.2”

5 Humnabad Chinkera
T.F.S

5
1 17
o
49’ 27.8” 77
o
8’
21.9”

6 Humnabad Changler
TFS,SP-1

10
2 17
o
38’ 28.7”
17
o
38’ 26.9”
77
o
21’
58.2”
77
o
21’
53.9”

7 Humnabad Monsoon
various
school
forestry
(Basavatheert
ha vidya
peetha,
Hallikhed
(B).

6
1 17
o
51’ 19.9” 77
o
16’
47.2”

8 Humnabad Sulthanabad
(Chandanhalli
)
4
1
1 17
o
54’ 0.51” 77
o
10’
1.4”

9 Humnabad Dubalagundi
to Varvatti,
Sedam cross

5
2 17
o
51’ 11.3”
17
o
50’ 12.5”

77
o
11’
09.3”
77
o
09’

303

road side 1.4”
10 Bhalki Sevanagar
SCP – plot

1
1 17
o
58’ 20.4” 77
o
22’
3.4”

11 Bhalki GHPS
Dhannur
School

1
1 17
o
57’ 19.4” 77
o
20’
44.4”

12 Bhalki Kardiyal
Gurukul
School

1.5
1 18
o
01’ 13.7” 77
o
15’
33.6”

13 Bhalki Valsang to
Ganeshpur
wadi

6
1 18
o
03’ 19.7” 77
o
14’
26.2”

14 Bhalki Bus-depot –
Bhalki

2
1 18
o
03’ 4.8” 77
o
12’
50.4”

15 Bhalki
Bhatandra

1
1 18
o
03’ 27.7” 77
o
10’
37.7”

16 Bhalki GHS
Bhatambur

1.4
1 18
o
03’ 55.2” 77
o
9’
42.4”

17 Bhalki Atterga
Demonstratio
n plot

1
1 18
o
8’ 27.6” 77
o
0’
36.1”

18 Bhalki
Mehkar 1
1 18
o
6’ 34.2” 77
o
02’
5.4”

19 Bhalki Balegaon 20 4 18
o
6’ 25.9”
18
o
6’20.7”
18
o
6’ 12.4”
18
o
6’ 27.2”
77
o
2’ 9.9”
77
o
2’
11.3”
77
o
2’ 9.7”
77
o
2’
14.6”

20 Bhalki Madakati to
approach
road

1.75
1 17
o
58’ 48.4” 77
o
9’ 5.4”
21 Aurad
Chintaki

10
1 18
o
12’ 59.8” 77
o
32’
16.9”

22 Aurad
Karangi (B)

2.5
1 18
o
16’ 10.6” 77
o
32’
49.5”

23 Aurad G.H.School
Yangunda

1.84
1 18
o
14’ 38” 77
o
28’
35.7”

24 Aurad
Korayal

2.5
1 18
o
12’ 7.8” 77
o
16’
12.2”

25 Aurad Kamalanagar
to murki road
side

7
1 18
o
14’ 10.5” 77
o
11’
28.2”

26 Aurad G.H.School
Khatgaon

1
1 18
o
15’ 51.02” 77
o
12’
37.2”

27 Aurad Sawargaon to
Bhanthi road
side

5
1 18
o
22’ 27.1” 77
o
20’
39.9”

28 Aurad Lingiwadi-
Demo plot

1
1 18
o
21’ 13.4” 77
o
21’
25.5”

29 Aurad Ladha SCP
plot

1
1 18
o
06’ 16.3” 77
o
26’
52.6”

30 Basavakaly
ana
Kodyal

1
1 17
o
45’ 50.7” 76
o
52’
44.9”

31 Basavakaly
ana
Manthal-
school
forestry

1
1 17
o
49’ 15.8” 76
o
52’
28.0”

32 Basavakaly
ana
Kondihal

1
1 17
o
50’ 12” 75
o
51’ 13”
304

33 Basavakaly
ana
Chickanagao
n to Kalkhora

5
1 17
o
40’ 41.7” 76
o
56’
52.8”

34 Basavakaly
ana
Govt. High
school,
Mudbi

1
1 17
o
43’ 30.7” 76
o
56’
40.3”

35 Basavakaly
ana
Toglur-
Goruta

5
1 17
o
50’ 04” 75
o
12’ 05”
36 Basavakaly
ana
Rajeshwar

1
1 17
o
51’ 23” 76
o
53’ 54”
37 Basavakaly
ana Chukinala
damsite

11
2 17
o
56’ 58.7”
17
o
56’ 54.9”

77
o
00’
40.2”
77
o
00’
44.8”

38 Basavakaly
ana
Narayanapur

1
1 17
o
52’ 12.9” 76
o
58’
57.4”

39 Basavakaly
ana
Murkundi
TFS

17.5
1 17
o
52’ 34” 77
o
32’ 08”
40 Bidar Gadagi to
Nandagaon

5
0 -- --
41 Bidar Bidar college
Norma
Findrock
High School

1
0 -- --
42 Bidar Kanthana 1 1 17
o
50’ 26” 77
o
22’ 54”
43 Bidar Kanthana 1 1 17
o
50’ 27” 77
o
22’ 58”
44 Bidar Tadlapur-
gumma
Malegaon
road

7.5
0 -- --
45 Bidar Malegaon
School

1
0 -- --
46 Bidar Nadagaon
patta land

1
0 -- --
47 Bidar Khayapur
patta land

0.5
0 -- --
48 Bidar Hokrana
Patta land

0.5
0 -- --
49 Bidar Morarji Desai
School,
Bagdal

1
0 -- --

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
Sl.No.
Year of
planting
Area
(ha)
No. of spots selected
at Random @ 10%
for evaluation
Total no. of
sampling
spots
Remarks
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, 12
th
finance.




305

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.
Sl.
No.
Year of
planting
Area
(ha)
No. of spots selected
at Random @ 10%
for evaluation
Total
no. of
spots
Remarks
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:
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 Gulburga forest divisions (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 Gulbarga divisions (Territorial) is found to be 48.65
per cent. The details are given in table 2(a).
Table 2(a)
Gulbarga Territorial Division
Statement Showing location wise survival , percentage and weighted survival percentage for
plantations
Sl.
Name of
the
Range
Location of
the Plantation
Budget
Head
Model
Planting
Method
Exte
nt in
ha
No. of
Plants
planted
in
Sample
plot\
Survi
val
numb
er
Seedli
ng
Survi
val %
Weight
ed
Produc
t
Weight
ed
Averag
e
1 Chincholi Venkatapura
Compt,
REFL &
KSFMBC
M -04
Trench/
pit
30 1238 712 57.51 1725.30
2 Chincholi Bairampalli
Compt,
REFL &
KSFMBC
M-1 Thallies 25
3 Chincholi Chikkalingdalli
NAP –
FDA
Medic
inal
Trench 20 40800 36720 90.00 1800.00
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
306

7 Aland Bhoosanur KSFMBC M-04
Trench/p
it
50 824 609 73.91 3695.50
8 Gulbarga Gulbarga GUA Road Pit 15 3000 2940 98.00 1470.00
9 Gulbarga
Sonna cross to
Nelogi road
KRDCL Road Pit 6 1200 360 30.00 180.00
10 Shorapur Tumkur Block SGRY Pit 10 45 34 75.56 755.60
11 Shorapur
Konali Block –
1
SGRY Trench 8.75 240 178 74.17 648.99
12 Shorapur Konali Block SGRY Pit 30 90 56 62.22 1866.60
13 Shorapur
Konali Block –
2
SGRY Pit 20 60 33 55.00 1100.00
14 Shorapur
Konali Block –
1
SGRY Pit 20 60 34 56.67 1133.40
15 Jevergi
Kudi to
Rasanagi road
SGRY Road Pit 6 1200 310 25.83 154.98
16 Jevergi
Gudur to
Madari road
SGRY Road Pit 7.5 1500 118 7.87 59.03
17 Shorapur Gundoli Block KSFMBC M-04
Trench/P
it
29 1002 504 50.30 1458.70
18 Shorapur
Rayanagol
Block
KSFMBC M-01 Thallies 86
19 Shorapur
B.Gudi to
Hatikuguduri
road
KSHIP Road Pits 15 2600 1560 60.00 900.00
20 Shorapur Dornalli SGRY Pits 25 75 49 65.33 1633.25
21 Gulbarga
Sonna cross to
Madewali road
KRDCL Road Pits 9 1800 1134 63.00 567.00
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
24 Yadgir K.Shahapur KSFMBC M-04
Trench/P
it
25 879 516 58.70 1467.50
25 Yadgir S.Hosalli
Grants by
12th
Finance
Enc.
Evi
Trench/P
it
15 418 326 77.99 1169.85
26 Chittapur Belgera KSFMBC M-01 Thallies 20
27 Chittapur
Belgera- Block
I & II
KSFMBC M-04
Trench/P
it
50 1199 894 74.56 3728.00
Total 582.3 60989 47482 77.85 28325.6 48.65

4.1.2 Survival percentage: Gulbarga Social Forestry 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 Gulburga Social Forest division calculated. While assessing the
overall survival percentage, area has been taken as weight and based on this the weighted
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
Sl.
Name of
the Range
Location of
the
Plantation
Budget
Head
Model
Pla
ntin
g
Met
hod
Exte
nt in
ha
No. of
Plants
planted
in
Sample
plot\
Surv
ival
num
ber
Seedl
ing
Surv
ival
%
Weighte
d
Product
Weig
hted
Aver
age
1
S.F.Chinch
oli
Korvi-
Kuddalli
road
NREGS Road Pits 3 400 383 95.75 287.25
2
S.F.Chinch
oli
Kuddalli
Nawadgi
NREGS Road Pits 3 200 190 95.00 285.00
307

3
S.F.
Afzalpur
Neelur SGRY Road Pits 7 1400 800 57.14 399.98
4
S.F.Afzalp
ur
Ganagpur SGRY Road Pits 15 1500 755 50.33 754.95
5
S.F.
Afzalpur
Kallur SGRY Road Pits 10 1000 680 68.00 680.00
6
S.F.
Afzalpur
Village
Gaonthana
NREGP Block Pits 10 1000 800 80.00 800.00
7
S.F.
Afzalpur
Antoor NREGP Road Pits 10 1000 900 90.00 900.00
8
S.F.Afzalp
ur
Tellur to
Batagere
road
NREGP Road Pits 3 600 480 80.00 240.00
9
S.F.Afzalp
ur
Mannur SGRY Road Pits 9 3500 2500 71.43 642.87
10 S.F. Aland
Kinisulthan-
Janasagar
SGRY/N
REGP
Road Pits 5 1000 612 61.20 306.00
11 S.F. Aland
Kadaganchi
to wadi
SGRY/N
REGP
Road Pits 5 1000 0.00 0.00
12 S.F. Aland Khajokri SGRY
Block &
strip
Pits 6.75 675 512 75.85 511.99
13 S.F. Jevargi
Mandewali
to Kurnalli
cananl
NREGS
Canal
side
Pits 3 600 570 95.00 285.00
14 S.F.Jevergi
Bilwara
Block
NREGS Gomal Pits 16 1610 1368 84.97 1359.52
15 S.F.Jevergi
Sonna canal
to Nelogi
SGRY
Canal
side
Pits 6 1200 660 55.00 330.00
16 S.F.Jevergi
Ankalaga
Block
SGRY Gomal Pits 15 1500 855 57.00 855.00
17
S.F.Shorap
ur
Mangalore
to Kanalli
KREGS
Road
side
Pits 6 1200 800 66.67 400.02
18
S.F.Shorap
ur
Kavadimatti KREGS C& D Pits 10 20 13 65.00 650.00
19
S.F.Shorap
ur
Hunasagi to
Malnoor
KREGS
Road
side
Pits 7.5 1500 750 50.00 375.00
20
S.F.Shorap
ur
Hunasagi
town
KREGS
Road
side
Pits 4.7 470 306 65.11 306.02
21
S.F.Shorap
ur
Kembavi
Town
SGRY Village Pits 10 1000 0 0.00 0.00
22
S.F.Shorap
ur
Kanagonda
Block
SGRY C & D Pits 7.55 750 450 60.00 453.00
23
S.F.Shorap
ur
Fathepur
Block
SGRY Forest Pits 20 40 26 65.00 1300.00
24 S.F. Sadam
Ningammap
alli Block
NREGA C & D Pits 4.4 500 385 77.00 338.80
25 S.F. Sadam Kodla
NREGA/S
GRY
C & D Pits 30 59 32 54.24 1627.20
26 S.F. Sadam
Kolkunda
Block
NREGA C & D Pits 5 450 2 0.44 2.20
27 S.F.Sadam
Dugnoor
Block
KREGS C & D Pits 7.2 7500 1650 22.00 158.40
28 S.F. Sadam
Gounhalli
Block
NREGA C & D Pits 11 1100 314 28.55 314.05
29
S.F.
Chitapur
Bennur
Block-II
SGRY C & D Pits 7 700 595 85.00 595.00
30
S.F.
Chitapur
Kondhur
Block I & II
SGRY C & D Pits 30 3000 2010 67.00 2010.00
31
S.F.
Chitapur
Kalagi to
Sugur Road
SGRY Road Pits 5 1000 600 60.00 300.00
32
S.F.
Chitapur
Bennur
Block-I
SGRY C & D Pits 12 1200 1122 93.50 1122.00
33
S.F.
Chitapur
PetSirur -
Sanghvi
Road
KREGS Road Pits 6 1200 613 51.08 306.48
308

34 S.F.Yadgir
Kundloor
Village &
Road side
SGRY Road Pits 5 1000 395 39.50 197.50
35 S.F.Yadgir
Toranatippa
Block
SGRY C & D Pits 10 1000 650 65.00 650.00
36 S.F.Yadgir Mudnal SGRY Gomal Pits 20 2000 1542 77.10 1542.00
37 S.F.Yadgir
Rampur
Block
SGRY C & D Pits 10 1000 100 10.00 100.00
38 S.F.Yadgir
Mylapur to
Halagera
SGRY/K
REGS
Road Pits 4 800 595 74.38 297.52
39 S.F.Yadgir
Neelahalli
Cross to
Rachanahalli
SGRY Road Pits 4.5 900 490 54.44 244.98

Tot
al
363.6 46574
2550
5
60.20 21927.72 60.31

The overall survival percentage of seedlings planted for the entire district is over 50
per cent..

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).
Table 3(a) : Details of planting model wise survival percentage for
Gulbarga Forest Division (Territorial).

Sl no Planting model
Method of Land
Preparation
Seedling bag
size
No. of
Plantations
evaluated
Extent (ha)
Survival
percentage
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
4 Road side Pits Big 5 43.5 37.34
5 Town planting Pits Big 1 15 98.00

Table 3(b) : Details of planting model wise survival percentage for
Gulbarga Social Forest Division.

Sl no Planting model
Method of Land
Preparation
Seedling bag
size
No. of
Plantations
evaluated
Extent
(ha)
Survival
percentage
1 Block Plantation Pits Small/ Big 19 241.9 56.19
2 Canal side Pits Big 2 9 75.00
3 Road side Pits Big 18 112.7 62.78

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 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.
309

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.
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): Gulbarga Division

Sl.
Name of the
Range
Failed
(Survival percent
0-19)
Poor (Survival
percent
20-39)
Satisfactory
(Survival
percent
40-59)
Good
(Survival
percent
60-79)
Very Good
(Survival percent
80-100)
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

Sl.
Name of the
Range
Failed
(Survival
percent
0-19)
Poor (Survival
percent
20-39)
Satisfactory
(Survival
percent
40-59)
Good
(Survival
percent
60-79)
Very Good
(Survival percent
80-100)
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.
310

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.
Sl.
Year of
Plantati
on
Location
of the
Plantatio
n
Scheme
Area
in ha
Meth-
od
Mod-
el
Seedli
-ng
Survi
val %
Species Planted
General
Condition
of
Plantation
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 13
1 2006-07
Venkatap
ura
Compt,
REFL &
KSFMBC
30 M -04
Trenc
h/pit
57.51
Jatropha
Simaruba glauca
Glyricedia
Eucalyptus
Cassia siamia
Sissoo
Honge
Albezzia lebbec
Good







2 2006-07
Bairampal
li
Compt,
REFL &
KSFMBC
25 M-01
Thalli
es

Honge
Regenerati
on
improved



Seethapal
Cassia siamia
Madhuca indica
Glyricedia
Masawala
Anaogeissus
latifolia

3 2004-05
Chikkalin
gdalli
NAP – FDA 20
Medici
nal
Trenc
h
90.00
Sarpagandha Good
Withania
somnifera

Aloe vera
Lakki
Jatropha
Honge
4 2005-06 Tallur DDF 13 Forest
Trenc
h
68.33
Jatropha
Honge
Accacia chundra
Eucalyptus
5 2005-06 Dangapur DDF 7 Forest
Trenc
h
72.37
Eucalyptus Good
Glyricedia
Simaruba glauca
Cassia siamia
6 2005-06 Dangapur FDF 10 Forest
Trenc
h
54.70
Honge
Jatropha
Cassia siamia
7 2006-07
Bhoosanu
r
KSFMBC 50 M-04
Trenc
h/pit
73.91
Eucalyptus Good
Jatropha
Cassia siamia
Glyricedia
8 2006-07 Gulbarga GUA 15 Road Pit 98.00
Bevu Good
Honge
Pheltaforum
Arali
Ala
Dalbegia Sissoo
9 2005-06
Sonna
cross to
Nelogi
road
KRDCL 6 Road Pit 30.00
Bevu Poor
Honge
Dalbegia Sissoo
311

10 2006-07
Tumkur
Block
SGRY 10 Pit 75.56 Bevu Good
11