Ensuring safe access to wildlife in
Lumding Reserve Forest, Assam, India
Mitigating the impacts of up-gradation of Doboka-Silchar
National Highway (NH54E)

Citation:
Singh A.P., Singh A.K., Mishra D.K., Bora P.,Sharma A., 2010. Ensuring safe access to wildlife in
Lumding Reserve Forest, Assam, India, Mitigating the impacts of up-gradation of Doboka-Silchar
National Highway (NH54E), WWF-India

Ensuring safe access to wildlife in
Lumding Reserve Forest, Assam, India
Mitigating the impacts of up-gradation of Doboka-Silchar
National Highway (NH54E)
Authors:

Cover image © Anil Cherukupalli/ WWF-India
Copyright © 2010- All rights reserved
WWF-India
172-B, Lodi Estate
New Delhi 110 003, India
Tel. +91-11-4150 4814
Website: www.wwfindia.org
Published: November 2010

Ensuring safe access to wildlife in Lumding RF 2010 page 2

A.P. Singh, Executive Engineer, Uttar Pradesh Irrigation Department
apsingh1957@yahoo.com
A.K. Singh, Superintending Engineer, Uttar Pradesh Irrigation Department
ashokarjav@gmail.com
D.K.Mishra, Assistant Engineer, Uttar Pradesh Irrigation department
dkmishra1963@gmail.com
Dr. Pranab Jyoti Bora, Coordinator, Kaziranga Karbi Landscape (KKL)
Amit Sharma, Coordinator, WWF-India
Ensuring safe access to wildlife in Lumding RF 2010 page 3

© GARGA MOHANCONTENTS
Acknowledgements

6

Executive Summary

7

A. Introduction

8

B. Comments on the proposed migration across the
proposed Highway

10

C. Comments on the proposed passages for wild
animals other than elephants

22

D. Comments on the proposed mitigation measure
for arboreal mammals

28

E. Conclusion

29

Ensuring safe access to wildlife in Lumding RF 2010 page 5

Sambar in the Kaziranga Karbi Anglong LandscapeACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

SUMMARY©GARGA MOHAN

For their support, WWF-India would like to express its gratitude to- Mr. S. C. Chand (IFS) PCCF-Wildlife; Mr. D. M. Singh (IFS) CCFWildlife; Mr.T.V. Reddy (IFS) Conservator of Forests, Northern Assam
Circle; Mr. P. Das, DFO, Nagaon South Division;
Mr. J. Deka, ACF, Nagaon South Division; Forest Department’s staff at
Lanka and Lumding Range Offices of Nagaon South Division and
Mr. Alok Kumar, Manager Technical, NHAI, PIO, Lumding.
The authors would also like to acknowledge the assistance provided
by Mr. P. D. Sharma, Asst. Engineer, U.P. Irrigation Department for
helping in preparing the primary manuscript; and Mr. Aditya Singh,
Secretary of the Wildlife Savers Society for helping with graphics.
The team would also like to thank the WWF-AREAS Programme forsupporting this survey.

The Doboka-Silchar National Highway (NH-54E) in the northeastern
Indian state of Assam is proposed to be upgraded into a four-lane
highway. This highway bisects the Lumding Reserve Forest. The
course of proposed expanded highway is planned almost in the samealignment of the existing road with smoother and flatter horizontal
and vertical curves. Though the existing road currently does not affectthe crossing of elephants and other mammals, an upgraded four-lane
highway with increased traffic and speeding vehicles is bound to beunsafe for wild animals as well as people travelling in the vehicles.
Therefore, construction of safe passages for wild animals like elephantand gaur is mandatory. Given this need a team supported by
WWF-India surveyed the area and came up with suggestions for
mitigation measures.
This report details the mitigation measures proposed to facilitate
wildlife movement. These include appropriate underpasses for wildlife
at identified areas, culverts and provision of artificial lianas for arboreal
mammals.

Ensuring safe access to wildlife in Lumding RF 2010 page 6

Ensuring safe access to wildlife in Lumding RF 2010 page 7

A.INTRODUCTION
In the northeastern Indian state of Assam the existing one-lane
Doboka-Silchar National Highway (NH-54E) is proposed to be
upgraded into four-lane highway. This highway currently bisects
the Lumding Reserve Forest (RF) between chainage km32.787 to
km57.40. The proposed expanded highway is planned almost in
the same alignment of the existing road with smoother and flatterhorizontal and vertical curves. Lumding RF with an area of 22,403
hectare is an important wildlife habitat in Assam’s Nagaon district.
It stretches through Lanka and Lumding ranges of Nagaon South
Forest Division and was notified as part of Dhansiri-Lumding
Elephant Reserve in 2003. The Lumding RF is also connected to theMarat-Longri Wildlife Sanctuary (WLS) in Karbi Anglong district inthe east and to Langting Mupa RF in the west in the North Cachar
Hills district of Assam (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Map ofKaziranga Karbi
Anglong Landscapeshowing the study area

Currently, the bisection of the entire reach of the Lumding RF – animportant elephant habitat, by the present road has not severely
affected the migration/ movement of elephants. The elephants
can, and in fact are, crossing the existing road at many locations
along the entire stretch of 24.6km without any noticable problems.
Currently the road traffic is almost nil during night hours and very
low during the day time with hours restrictions due to security
issues. Therefore, no significant obstruction to elephants’ movement
is occuring in the present scenario. However, once the road is
upgraded and traffic intensity and speed increases the access toelephants across the highway is bound to become difficult andunsafe. There are chances of elephants getting hit by speeding
vehicles, and resulting injury or death to elephants as well as
the people travelling in those vehicles. Hence establishment ofappropriate safe passages are required for the elephants to cross the
proposed expanded highway successfully.
Apart from elephants, other wild animals that cross this roadfrom time to time are gaur (Bos gaurus), barking deer (Muntiacus
muntjak) and sambar (Rusa unicolor). This is possible only due thelow intensity of the vehicular traffic on the road as described above.
These animals also require appropriate safe passages to cross the
proposed expanded highway.
The topography of the terrain within the Lumding RF is semi-hilly
and densely vegetated. The road passes along the ridge and partly
on the flat hill slopes. At all crossings of the natural streams, crossdrainage structures like pipe culverts, slab culverts, box culverts
and pier & abutment type bridges are proposed as part of the road
expansion.

This continuous stretch of forest acts as a migration route to many
wildlife especially Asian elephants (Elephas maximus). Elephantherds of the central and southern part of Karbi Anglong move west
towards the forests of North Cachar Hills, Nagaon and western partof Karbi Anglong and in the reverse direction through this forest.
Field biologists of WWF-India have recorded 37 species of mammals
in Lumding RF which include the Bengal tiger (Panthera tigris),
Asian elephant, clouded leopard (Neofelis nebulosa), and western
hoolock gibbon (Hylobates hoolock).

Ensuring safe access to wildlife in Lumding RF 2010 page 8

A team made up of WWF-India staff along with officials from theForest Department, Government of Assam and officials of NHAI
made a joint visit to the above mentioned stretch of this highway toassess the situation and come up with recommendations.

Ensuring safe access to wildlife in Lumding RF 2010 page 9

B. COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED MIGRATIONACROSS THE PROPOSED HIGHWAY(1) There is no dedicated passage proposed for the elephants
across the proposed expanded highway in the entire stretch between
km32.787 to km57.46 within the Lumding RF. At two locations
viz. at km44.975 and km51.645, the head-room below the slab andthe span of the openings of the bridges on rivers is proposed to be
increased so that the elephants can cross below the road bridge. The
details of the proposed bridges are as follows:a)Bridge at km44.975b)Bridge at km51.645

In this bridge six spans, with end spans of 30m each and four middle
spans of 40m each (30+4x40+30) are proposed with a head-roomof 13m. The terrain along the river course and in the sides of theriver near the bridge is also very good from the elephants’ movement
point of view. The cross drainage structure, 220m long with six
40mX13m openings should be appropriate for an elephants’ herd
to cross through it. It should however be ensured that the proposedheight of the bridge remains available in at least 80% width ofthe passage.
In this bridge four spans, end spans of 30m each and two middle
spans of 40m each (30+2x40+30) are proposed with a head-room of
10m. Here also the terrain along the river course and in the sides of
the river near the road bridge is also very good from the elephants’
movement point of view. This cross drainage structure, 140m
long, with four 40mX10m openings shall be appropriate for theelephants’ herd to cross through it. Again it should be ensured thatthe proposed height of the bridge remains available in at least 80%
width of the passage.
(2) At other locations of the highway, openings ranging from
6m to 25m are proposed in different cross drainage structures.
These bridges can be modified to be used as elephant passage, tocreate a more connected habitat, which is already on the verge offragmentation due to the proposed four lane highway. Table 1 shows
the spacing of the proposed structures and their opening size vis-avis proposed modifications with reference to elephant passage -Ensuring safe access to wildlife in Lumding RF 2010 page 10

Table-1: Details of the passages for the elephants
Sr.
No.

Spacing
betweenthepassage(Km )Height(m)

Opening Size(m)

Proposed minimum size of
Passage (Nos X
Width XHeight)Ideal size ofthe passage(Nos X
Width XHeightRemarkLocation of
the crossdrainagestructure(Km)

AS PER N.H.A.I.

1

32.787

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Start of the RF

235.800

3.013(first passage)

4.5

2x6

1x25X6

2x25X6

Two openings side byside will have more
visibility of other sideof forest which is likely
to facilitate wildlife
movement .

3

40.4

4.6
A new passage in the form of an overpass for the elephants in thenatural existing ground should be provided by encasing the road as
a cut and cover section (Tunnel ) in a reach of 300 m. Please refer
Sketch No-1

Evidences of elephantcrossing on the roadbetween km 35.8 to44.379.So one passage
is suggested at thislocation

444.379

3.979

Not
Known

1x6

1x25x6

2x25X6

Two openings side byside will have more
visibility of other sideof forest

544.975

0.596

13.0

30+4x40+30=
220 m

Already provided
passage size is O.K.

Already provided passage
size is O.K.

NA

6

49.600

4.624

6.0

1x25

1x25X6

2x25X6

Two openings side byside will have more
visibility of other sideof forest750.900

1.30

6.0

1x25

1x25X6

2x25X6--do--

8

51.645

0.745

10.0

30+2x40+30=140 mAlready provided
passage size is O.K.

Already provided passage
size is O.K.

NA

953.725

2.08

6.0

1x25

1x25X6

2x25X6

Two Nos opening side
by side will have more
visibility of other sideof forest10

55.125

1.40

6.0

1x25

1x25X6

2x25X6--do--

11

57.4002.275(End tolast passage)

NA

NA

NA

NA

End of RF

24.613

Ensuring safe access to wildlife in Lumding RF 2010 page 11

(3) Provision of only two passages in a stretch of 24.613km
of elephant habitat is not at all sufficient, as presently
elephants cross through almost the entire stretch of this road. Moreelephant passages at suitable locations are required. At km49.6,
50.9, 53.725, and 55.125, bridges with single barrels of 25m width
x 6m height and at km35.8, bridge with twin barrels of 6m width
x 4.5m height are proposed at cross drainage locations which are
likely to facilitate wildlife movement. At km44.379, in spite of clear
evidences of the elephants crossing the road near existing torrent,
NHAI has proposed a narrow culvert of only 6m width. It is advised
to have an appropriate elephant passage at this location too.

boundary to allow raising of the adjoining embankment for 6m highpassage (Figure 2).
Figure 2: Schematic
diagram showing
arrangement toaccomodate 6m highelephant passage inareas with limited landavailability(4) The main features for the acceptability of the passage
beneath the road (underpass) by the elephants is the
openness of the structure. The main repelling factors for thepassage are – (a) the barrier effect due to the road, (b) tunnel
syndrome due to the underpass and (c) the disturbance level by thevision and the sound of frequenting traffic.
The openness of the passage and the vision of the other side play animportant role in making the structure acceptable to the elephants.
The depth of the structure (road width) is around 22m at the bridge
location. Two barrels of 25m width and minimum 6m height areproposed at all the locations which would be of ideal size for safe
passage of elephant herds. Two 25m wide, 22m long and 6m highpassages shall provide sufficient opening for elephants’ movement.
In a recent judgment in IA No 2147-2148 in WP(C) no 202/ 1995 on
the issue of wild elephants’ migration along Chilla-Motichur corridor
across the proposed four-lane highway (National Highway-54
connecting Delhi to Dehradun) within the Rajaji National Park inthe state of Uttrakhand, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has directedthat the height of the passage be kept at least 6m.

(6)In a 24.613km long stretch of forest, passages with lessthan 5km spacing are desirable for maintaining the connectivityof the habitat. Therefore, one more suitable passage is required
between km35.8 to km44.379 (8.579km) which is likely tohelp maintain better connectivity. The best passage for animal
movement, particularly the elephants, is the natural terrain. In thissection the road near km40.4 can be accommodated in a tunnel
section (cut and cover) in suitable length, leaving the elephants’
movement unaffected through the adjoining natural ground. The
location of the passage is selected in such a way that the watercollected in the underground portion of the passage is drained tolower areas through pipes laid laterally, as the terrain is hilly. The
details are shown in Figure 3 .
Figure 3: Isometricview of the natural
passage over theunderground road in
the forest(5)It was informed by the National Highways Authority ofIndia (NHAI) officers that the land width at km35.8 is not
sufficient to raise the height of passage from 4.5m to 6m, as theside slopes of the embankment will encroach upon the forest land.
It is advised that this location should be retained at its present state
for the safe passage of elephants, as the surrounding landscapestrongly advocates for elephants’ passage at this location. Presently
they are crossing through the road. To overcome the land constraint,
a retaining wall of suitable height can be constructed at the land
Ensuring safe access to wildlife in Lumding RF 2010 page 12

Ensuring safe access to wildlife in Lumding RF 2010 page 13

It is suggested that some additions be made to accommodate
ecological features in the proposed passages for the elephantssuch as:(a)Side Railings of the road bridge
In the road bridge over the elephants’ passage, a 2.5m high opaquesidewall railing shall be provided at the side-edges of the bridge
and along the approaches, with an objective of not disturbing
aesthetically, the crossing elephants in the daytime and restricting
the glare of highway traffic’s headlights during the night. This
opaque barrier with some sound dampening devices will also restrict
the noise generated by the passing vehicles.
(b)Landscaping
Landscaping of the area will help reduce the impact of the new
structure in the habitat. In the state of Colorado in USA a roadbridge is constructed over a torrent. The landscaping below thebridge is done in such a way that it does not have any negative
impact for the inhabiting wildlife in their natural movement. The
image of the bridge is shown in Figure 4.
Figure 4: View of an
eco-friendly passage
below a road bridge inColorado, USA

Ensuring safe access to wildlife in Lumding RF 2010 page 14(c) Construction period of the structure
The construction period of the passage in the area should be so
selected that the elephants are away on seasonal migration. This will
reduce any disturbance to elephants due to construction activities,
and also reduce chances of resulting human-elephant conflict withthe construction workers.
(d) Construction Techniques
Precast construction techniques will reduce the construction timeof the structures drastically hence will not compel the elephants toleave the area due to construction activities related disturbance.
With precast construction techniques, the proposed bridges can beconstructed within six months.
(e)Attractions for the elephants
To attract the elephants towards the structure for them to start using
it, some sort of attractions can be provided like (i) Creating some water ponds near the passage(ii) Planting some favourable fodder trees on the approach of thepassage(iii) Periodically allowing domestic or Kunki elephants’ movement
along the passage. Their fresh dung piles and urine will attract thewild elephants to come around the passage because the presenceof fresh dung piles and urine is likely to create a familiar feelingamong the wild elephants.

Ensuring safe access to wildlife in Lumding RF 2010 page 15

(f)Lateral visibility under the passage
It is indicated by the NHAI officials that the underpass bridges will
be supported on the RCC wall type piers. The wall type piers will
create problem of lateral visibility of the crossing elephant herd. It issuggested that isolated end piers with cross beam at the top should
be provided instead of wall type piers (Figure 5). This will provide
better lateral visibility and movement to the crossing herd below thebridge. It is also informed by the NHAI officials that in place of themedian between the left and right halves of the deck slab, about 1mwide opening shall be provided along the full length of the bridge.
This should be avoided to minimize the noise disturbance level forthe elephants using the passage, as the opening will give way to
disturbing sound propagation.

An elephant underpass has been constructed across the highway
adjoining the Manas National Park in Assam, a photo of whichis shown in Figure 6. The central pier in this underpass can be
modified as depicted in Figure 7 to facilitate lateral visibility for the
benefit of passing elephant herds.
Figure 6 – Elephantunderpass with solid
wall type pierFigure 5 – Diagram ofisolated and wall typepiers in underpass

Figure 7 – Elephantunderpass in which
portal type piers
replace wall typethereby providing
lateral visibility

Ensuring safe access to wildlife in Lumding RF 2010 page 16

Ensuring safe access to wildlife in Lumding RF 2010 page 17

(g)Speed limit
The restriction of the speed of vehicles using the highway above theunderpass should be limited to maximum 40km/ hour so that thesound effect is minimum.

As the rainfall in the area is high, these creepers can survive on
their own.
On the power canal of the Chilla-Hydro Electric Project in the Rajaji
National Park in the state of Uttrakhand, several structures like small
bridges, barrels below the canal and super passages are made overthe canal. The herds preferred using the narrow road bridge(Figure 8) over long barrels of Duggada drainage crossing (Figure 9).

(h)Low beam movement of vehicles in the night
As the highway is divided into two lanes, the vehicles using the
highway above the underpass should be forced to move with low
beam during the night, which will reduce the glare effect of thevehicles headlight on the crossing elephants.

Figure 8 – Elephantherd crossing the Chilla
Hydro power canal in
Rajaji National Park,
Uttrakhand, througha road bridge near theSoni Sot torrent(i)Ban on blowing of horns
A complete ban on blowing of vehicles’ horns along the highway
above the underpass should be enforced.
(j)Ban on the movement of humans in the passage
There should be a complete ban on human presence in the pathof the elephants. It has been observed that human disturbance inor along the passage discourages wild animals to use the passage
during day time. It is advised that this action be imposed throughappropriate legislation.
(k)Road signage near the passage
There should be sufficient road signage written in Assamese, Hindi
and English on both directions of the road with reference to thepresence of the elephants nearby. These signages should containclearly marked wordings like “You are approaching the elephantpassage” and “No horns, elephants are crossing”.
(l) Opening between the deck slabs of the bridge
It is also informed by the NHAI officials that in place of the median
between the left and right halves of the deck slab, about 1.0m widesky light opening shall be provided along the full length of thebridge. This should be avoided to minimize the noise disturbancelevel for the elephants using the passage, as this opening will give
way to disturbing sound propagation.

Animal kills due tovehicle hits

Figure 9 – Barrelsof Duggada drainage
crossing on the Chilla
Hydro Power Canal in
Rajaji National Park,
Uttarakhand(m) Camouflaging the walls of the structures withwall creepers
The faces of the walls and the slabs of the structure can be suitably
camouflaged by wall creepers. These creepers climb on the wall
surface and give an appearance similar to the surrounding forest.
Ensuring safe access to wildlife in Lumding RF 2010 page 18

Ensuring safe access to wildlife in Lumding RF 2010 page 19

Elephant herds are using almost the entire
stretch of the road as a part of their habitat.
Currently, the road traffic is very low
therefore, there is no significant obstruction
to elephants’ movement. However, once theroad is upgraded and traffic intensity andspeed increases, the access to elephants acrossthe highway is bound to become difficult andunsafe. Hence establishment of appropriate
safe passages are mandatory for the elephantsand other wildlife to cross the proposed
expanded highway successfully.

© DIPANKAR GHOSE/WWF-INDIAENSURING
SAFE ACCESSC. COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED PASSAGESFOR WILD ANIMALS OTHER THAN ELEPHANTS

Figure 11 - View of theunderpass with side
space from a different
location(1)Apart from elephants there are other wild animals
using Lumding RF. Currently they are crossing the existing roadat random locations, between the gaps in the moving traffic on theroad. The underpass below the road is the only alternative for the
wildlife to cross the proposed expanded highway. The passages of
2.5m width and 2m height are large enough for other wild animalsof the area. Generally, prey species do not use such passages as
they apprehend getting trapped whereas wild predators use suchpassages more confidently.
(2)In the entire patch of the forest the NHAI has provided
pipe culverts, box culverts, slab culverts and big bridges on
the natural drainages across the highway. They have provided
different sized openings in the structures. The proposed small slab/
box culverts with minimum opening size of 2.5m width and 2mheight can well be used as the crossing passages by wild animals
other than elephants (Figure 10). In the passage where there iscontinuous running of water, some side space should be made forthe reptiles and amphibians (Figure 11).
Figure 10 - Isometricview of the proposed
underpass below the
highway

Ensuring safe access to wildlife in Lumding RF 2010 page 22(3)The spacing of the proposed culverts by NHAI ranges
from 200m to 800m. The minimum spacing for the passage should
be around 500m. With this, the crossing animals will sense andremember the location and within short time they will start using
them regularly.
(4) For this a detailed analysis has been shown in the following
chart so that the passages of size 2.5m x 2m are made available tosmall animals within a range of 500m for crossing the highway.
(5) In a reach of 24.6km, 51 cross drainage structures are being
provided by the NHAI for meeting the drainage requirements. For
maintaining proper connectivity of the habitat by providing 2.5m
wide and 2m deep underground passage at approximately every
500m across the highway, 36 proposed cross drainage structures
should be modified to the required dimensions. In addition seven
new structures are being suggested.

Ensuring safe access to wildlife in Lumding RF 2010 page 23

Table-2, Details of the passages for the small wild life of the area
Sr.
No.

Details of the structure as proposed by N.H.A.I.
Location of
the crossType of
Structuredrainagestructure(Km)

Opening
Size

Spacing

Height(m)(m)

Proposed
chainageof thepassage@ approx
0.5 Kmc/c

Modifiedspacing of
the passage

Ideal Sizeof the passage forsmall wildlife
(Width X
Height)RemarkSr.
No.

Details of the structure as proposed by N.H.A.I.
Location of
the crossType of
Structuredrainagestructure(Km)1

32.787

NA

NA

NA

NA

32.787

NA

NA

Start of the RF

2

New Location

NA

NA

NA

NA

33.48

0.693

2.5x2

New passage for small
animals3

34.185

Not
Known

1x1.8

2.0

1.398

34.185

0.705

2.5x2

Modified new passages
for small animals

434.485

N.K

1x1.5

2.0

0.3

NA

NA

NA

NA

5

34.985

N.K

1x1.5

2.0

0.5

34.985

0.800

2.5x2

6

35.238

N.K

1x1.5

2.0

0.253

NA

NA

7

35.530

N.K

1x1.5

1.5

0.292

35.53

0.545

8

35.546

N.K

1x1.5

2.0

0.016

NA

9

35.800

N.K

2x6

4.5

0.254

10

36.045

N.K

1x1.8

2.0

11

New
Location

NA

NA

12

37.116

N.K

13

37.61

14

38.35

15

Opening
Size

Spacing

Proposed
chainageof thepassage@ approx
0.5 Kmc/c

Modifiedspacing of
the passage

Ideal Sizeof the passage forsmall wildlife
(Width X
Height)RemarkHeight
(m)

(m)

21

40.831Slab
Culvert

1x5

N.K

0.731

40.831

0.431

2.5x2

Modified
new passages for small
animals

2241.705Slab
Culvert

1x2

N.K

0.874

41.705

0.874

2.5x2

--do--

Modified new passages
for small animals

23

New
Location

NA

NA

NA

NA

42.26

0.555

2.5x2

New passage for small
animals

NA

NA

24

42.828N.K

1.123

42.828

0.568

2.5x2

Modified new passages
for small animals

Pipe
Culvert

1x1.2

2.5x2

Modified new passages
for small animals

25

NA

NA

NA

43.293

0.463

2.5x2

NA

NA

New
Location

NA

NA

New passage for small
animals

35.8

0.27

25x6

Modified new passage
for elephant26

43.758Slab
Culvert

1x2

N.K

0.93

43.758

0.463

2.5x2

Modified new passages
for small animals

0.245

NA

NA

NA

NA

27

44.082Slab
Culvert

1x6

N.K

0.324

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

36.45

0.65

2.5x2

New passage for small
animals28

44.379Slab
Culvert

1x6

N.K.

0.297

44.379

0.621

25x6

Modified new passage
for elephants

1x1.8

2..0

1.071

37.116

0.666

2.5x2

Modified new passages
for small animals

29

44.975

Bridge3030+
4x40+30

13.0

0.596

44.975

0.596

220X13

Proposed ElephantPassage

N.K

1x1.5

2.0

0.494

37.61

0.494

2.5x2

--do--

30

45.261

N.K

0.286

NA

NA

NA

NA

1x1.6

2.0

0.74

38.35

0.74

2.5x2

--do--Slab
Culvert

1x2

N.K

38.85

N.K

1x1.8

3.0

0.5

38.85

0.50

2.5x2

--do--

31

NA

NA

NA

NA

45.475

0.5

2.5x2

16

39.08

N.K

1x1.5

2.5

0.23

NA

NA

NA

NA

New
Location

New passage for small
animals

1739.050

N.K.

1x1.5

2.0

0.03

NA

NA

NA

NA

32

45.984Slab
Culvert

1x3

N.K

0.723

45.984

0.509

2.5x2

Modified new passages
for small animals

33

46.650N.K

0.666

46.650

0.666

2.5x2

--do--

New
Location

NA

NA

NA

NA

39.475

0.625

2.5x2

New passage for small
animalsSlab
Culvert

1x5

18

34

NA

NA

NA

47.129

0.479

2x2.5

40.100Slab
Culvert

1x2

N.K

1.05

40.1

0.625

2.5x2

Modified new passages
for small animals

New
LocationNA

19

New passage for small
animals35

47.609Slab
Culvert

1x3

N.K

0.959

47.609

0.48

2.5x2

Modified new passages
for small animals

36

47.937

Pipe
Culvert

1x1.2

N.K

0.328

NA

NA

NA

NA

37

48.200Slab
Culvert

1x5

N.K

0.263

48.2

0.591

2.5x2

Modified new passages
for small animals

38

48.500Slab
Culvert

1x5

N.K

0.300

48.5

0.3

2.5x2

--do--

20

40.400A new passage as overpass for the elephants in thenatural existing ground be provided by encasing
the road as a cut and cover section( Tunnel ) in areach of 300 m. Please refer Sketch No---.

Ensuring safe access to wildlife in Lumding RF 2010 page 24

40.4

0.300

Cut andcover section

Proposed new passage
for elephants

Ensuring safe access to wildlife in Lumding RF 2010 page 25

Sr.
No.

Details of the structure as proposed by N.H.A.I.
Location of
the crossdrainagestructure

Type of
Structure

OpeningSize(m)

Spacing

Height(m)(Km)

Proposed
chainageof thepassage@ approx
0.5 Kmc/c

Modifiedspacing of
the passage

Ideal Sizeof the passage forsmall wildlife
(Width X
Height)RemarkSr.
No.

Details of the structure as proposed by N.H.A.I.
Location of
the crossdrainagestructure

Type of
Structure

Opening
Size(m)Height(m)

Spacing

Proposed
chainageof thepassage@ approx
0.5 Kmc/c

Modifiedspacing of
the passage

Ideal Sizeof the passage forsmall wildlife
(Width X
Height)Remark(Km)

39

49.125

Pipe
Culvert

1x5

N.K.

0.625

49.125

0.625

2.5x2

--do--

58

56.362Slab
Culvert

1x5

N.K

0.279

56.3620.6

2x2.5

Modified new passages
for small animals

40

49.600Bridge

1x25

6.5

0.475

49.600

0.475

25x6

Modified New passage
for elephants

59

56.650Slab
Culvert

1x2

N.K

0.288

56.650

0.288

2x2.5

Modified new passages
for small animals

41

50.068Slab
Culvert

1x2

N.K

0.468

50.068

0.468

2.5x2

Modified new passages
for small animals

60

57.375Slab
Culvert

1x5

N.K

0.725

57.375

0.725

2x2.5

--do--

42

50.365Slab
Culvert

1x2

N.K

0.297

NA

NA

NA

NA

61

57.400Bridge

30+2x
40+30

N.K.

0.025

NA

0.025

NA

End of RF

43

50.611Slab
Culvert

1x2

N.K

0.246

50.611

0.543

2.5x2

Modified new passages
for small animals

44

50.900Bridge

1x25

6.0

0.289

50.900

0.289

25x6

Modified new passage
for elephants

45

51.075Slab
Culvert

1x1.5

N.K

0.175

51.075

0.464

2.5x2

Modified new passages
for small animals

46

51.350Slab
Culvert

1x1.5

N.K.

0.275

NA

NA

NA

NA

47

51.645

Bridge30+2x4
+30

10.0

0.295

51.6450.57

140x10

Proposed Elephantpassage48

52.346Slab
Culvert

1x2

N.K

0.701

52.346

0.701

2.5x2

Modified new passages
for small animals

49

52.787Slab
Culvert

1x6

N.K

0.441

52.787

0.441

2.5x2

--do--

50

53.262Slab
Culvert

1x6

N.K

0.475

53.262

0.475

2.5x2

--do--

51

53.725

Bridge

1x25

6.0

0.463

53.725

0.463

25x6

Modified new passage
for elephants

52

54.243Slab
Culvert

1x2

N.K.

0.518

54.243

0.518

2.5x2

Modified new passages
for small animals

53

54.722

Pipe
Culvert

1x1.2

N.K.

0.479

54.722

0.479

2.5x2

--do--

54

55.125

Bridge

1x25

6.0

0.403

55.125

0.403

25x6

Modified new passage
for elephants

55

55.325Slab
Culvert

1x2

N.K

0.2

55.762

NA

NA

NA

56

55.762Slab
Culvert

1x3

N.K

0.437

55.762

0.637

2x2.5

Modified new passages
for small animals

57

56.083Box
Culvert

2x2

N.K

0.321

NA

NA

NA

NA

Ensuring safe access to wildlife in Lumding RF 2010 page 26

24.61324.61

Abbreviations:
N.K. : Not Known, NA : Not Applicable

Ensuring safe access to wildlife in Lumding RF 2010 page 27

gibbon, Capped langur,
D. COMMENTS ON Hoolock
Stump-tailed macaque and
PROPOSED MITIGATION Pig-tailed macaque
MEASURE FOR ARBOREAL
MAMMALS

In November 2009, a WWF field teamrecorded canopy continuity over theroad within the stretch from Lankajan
to Lumding at 119 places indicating that
hoolock gibbons and other arboreal
mammals at that time could cross over at many places over the roadwithout the fear of being run over by speeding vehicles. Hoolock
gibbons are territorial and exclusively arboreal. Any widening would
immediately remove the existing 119 sites where canopy continuity
was recorded during November 2009. Even if we were to makecanopy bridges, it is doubtful that hoolock gibbons will use themwhile heavy traffic is moving underneath. If the canopy bridges
are not spread all along (in fact, at each of those 119 sites), hoolock
gibbons and many other arboreal mammals, being territorial, will
not be able to use canopy bridges that are not inside their own
territory. Thus the young dispersing animals from their natal homeranges would have nowhere to go. Therefore we propose two typesof mitigation measures as follows –(1)A canopy type steel structure with sufficient head-room(5.5m approximately) for the road traffic may be provided for theconnectivity for arboreal mammals in the habitat across the road.
The canopy type steel structure will have to be connected to the treesof both sides. It is most likely that the arboreal mammals will use thecanopy. The arrangement is shown in Figure 13. These canopy typesteel structures should be covered with natural vegetation.

Figure 12 – Liana at
the Singapore zoo(2) Singapore zoo has invented an inexpensive way of making
artificial lianas (Figure 12) those can be connected at regularintervals of 1-2km across the road from tall trees. These lianas canbe made locally and last for many years and almost all arboreal
mammals have been seen to use them.

Ensuring safe access to wildlife in Lumding RF 2010 page 28

Figure 13 - Isometricview of the monkey
passage over the
proposed highway

E. CONCLUSION

Economic growth is important for a developing
nation like India which needs to lift millions
of people out of poverty. Ensuring that thisgrowth is ecologically sustainable and does not jeopardise the wellbeing of future generations is a challenge that needs to be addressed
now. Balancing the need for rapid infrastructure development likethe NH-54E in Lumding RF with the need to keep our wilderness
areas from being fragmented beyond recovery is a typical exampleof the type of situation where it is important to find a solution
which will set a future precedent. Towards this end, WWF India
has worked with various stakeholders to come up with a win-win
formula. This report outlines the mitigation measures that need
to be implemented to ensure that wildlife in the Kaziranga-Karbi
Anglong Landscape (which includes Lumding RF) is not too
drastically affected by the development of NH-54E. We understandthat this is not the best solution for the wildlife concerned. However,given that the alternative, i.e. keeping this route at its existing
width is probably not pragmatic, we feel the mitigation measuressuggested here are the best solution. This report is the result ofmany hours of discussions, field visits and expert consultations
and we now call upon NHAI, MoEF and Assam FD to ensure thatthe mitigation measures outlined in this report are implemented
without major changes. We believe this is a test that must be passedby NHAI to prevent future legal challenges on other such linear
developmental projects in critical wildlife habitats. We hope that
this spirit of dialogue between a conservation organisation such as
ours and a developmental agency such as NHAI is seen as a modelfor other such developmental projects to protect India’s beleaguered
wilderness areas.

Ensuring safe access to wildlife in Lumding RF 2010 page 29©GARGA MOHAN

Elephant use zone along the study area in Lumding Reserve
Forest, Kaziranga Karbi Anglong Landscape, Assam , India

WWF in numbers+100

WWF was founded in 1961

WWF is in over 100
countries on 5 continents+5M+50,000

WWF has over 5 million
supporters

WWF has over 50,000 staff
worldwide

ENSURING SAFE ACCESS TO WILDLIFE IN LUMDING RESERVE FOREST, ASSAM,INDIA

1961

IND
WWW.WWFINDIA.ORG© 1986 Panda Symbol WWF-World Wide Fund For Nature (Formerly World Wildlife Fund)
WWF-India Secretariat
172-B Lodi Estate
New Delhi 110003
Tel: 011 4150 4814 Fax: 011 4150 4779