Assessment of Cumulative Impacts of Hydroelectric Projects on Aquatic and

Terrestrial Biodiversity in Alaknanda and Bhagirathi Basins, Uttarakhand

INTERIM PROGRESS REPORT

Project Duration: January – September, 2011

May 2011

CONTENTS

Chapter 1- Introduction 1.1 Hydropower potential of Uttarakhand 1 1.2 Biodiversity Profile of Uttarakhand 2 1.3 Conservation and Development Conflict 3 1.4 Need for Cumulative Environmental Impact Assessment (CEIA) 4 1.4.1 CEIA of terrestrial biodiversity 6 1.4.2 CEIA of aquatic biodiversity 7 1.4.3 Minimum Environmental Flows 8 Chapter 2- Environmental and Technical Considerations 2.1 Project Background 10 2.2. Objectives of study 11 Chapter 3- The Study Area and Project Profiles 3.1 The Study Area 13 3.2 Profiles of selected projects 14 3.2.1 Kotlibhel IA Hydroelectric Project 14 3.2.2 Kotlibhel IB Hydroelectric Project 18 3.2.3 Kotlibhel II Hydroelectric Project 21 3.2.4 Vishnugad-Pipalkoti Hydroelectric Project 25 3.2.5 Alaknanda-Badrinath Hydroelectric Project 25 Chapter 4- Approach and Methodology 4.1 Framework for Cumulative Effects Assessment (CEA) 31 4.1.1 Scoping 33 4.1.1.1 Desk Studies 34

4.1.1.2 Reconnaissance 34 4.1.1.3 Determining the Zone of Influence 35 4.1.2 Establishing Baseline 36 4.1.2.1 Floral attributes 36 4.1.2.2 Faunal attributes 37 Mammals

Birds

Fishes

4.1.3 Impact Prediction and Evaluation 38 4.1.3.1 Development of Criteria 40 4.1.3.2 Scoring and Weighting of Impacts 41 4.1.3.3 Changes in environmental flows 42 Chapter 5- Baseline Information 5.1 Overview of biodiversity values in Alaknanda and Bhagirathi river basins- 45

5.2 Floral Values 45 5.3 Faunal Values 47 5.3.1 Mammals 47 5.3.1.1 Mammals in the project areas of Kotlibhel IA,

IB and II hydro-electric projects

5.3.1.2 Mammals within Zone of Influence of

Vishnugad-Pipalkoti and Alaknanda-Badrinath hydro-electric projects

5.3.2 Birds 49 5.3.3 Fishes 51 Fish diversity in the Alaknanda and Bhagirathi basins

Fish diversity in the Zone of Influence of five selected hydro-electric projects

Identification of critical fish habitats in the Alaknanda-Bhagirathi basins

Chapter 6- Impact Prediction 6.1 Impacts of the five selected projects on biodiversity 57 6.1.1 Impacts of Terrestrial Biodiversity 63 6.1.1.1 Kotlibhel IA, IB and II hydro-electric projects 63 6.1.1.2 Vishnugad-Pipalkoti 63 6.1.1.3 Alaknanda-Badrinath hydro-electric projects 64 6.1.2 Impacts on Aquatic Biodiversity 66 6.1.3 Changes in environmental flows 71 Minimum Environmental Flow

Assessment of Ecological status of Alaknanda and Bhagirathi basin

Chapter 7- Interim Findings 7.1 Interim findings on impacts on biodiversity at the five project sites 76 7.1.1 Kotlibhel IA, IB & II hydro-electric projects 76 7.1.2 Vishnugad-Pipalkoti hydro-electric project 76 7.1.3 Alaknanda-Badrinath hydro-electric project 77 7.2 Interim findings on Environmental flows 78 REFERENCES 79-89 APPENDICES 90-118 ANNEXURES

LIST OF TABLES Page. No.

Table 3.1 Salient features of Kotlibhel IA hydro-electric project 16

Table 3.2. Salient features of Kotlibhel IB hydro-electric project 20

Table 3.3. Salient features of Kotlibhel II hydro-electric project 23

Table 3.4. Salient features of Vishnugad-Pipalkoti hydro-electric project 27

Table 3.5. Salient features of Alaknanda-Badrinath hydro-electric project 28

Table 4.1. Criteria for Impact Receptors (reflecting the biodiversity values) 40

Table 4.2. Criteria for Impact Sources (reflecting the disturbance regimes) 40

Table 5.1 RET species of birds and mammals in the five selected hydro-electric project sites 47

Table 5.2 Distribution of fishes in the Zone of Influence of five hydro-electric projects in Uttarakhand. 53

Table 6.1. Biodiversity value (impact receptors) of the five project sites (the scores are in parenthesis) 59

Table 6.2.Disturbance indicators (impact sources) of the five project sites (the scores are in parenthesis) 59

Table 6.3. Impact matrix for the Kotlibhel II project 60

Table 6.4. Impact matrix for the Kotlibhel IA project 60

Table 6.5. Impact matrix for the Kotlibhel IB project 61

Table 6.6. Impact matrix for the Vishnugad-Pipalkoti project 61

Table 6.7. Impact matrix for the Alaknanda-Badrinath project 62

Table 6.8.Cumulative impact score the five projects 62

Table 6.9 Criteria and indicators used to predict the impacts of

hydro projects on fish biodiversity. 66

Table 6.10 Scoring and Prediction of impact on fish diversity 70

Table 6.11 Ecological status of Alaknanda and Bhagirathi basins 74

LIST OF PLATES Page. No.

Plate 5.1 Some RET and NTFP species from riverine forests of Alaknanda basin, Uttarakhand 46

Plate 5.2 Some RET species of mammals and birds in Alaknanda basin, Uttarakhand 50

Plate 5.3 Some RET species of fishes from Alaknanda basin, Uttarakhand 55

LIST OF FIGURES Page No.

Fig. 3.1 A map of the study area showing Alaknanda and Bhagirathi basins and the locations of the five hydroelectric projects 13

Fig. 3.2 Location of Kotlibhel IA Hydroelectric Project 15

Fig. 3.3 Location of Kotlibhel IB Hydroelectric Project 19

Fig. 3.4 Location of Kotlibhel II Hydroelectric Project 22

Fig. 3.5 Location of Vishnugad-Pipalkoti hydroelectric project 26

Fig.3.6 Location of Alaknanda-Badrinath Hydroelectric Project 30

Fig 4.1. The process of CEIA adopted in the study 32

Fig 4.2. Flowchart of methodological framework adopted to undertake the CEIA 33

Fig. 4.3. Zone of Influence, based on broad impact sources within the activity centers 35

Fig 5.1. Map showing the location of proposed Fish Conservation Reserve which includes the river stretch between Devprayag and Rishikesh as well as the Nayar River.

54

Fig. 6.1 An image showing parts of the buffer zone of Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve in Uttarakhand and the location of the proposed Alaknanda -Badrinath hydroelectric project. The locations of reported sightings of the Snow Leopard and the Himalayan brown bear are also shown highlighting the importance of connectivity and corridors for movement of these large carnivores.

66

Fig. 6.2 Line diagram of Ganga and its major tributaries 73

1

1.0 Introduction 1.1 Hydropower Potential of Uttarakhand The Indian Himalayan Region (IHR) spanning from Arunachal Pradesh in the east to Jammu and Kashmir in the west and covering 530,795 km2 is of irreplaceable importance as one of the mountain ecosystems of the world (Singh, 2006). These young and fragile mountains of the Himalayas are of high conservation significance due to their floral, faunal, geo-hydrological, ecological, socio-cultural and aesthetic values. Also known as the water tower of the Earth (Valdiya, 1997), it provides water to a larger part of the Indian subcontinent. The State of Uttarakhand, which is carved out of the upper reaches of Uttar Pradesh, is one of the many States that form a part of the IHR. The hilly tracts of the State namely Foot hills, Lesser Himalayas, Greater Himalayas and Trans-Himalayas, form the easternmost part of the western Himalayas (Negi, 1995). This State is uniquely bestowed with ice fed (glaciers) and rain fed (monsoon) rivers along with the natural incline/gradient making it a province with a good hydro power potential and a future Energy State (Joshi, 2007). Uttarakhand has a hydropower potential of the order of 20,000 MW against which only about 3,164 MW (16% approx.) has been harnessed (in operation) so far through 45 hydropower projects of varying capacities being implemented by State and central government agencies and public and private sectors (IIT, 2011). Hydropower potential is one of its most important

strategic assets of the State for the development of the economy (World Bank, 2011). With little or no fossil fuel resources, it is currently a net importer of power, but generates a seasonal surplus. The new State, since its creation, has been witnessing a sharp increase in energy demand. Power consumption has grown more than five times in the last eight years (2002-10). It is able to meet only 52 percent of its power needs from its own resources. The State therefore plans to expand its hydropower generation capacity to become a net exporter of power (IIT, 2011). With this objective, while a large number of hydropower projects are already in the advanced stages of planning/execution, many more projects are being proposed in the important river basins: the Alaknanda and Bhagirathi basins, of the State. Among the various allotted hydropower projects in these two basins, 13 are commissioned hydropower projects with total installed capacity of 1851 MW; 14 projects of 2538 MW capacity are in the advanced stage of construction and 42 projects with installed capacity of 4644 MW are in different stages of development.

2

1.2 Biodiversity Profile of Uttarakhand

The State is well known for its rich natural resources and varied ecosystems, both terrestrial and aquatic. Four major rivers flowing through north India originate from the State, viz., Ganga, Yamuna, Ramganga and Sharada. The State is endowed with a rich and diverse array of forest types from tropical to alpine types. The recorded forest area of the State is 3.47 m ha which constitutes about 65% of the State’s geographic area. These forests can be further categorized into Reserved Forests (68.74%), Protected Forests (0.36%) and Unclassed Forest (30.9%). The forest cover of the State is estimated to be about 44%, two third of which is dense and the rest is open forest (FSI 2007). The major categories of forests in the State are: (i) Tropical Moist Deciduous Forests in the Terai and Bhabar tracts dominated by Sal (Shorea robusta) and associates viz., Adina cardifolia, Anogeissus

latifolia, Terminalia tomentosa and a rich assemblage of shrubs interspersed with patches of bamboo, climbers and grasses; (ii) Subtropical Pine Forests: These forests are primarily found in the lower regions of the Himalaya with chir Pine (Pinus roxburghii) as the dominant species; (iii) Himalayan Moist Temperate Forests: This type occurs between 1600-2900 m altitude in the Himalaya. This type is further divisible into temperate broad leaved and conifer forests. Broad leaved forests are dominated by one or other species of oak (Quercus spp.) while the coniferous species are Cedrus deodara, Picea

smithiana, Abies pindrow, and Pinus wallichiana; (iv) Sub-alpine and Alpine Forests: This type of forests exist at altitudes of 2,900 m to 3,500 m above sea level in the middle and upper Himalaya and is characterized by stunted birch-rhododendron forests, alpine scrub and meadows locally called “Bugyals”. In addition, a considerable area of the State is under tropical and temperate grasslands. The grasslands or the chaurs of Rajaji and Corbett National Parks can grow up to 2m making it an ideal habitat as ambush cover for predators while providing forage and fawning cover for herbivores. The major species of grasses in the area include Arundo donax, Phragmites karka, Apluda mutica (Bassi), Themeda arundinacea (Ulla), Cymbopogon spp. (Jarakush), Bothriochloa bladhii (Sindhur), Imperata

cylindrica, Sachharum spontaneum, S. benghalense and S. narenga among others. The State has a considerable area (13.68% of the State’s geographic area) under protected area network as compared to the national average of 4.75%. There are 6 National Parks, 6 Wildlife Sanctuaries, one Biosphere Reserve, and two Conservation Reserves. Two of the protected areas i.e., Nanda Devi NP and Valley of Flowers NP form a World Heritage Site. In terms of floral wealth the State harbours about 4500 species of vascular plants, of which 29 species are endemic. The mammalian diversity in Uttarakhand

is one of the richest in the country, exceeding 75 species. However, slightly above 50% of the species fall under lower risk category indicating the threatened status of almost equal percentage of total

3

species found in the State. Some of the threatened/vulnerable mammals in the State include Musk deer (Moschus chryogaster), Snow leopard (Panthera uncia), and Asiatic black bear (Ursus thibentanus). A detailed analysis of the data shows that 37.80% of species fall under lower risk least concern category and 19.51% under lower risk not threatened status. It is estimated that about 650 species of birds (51% of India’s avifauna) occur within the State. Some of the threatened birds in the State include Western Tragopan (Tragopan melanocephalus), Cheer Pheasant (Catreus wallichi) and Sarus Crane (Grus

antigone). The reptile diversity in Uttarakhand encompasses over 60 species including crocodiles, turtles, tortoises, snakes and lizards. One of the endangered reptiles of the State is the Gangetic Gharial (Gavialis gangeticus). The State of Uttarakhand which is a home for many perennial rivers of

the country also has a good fish diversity represented by about 83 species. The Bhagirathi and Alaknanda river basins represent important riparian ecosystems that have significantly contributed to the richness of the biodiversity of the State. 1.3 Conservation and Development Conflict Diversion of rivers from their channels has enabled the expansion of human civilization to inland areas that were otherwise unproductive (from the economic standpoint) or too remote to provide adequate water for essential life processes. Opponents of water resource developments charge that dams cause significant damage to human and natural resources resulting in the impoverishment of human populations and loss of plant and animal species and their habitats. Current literature available worldwide on consequences of dam development (Graf, 1999; Adams 2000; Berkamp et al., 2000; Goldsmith and Hildyard, 1984) reveals that the impacts of dams on ecosystems are profound, complex, varied, multiple and mostly negative. By storing or diverting water dams alter the natural distribution and timing of stream flows. This in turn changes sediment and nutrient regimes and alters water temperature and chemistry, with consequent impacts on ecosystems and biodiversity elements that these support along and the attendant socio-economic impacts. These ecosystem impacts may result in

consequent changes in freshwater biodiversity which is already threatened on account of several other factors (Berkamp et al.,2000) which may pose additional significant impacts. Natural ecosystems (including riverine ecosystems) and its biodiversity components provide a range of services that are of substantial ecological, economic and cultural value to society. The changes in the riverine ecosystem and the impairment of its provisioning, regulating, cultural and supporting functions that are linked to the creation of dams often lead to substantial economic and social impacts (Berkamp et al.,2000). Ecosystem services are indispensable to the well-being and health of people everywhere.

4

Apart from providing life's basic needs, changes in their flow influence livelihoods, income, and local migration may sometimes lead to political conflict (McCully, 1996). The consequent impacts on economic and physical security, freedom, choice and social relations have wide-ranging impacts on well-being and health (WHO, 2005). As India’s population continues to increase, demand for continued development of water resources will also continue to increase proportionately and pose greater and greater pressure on the existing wildlife habitats and biodiversity resources. As this development continues, it is essential to ensure that water demands for energy and irrigation do not become a cause of the decimation of forested areas, receding

wetlands and loss of biodiversity resources and accelerated impoverishment of dependent people. Development of these resources in a sustainable manner is therefore essential for the continued improvement in the quality of life for humans throughout the world. The challenge for continued development of water resources is to ensure that these are ecologically sustainable, economically viable and socially acceptable and that these do not jeopardize the continued existence of those very resources, both known and unknown, that form the basis of human life. 1.4 Need for Cumulative Environmental Impact Assessment Anthropogenic disturbances in the landscape, combined with increasing water withdrawals and alterations of river systems are resulting in adverse effects to the sustainability of freshwater resources (Schindler, 2001; Gleick et al., 2007). Environmental effects to river systems are largely cumulative in nature, caused by individually minor but collectively significant actions that accumulate over space and time. Within a basin, the greater number of dams leads to greater fragmentation of river ecosystems (Berkamp et al.,2000). Hence, there is a growing recognition of the need to assess the cumulative effects of river development (Reid, 1998; Brismar, 2004; Schindler and Donahue, 2006).

Concerns are often raised about the long term changes in the environmental quality, not only as result of a single action or development, but as the combined effects of many actions over time. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) has traditionally focused primarily on examining the direct environmental effects of a single development. Each individual development, when assessed for its potential to impact, may produce impacts that are ecologically and socially acceptable. However, when the effects of the numerous single developments are combined, these impacts may become larger or additive and thus cumulatively significant. In recent years, there has been a growing realisation that the process of evaluating the negative environmental impacts of individual developments, which may not

5

lead to any opposition on their individual standing as a development initiative, does not adequately take into account the accumulative nature of some effects (Court et al., 1994). This has led to the development of procedures, known as Cumulative Effects Assessment (CEA) or Cumulative Environmental Impact Assessment (CEIA), for evaluating the consequences, sources and pathways of cumulative impacts of multiple activities (Canter, 1999). Instead of focusing on the effects of a given action – a project, plan, or individuals' behaviour – it focuses on the receiving environment and considers all of the effects on a given receptor (Therivel and Ross, 2007). Although the terms ‘cumulative impacts’ and ‘cumulative effects’ were mentioned as early as the 1970s

in several countries’ EIA legislation, regulations, or guidelines, it was not until the mid-to-late 1980s that they began to be incorporated in practice. Cumulative impacts, cumulative effects and cumulative environmental changes are the terms that are often used interchangeably. Several definitions for ‘cumulative impacts’ or ‘cumulative effects’ are available in the literature (e.g. Horak et al. 1983; Dickert and Tuttle, 1985; Sonntag et al. 1986; Hegmann et al.,1999). Cumulative effects assessment has been broadly defined by Smit and Spaling (1995) as the practice of systematically analyzing cumulative environmental change. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations defines cumulative impacts aptly as: “Impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what [government] agency or person undertakes such other actions.” Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor, but collectively significant, actions taking place over a period of time. It can occur over different temporal and spatial scales by interacting, combining and compounding so that the overall effect often exceeds the simple sum of previous effects (DEAT 2004).

The principles of cumulative impact assessment have been summarized by CEQ (1997) as follows:

Cumulative effects are caused by the aggregate of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions

They include both direct and indirect effects, on a given resource, ecosystem, and human community of all actions taken

They are analyzed in terms of the specific resource, ecosystem, and human community being affected, rather than from the perspective of the proposed action

6

It is not practical to analyze the cumulative effects of an action on the universe; the list of environmental effects must focus on those that are meaningful;

Cumulative effects on a given resource, ecosystem, and human community are rarely aligned with political or administrative boundaries;

They may result from the accumulation of similar effects or the synergistic interaction of different effects;

They may last for many years beyond the life of the action that caused them; and Each affected resource, ecosystem, and human community must be analyzed in terms of its

carrying capacity or threshold for environmental stress.

It is desirable to assess cumulative effects within the EIA process because project specific EIAs can then be placed into a broader spatial and temporal perspective. Lawrence (1994) and Sadler and Verheem (1996) believe that the scope of SEA is more appropriate to the time and space scales at which cumulative effects are expressed. Because of the narrow focus of EIA and its inability to provide clarity on the criteria for identifying and assessing cumulative effects (DEAT, 2004), SEA has been touted as being a relatively more superior planning and decision support tool than EIA as this evaluation approach allows consideration of cumulative effects of the series of projects. SEA does allow for better consideration of larger areas and longer time periods and hence a wider range of cumulative effects. It also potentially allows consideration of a wider range of management measures covering alternatives for project location, phasing, positive ‘shadow projects’ and demand management without overlooking the rules that regulate the development of individual projects: it is this last point that will probably become, in practice, SEA's particular strength (Therivel and Ross, 2007). 1.4.1 CEIA of aquatic biodiversity The aquatic ecosystem and its components are the most obvious receptors of direct impacts of developments involving river diversion/obstruction are on the blockage of fish movements upstream is probably the most significant negative impact of dams on fish survival and biodiversity. Dams serve as a physical barrier to movement of migratory species, notably fish. This prevents brood-stock from reaching their spawning grounds during the breeding season, resulting in massive failure of recruitment and eventual extinction of the stock above the dam (Berkamp et al.,2000). The other important environmental impacts of dams are changes in sediment transport and water quality. Reduction in sediment transport in rivers downstream of dams which influences channel, floodplain and coastal delta morphology, alters habitat for fish and other groups of plants and animals and through changes in river water turbidity may affect populations of biota directly (Berkamp et

7

al.,2000). Water quality deterioration in reservoirs or in river stretches downstream kills fish and damages aquatic habitats. As multiple dams on a river significantly aggravate the impact on ecosystems and biodiversity, assessing impacts on aquatic biodiversity is a vital component of the CEIA.

1.4.2 CEIA of terrestrial biodiversity Filling of the dam reservoir results in permanent flooding of riverine and terrestrial habitat, and depending upon the topography and habitats of the river valley upstream from the site of the dam, these impacts can vary greatly in extent and severity. The effects of inundation are especially severe when the reservoirs are situated close to mountains, in dry areas, or at higher latitudes where the river valleys are usually the most productive landscape elements. Due to impoundment, all terrestrial animals disappear from the submerged areas and populations decrease within a few years in proportion to the habitat area that is lost (Dynesius and Nilsson 1994). Flooding can result in both local and global extinctions of animal and plant species. Particularly hard hit are the species dependent upon riverine forests, and other riparian ecosystems, and those adapted to the fast-flowing conditions of the main river course. From a biodiversity conservation standpoint, the terrestrial natural habitats lost to flooding are usually much more valuable than the aquatic habitats created by the reservoir (McAllister et al. 1999). Dams can have significant and complex impacts on downstream riparian plant communities. An important downstream manifestation of river impoundment is the loss of pulse-stimulated responses at the water-land interface of the riverine system. High discharges can retard the encroachment of true terrestrial species, but many riparian plants have evolved with, and have become adapted to the natural flood regime. Species adapted to pulse-stimulated habitats are often adversely affected by flow-regulation and invasion of these habitats by terrestrial weeds is frequently observed (Malanson 1993). Typically riparian forest tree species are dependent on river flows and shallow aquifers.

When dams are constructed the variability in water discharge over the year is reduced; high flows are decreased and low flows may be increased. Reduction of flood peaks reduces the frequency, extent and duration of floodplain inundation. Reduction of channel-forming flows reduces channel migration. Truncated sediment transport (i.e. sedimentation within the reservoir) results in complex changes in degradation and aggregation below the dam. These changes and others directly and indirectly

8

influence a myriad of dynamic factors that affect the diversity and abundance of invertebrates, fish, birds and mammals downstream of dams (Berkamp et al.,2000).

1.4.3 Minimum environmental flows Rivers are part of the hydrological cycle and it is the variable nature of runoff processes that give rivers their dynamic characteristics. The ecological integrity of river ecosystems is dependent on the variation in flow regime to which they are adapted. Floods cause hydraulic disturbance that determines the composition of biotic communities within the channel, the riparian zone and the floodplain (Junk et al., 1989; Webb et al., 1999). The spatio-temporal heterogeneity of river systems is responsible for a diverse array of dynamic aquatic habitats and hence ecological diversity, all of which is maintained by the natural flow regime (Berkamp et al.,2000). Flow regimes, including volume, duration, timing, frequency and lapse time since last flooding, are the key driving variables for downstream aquatic ecosystems and are critical for the survival of communities of plants and animals living downstream. Small flood events may act as biological triggers for fish and invertebrate migration, major events create and maintain habitats, and the natural variability of most river systems sustains complex biological communities that may be very different from those adapted to the stable flows and conditions of a regulated river (Berkamp et al. 2000). Therefore, minimum environmental flows can be defined as: “The flows required for the maintenance of the ecological integrity of rivers, their associated ecosystems and the goods/services provided by them “(WWF-India). Hence, it is essential to carry out an assessment of environmental flow requirements, which deals with the amount, timing, and conditions under which water should be released by dams, to enable downstream river ecosystems to retain their natural integrity and productivity. It is important to recognize that these are releases are ensured specifically for environmental purposes. They do not include flows necessary for downstream commercial activities or for water supply purposes (Acreman and Dunbar 2004; Petts 1996).

9

10

2.0 Environmental and Technical Considerations

2.1 Project Background The Government of Uttarakhand has submitted proposals to the Ministry of Environment & Forests, (MoEF), Government of India to grant environmental and forestry clearances for construction of Kotlibhel Stage IA, Kotlibhel Stage IB and Kotlibhel Stage-II hydroelectric projects on river Bhagirathi and Alaknanda in the State of Uttarakhand. The MoEF vide letter No. F 8-9/2008-FC dated 23rd July, 2010 (Annexure-I) has requested the Wildlife Institute of India (WII) to conduct a study on the cumulative environmental/ecological impacts of hydroelectric projects in the Bhagirathi and Alaknanda river basins on the riverine ecosystem including terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity in collaboration with specialized institutions. The MoEF has also entrusted the Alternate Hydro Energy Centre (AHEC), IIT Roorkee to study the cumulative impacts on the environmental side of the projects in Bhagirathi and Alaknanda river basins in Uttarakhand. The Terms of Reference (ToR) for the AHEC study are enclosed in Annexure-II. Accordingly, the WII approached AHEC, Roorkee to work out the modalities for the study on cumulative environmental impacts of hydroelectric projects in Bhagirathi and Alaknanda river basins. In the meeting held with the Head, AHEC on 17th August, 2010 it was agreed that close cooperation in the conduct of study and sharing of data, information and products would be required for successful completion of the study in order to deliver outputs/outcomes requested by the MoEF. The MoEF vide letter No. 8-9/2008-FC dated 16/11/2010 (Annexure-III) also decided that the cost of the study to be carried out by the WII would be borne by the concerned User Agencies whose proposals seeking diversion of forest land for construction of hydropower projects in Ganga river basin

were presently pending before the MoEF. These costs for the study were determined based on the proportion to the area of forest land applied for forest diversion by the different project proponent and are as follows:

11

S. No.

Name of the Project Developer Capacity Forest Area Proposed to be Diverted

Amt. to be recovered (Rs.)

1. Kotlibhel Hydro Electric Project - (Stage-IA)

NHPC 195 MW 258.737 ha 5,26,316.00

2. Kotlibhel Hydro Electric Project - (Stage-IB)

NHPC 530 MW 496.793 ha 10,10,562.00

3. Kotlibhel Hydro Electric Project - (Stage-II)

NHPC 530 MW 658.252 ha 13,39,059.00

4. Vishnugad-Pipalkoti Hydro Electric Project

THDC 444 MW 80.607 ha 1,63,969.00

5. Alaknanda-Badrinath Hydro Electric Project

GMR 300 MW 60.513 ha 1,23,094.00

Total 1554.932 ha 31,63,000.00 Accordingly, the Government of Uttarakhand received funds amounting to Rs. 31.63 lakhs from the 3 User Agencies viz. NHPC, THDC and GMR and gave these funds to the WII for carrying out this study vide letter Nos. 1528/IG-1131 (Watershed Directorate) dated 14.12.2010 and 1805/IG-1131 (Watershed Directorate) dated 19.01.2011. On the instructions of MoEF, WII made a presentation on the study in a meeting held on 13th April, 2011 under the Chairmanship of Hon’ble Minister of Environment & Forests (Independent Charge). It was decided in this meeting that while the Institute would continue the study as per the agreed Terms of Reference (ToR) communicated by letter No. WII-EIA-ME-PROJ(MoEF)2010(574) dated 19th August, 2010 (Annexure-IV), it would submit an Interim Report on the 5 hydropower projects proposed by

NHPC, THDC and GMR, whose forestry clearance is under consideration by MoEF and on which the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has given directions to the MoEF for conducting a cumulative environmental impact study. 2.2 Objectives of the Study The WII study had the following:

a) To assess the baseline status of rare, endangered and threatened (RET) species of flora and fauna dependent on riverine habitats and floodplains of Alaknanda and Bhagirathi river basins.

b) To identify the critical wildlife habitats along the existing and planned hydroelectric projects located on rivers Alaknanda and Bhagirathi upto Devaprayag.

c) Delineate river stretches critical for conservation of rare, endangered and threatened (RET) aquatic species.

d) To assess the key habitat variables for RET species, including minimum flows and volume of water for ecological sustainability of the two rivers.

12

13

3.0 The Study Area and Project Profiles

3.1 The Study Area As stated under the objective of the study, the study area for this assessment encompasses the Alaknanda and Bhagirathi river basins containing the 69 commissioned, under-construction and proposed hydroelectric projects (Fig. 3.1). The lower limit of the study area is Kaudiyala on river Ganga and upper limits are Gangotri on river Bhagirathi and Badrinath on river Alaknanda. This report presents the evaluation of the impacts of the following five selected projects.

Fig. 3.1 A map of the study area showing Alaknanda and Bhagirathi basins and the locations of the five hydroelectric projects

14

3.2 Project Profiles

3.2.1 Profile of Kotlibhel I A Hydroelectric Project

The “Kotlibhel hydroelectric Project (Stage-IA)” (3 x 65 MW) is proposed to be constructed on river Bhagirathi near village Muneth which is at 3.80 Km upstream of the confluence of river Bhagirathi and Alaknanda at Devprayag in district Tehri Garhwal of Uttarakhand (Fig. 3.2). The basin up to the proposed dam site near village Muneth lies between 78o09’10’’ E to 79o25’04’’ E and 30o09’26’’ N to 31o29’57’’N. It is conceptualized as a run of the river scheme to harness hydro potential of river Bhagirathi. The project envisages construction of 82.5 m high Concrete Gravity Dam across river Bhagirathi, an underground power house having 3 units of 65 MW each on its left bank, one D- shaped Head Race Tunnel of 9.5 m dia with length of 145 m to carry water to Power House and one No. 11.0 m dia Tail Race Tunnel with length of 50 m to carry water from Power House back to the river. With Net Head of 63.33 m the project will generate 195 MW of power with Annual Energy Generation of 1023 MU for 90% dependable year at 95% machine availability. The table 3.1 presents the salient features of the project.

15

Fig. 3.2 Location of Kotlibhel IA Hydroelectric Project (Source: NHPC EIA report)

16

Table. 3.1. Salient Features of Kotlibhel I A Hydroelectric Project

LOCATION State : Uttarakhand District : Tehri Garhwal, River : Bhagirathi Location of Dam & Power House : Near Muneth village

Nearest Rail head : Rishikesh

Nearest Airport : Jolly Grant (Near Dehradun)

HYDROLOGY Bhagirathi River Catchment area at diversion site : 7887 sq. km Snow catchment (out of total) : 2227 sq. km

DIVERSION TUNNEL Location of Diversion Tunnel : Right Bank Invert EL of DT at Inlet : EL 459.0 m Invert EL of DT at Outlet : EL 458.0 m Diversion Discharge : 528 cumec Diameter of Diversion Tunnel : 8.0 m Shape of Diversion Tunnel : Horse Shoe Shaped Length of Diversion Tunnel : 460 m Diversion Tunnel Gates Nos. & Size : 2 nos.,

3.35 m x 8.0 m Width of pier : 2.5 m Sill elevation : EL 459.0 m

COFFER DAMS Location of u/s coffer dam : 75 m u/s of dam axis Location of d/s coffer dam : 240 m d/s of dam

axis Top of u/s coffer dam : EL 478.00 m Top of d/s coffer dam : El. 470.00 m

SPILLWAY Type : Orifice Type Spillway Design Flood : 12200 cumec Width of spillway : 80 m Nos. of Bays : 5 (including one standby) Crest of Spillway : EL 504.0 m Width of each bay : 10.0 m Regulation gates : Hydraulically operated radial gates of size 10 m x 18 m

Spillway Stop logs : 1 set, 4 units, 10 m x 23.0 m

Energy Dissipation System : Ski Jump Bucket

UNDER SLUICE No. of Openings : 5 Size of Openings : 5 m x 5 m Type of Gates : Hydraulically operated vertical lift gates

Bulkhead gate (opening) : 7 m x 7 m

Crest of Under Sluice : EL 472.25 m

17

RESERVOIR FRL / MDDL : EL 532.00 m River Bed Slope : 1 : 250 Reservoir area at FRL : 2.103 sq. km Gross storage at FRL/MDDL : 46.17 Mcum Live Storage : Nil Length of reservoir : 18.4 km

INTAKE No. & Size of Bell mouth entry : 1 No, 16.5 m x 13.6 m

Invert Level at Inlet : EL 513.50 m

Bulk head gate (opening) : 8.5 m x 9.5m (1 no.) Service gate (opening) : 8.5 m x 9.5 m (1 no.) Trash Rack : Inclined

HEADRACE TUNNEL No. : 1 Size & type : 9.5 m dia., D- shaped Design Discharge : 341.16 cumec Length of HRT : 145 m

U/S SURGE SHAFT Nos., Type & Size : 1 No, Central Orifice Type, 22 m Dia

Height : 18.5 m

PRESSURE SHAFT Main Pressure Shaft

Number, Size & Shape : 1 No, 9.0 m diameter, Circular shaped

Design Discharge : 341.16 Cumec

Length (Vertical & Horizontal Portion) : 135 m Trifurcated Pressure Shafts

Number, Size & Shape : 3 Nos., 5.2 m diameter, circular Shaped

Design Discharge : 113.72 cumec each

Length : 53 m, 36 m & 46 m

POWER HOUSE COMPLEX Location : Left Bank Type : Underground Installed Capacity : 195 MW Size of Power House Cavern : 123 m x 24.5 m x

45 m Size of Transformer Cavern : 105 m x 16.0 m x 14.5 m

Nos. and size of draft tube gates 3 sets, 5.7 m x 6.35 m

Type of Turbine : Francis Generating units : 3 nos. of 65 MW each Net head available : 63.33 m Type of switchgear : GIS (Outdoor) Size of pothead yard : 40 m x 100m

Main Access Tunnel Shape and Size : D-shaped, 8 m x 7 m Length : 360 m

18

3.2.2 Profile of Kotlibhel I B Hydroelectric Project The “Kotlibhel HE Project (Stage-IB)” (4 x 80 MW) is proposed to be constructed on river Alaknanda near Devprayag town which is about 2.2 km upstream of the confluence of River Bhagirathi and Alaknanda at Devprayag (Fig. 3.3). The basin of the proposed project lies between 78o35’23’’ E to

80o10’31’’ E and 30o0’18’’ N to 31o6’53’’ N. It is conceptualized as a run of the river scheme to harness hydro potential of river Alaknanda. The project envisages construction of 70.5 m high Concrete Gravity Dam across river Alaknanda, a surface power house having 4 units of 80 MW each on its right bank, 4 No. inclined, steel penstocks of 5.5 m dia of 217 m, 218 m, 217 m & 220 m length respectively to carry water to Power House and a Tail Race Channel of 230 m length to carry water from Power House back to the river. With Net Head of 60.36 m the project will generate 320 MW power with Annual Energy Generation of 1268.45 MU at 90% dependable year. The table 3.2 presents the salient features of the project.

Cable Tunnel Size of Tunnel : 6 m, D-shaped No. : 1 Length : 65 m

TAIL RACE TUNNEL Branch Tunnels

Nos. & Size : 3 Nos. 6.35 m Dia D- shaped Length : 110 m 102 m & 125 m

Main Tunnels Nos. & Size : 1 No, 11.0 m Dia, D- shaped Length of TRT : 50 m

POWER GENERATION Installed capacity : 195 MW Annual energy generation in 90% dependable :

1023 MU year at 95% machine availability

19

Fig. 3.3 Location of Kotlibhel IB Hydroelectric Project (Source: NHPC EIA report)

20

Table 3.2 Salient features of kotlibhel IB hydro-electric project LOCATION

State : UTTARAKHAND District : Pauri and Tehri Garhwal River : Alaknanda Location of Dam & Power House : 2.2 km u/s

of Devprayag confluence

HYDROLOGY Catchment area at diversion site : 11471 sq. km.

Snow catchment : 2041 sq. km.

DIVERSION TUNNEL Location of Diversion Tunnel : Left Bank Invert EL of DT at Inlet : EL 453.0 m Invert EL of DT at Outlet : EL 452.0 m Diversion Discharge : 946 cumec Diameter of Diversion Tunnel : 10 m Shape of Diversion Tunnel : Horse Shoe Shaped

Length of Diversion Tunnel : 495 m

DIVERSION TUNNEL GATES AT INLET Nos. : 2 ( Service Gates) Size : 4.15 m x 10 m Sill elevation : EL 453.0 m

COFFER DAMS Location of u/s coffer dam : 90 m u/s of dam axis

Location of d/s coffer dam : 240 m d/s of dam axis

Top of u/s coffer dam : EL 474.00 m Top of d/s coffer dam : EL 464.00 m

DAM Type : Concrete Gravity Dam Top : EL 523.00 m Minimum river bed level at dam site : EL 452.50 m

Dam height above River Bed Level : 70.5 m

Deepest Foundation Level : EL 433.00 m Dam Height above Deepest : 90 m Foundation Level Length of Dam at Top : 342.4 m No. of power blocks : 4 Size of power blocks : 17.5 m

SPILLWAY Type : Orifice type Design Flood : 26615 cumec Width of spillway : 120 m Nos. of Bays : 5 (including one standby) Crest of Spillway : EL 493.00 m Width of each bay : 16.0 m Regulation gates : Hydraulically operated radial gates of size

16 m x 23 m

UNDER SLUICE No of Openings : 10 Size of Openings : 5 m (Width) x 7 m (Height) Type of Gate : Hydraulically operated Vertical Lift Gates

Crest of Under Sluice : EL 456.50 m

RESERVOIR MWL : EL 522.00 m FRL/MDDL : EL 521.00 m River Bed Slope : 1: 350 Gross storage at FRL / MDDL : 100.70 Mm3 Live storage : Nil Reservoir area at FRL / MDDL : 4.50 km2 Length of reservoir : 27.5 km

POWER INTAKE Nos. & Size of Bell mouth entry : 4 Nos, 11.3 m x 9.3 m

Invert level at Inlet : EL 505.75 m

Bulk Head Gate (Size of opening) : 5.8 m x 6.5 m

Service Gate (Size of opening) : 5.8 m x 6.5m

Trash Rack : Inclined

21

PENSTOCKS/PRESSURE SHAFTS No. & Size : 4 Nos., 5.5 m dia, Circular Design Discharge : 146.85 cumec through

each pressure shaft Length of Pressure Shaft / Penstock : 217 m, 218 m, 217 m, 220 m each

POWER HOUSE COMPLEX Location : Right Bank Type : Surface Installed Capacity : 320 MW Size of Power House : 140 m x 27 m x 46.5 m Nos. and size of draft tube gates : 8 nos., 5.44 m x 6.64 m

Type of Turbine : Francis

Generating units : 4 nos. of 80 MW each Net Head : 60.36 m Type of switchgear : GIS (Outdoor)

TAIL RACE CHANNEL Average Length : 230 m Slope (upto weir) : 1 in 3

POWER GENERATION Installed capacity : 320 MW Annual energy generation in 90% : 1268.45

MU dependable year at 95% machine availability

3.2.3 Profile of Kotlibhel II Hydroelectric Project The Kotlibhel hydroelectricProject (Stage-II) (8 x 66.25 MW each) is proposed to be constructed on

river Ganga near village Kaudiyala, which is at 30 Km downstream of the confluence of River Bhagirathi and Alaknanda at Devprayag in district Tehri Garhwal of Uttarakhand (Fig. 3.4). The basin up to the proposed dam site near village Kaudiyala lies between 78o09’10’’ E to 80o10’31’’ E and 29o45’03’’ N to 31o29’57’’N. It is conceptualized as a run of the river scheme to harness hydro potential of river Ganga. The project envisages construction of 58.45 m high Concrete Gravity Dam across river Ganga, an underground power house having 8 units of 66.25 MW each on its left bank. The water will be carried out to power house with the help of 8 inclined structures and 8 pressure shafts of 140m length each. The water from the power house will be discharged back to river with the help of four 10 m dia, 350 m long Tail Race Tunnels. The Net Head of the project will be of 43.8 m. The project will generate 530 MW of power with Annual Energy Generation of 1993.46 MU for 90% dependable year at 95% machine availability. The table 3.3 presents the salient features of the project.

22

Fig. 3.4 Location of Kotlibhel II Hydroelectric Project (Source: NHPC EIA report)

23

Table 3.3. Salient features of Kotlibhel II hydro-electric project

LOCATION State : Uttarakhand District : Tehri and Pauri Garhwal River : Ganga Location of Dam and Power House : Near

Kaudiyala Village

HYDROLOGY Ganga River Catchment area at diversion site : 21375

sq.km Snow catchmet : 4268 sq.km

DIVERSION TUNNEL Location of Diversion Tunnel : Right Bank Invert EL of DT at Inlet : EL 402.0 m Invert EL of DT at Outlet : EL 401.0 m Diversion Discharge : 1556 cumec Diameter of Diversion Tunnel : 11.0 m Shape of Diversion Tunnel : Horse Shoe

Shaped Length of Diversion Tunnel : 430 m

DIVERSION TUNNEL GATES Nos. : Two Size : 4.6 m x 11.0 m Sill elevation : EL 402.0 m

COFFER DAMS Location of u/s coffer dam : 225 m u/s of dam axis

Location of d/s coffer dam : 170 m d/s of dam axis

Top of u/s coffer dam : EL 427.50 m Top of d/s coffer dam : EL. 413.00 m

DAM Type : Concrete Gravity Dam Top : EL 460.00 m Minimum river bed level at dam site : EL. 401.4 m

Dam Height above River Bed : 58.6 m

Deepest Foundation Level : EL 378.0 m Dam Height above Deepest : 82.0 m Foundation Level Length of Dam at Top : 246.4 m

SPILLWAY Type : Orifice Type Design Flood : 39750 cumec Width of spillway : 209.7 m Nos. of Bays : 9 (including one standby) Crest of Spillway : EL 422.5 m Width of each bay : 15.3 m Regulation gates : Hydraulically operated radial gates of

size 15.3 m x 22 m

CONSTRUCTION SLUICE Nos. of Openings : 4 Size of Openings : 5.0 m (Width) x 5.0 m

(Height)

CONSTRUCTION SLUICE PLUGGING GATES Size of Gates : 6.6 m (Width) x 6.6 m (Height) Bottom sill EL of the gates : EL 403.00 m

SILT FLUSHING TUNNEL Size and Shape : 6 m Dia, Horseshoe shaped Length : 560 m Invert Level at Inlet : EL 420.00 Invert Level at Outlet : EL 405.00

SILT FLUSHING TUNNEL GATES Nos. : 2 in each of 3 branch tunnels Size : 3.2 m x 3.5 m

RESERVOIR FRL/MDDL : Varying between EL 449.5 m to EL

458.5 m

River Bed Slope : 1 : 775 Length of reservoir : 29 km.

24

INTAKE Nos. : 8 Size of Bellmouth Openings : 11.35 m x 9.75

m Invert Level at Inlet : EL 432.50 m Bulk Head Gate (Size of opening) : 6.35 m x

6.8 m Service Gate (Size of opening) : 6.35 m x 6.8 m

Trash Rack : Inclined

PRESSURE SHAFT Nos. : 8 Size and type : 6.8 m dia., Circular shaped Design Discharge : 168.09 cumec through each tunnel

Length of Pressure Shaft (8 nos.) : 140 m each

POWER HOUSE COMPLEX Location : Left Bank Type : Underground Installed Capacity : 530 MW Size of Power Houser Cavern : 338 m x 25 m x

45.5 m Transformer Area : 247 m x 21 m GIS/ Pothead yard area : 85 m 41 m Type of Turbine : Francis Generating units : 8 nos. of 66.25 MW each Net head available : 43.67 m (as per Design E&M)

Type of switchgear : GIS (Outdoor)

SILT FLUSHING TUNNEL Branch Tunnel

Size, shape and No. 3.2 m. x 3.5 m., D shaped, 3 Nos.

Length 110 m, 115 m and 130 m.

Invert level at inlet main tunnel EL 403.00 Size and shape 6 m. dia, horse shoe shaped Length 505 m. Invert level at outlet EL 402.00

MAIN ACCESS TUNNEL Length : 445 m D/S SURGE CHAMBER

Nos., Type and Size : 4 nos., Restricted Orifice Type, 54 m x

15.5 m x 58.5 m

BRANCH TAILACE TUNNELS Nos. and Size : 8 Nos., 7.8 m Dia, Horse-shoe shaped

Length : 40 m each

MAIN TAILRACE TUNNELS Nos. and Size : 4 Nos, 10.0 m Dia, Horse-shoe shaped

Length

TRT 1 : 350 m TRT 2 : 350 m TRT 3 : 345 m TRT 4 : 320 m Tailrace outlet stoplogs 1 set : 8.3 m x 10.0 m

POWER GENERATION Installed capacity : 530 MW Annual energy generation in 90% dependable

year at 95% machine availability : 2031 MU

25

3.2.4 Profile of Vishnugad-Pipalkoti Hydroelectric Project Vishnugad Pipalkoti (444 MW) is one of the various hydropower schemes envisaged on river Alaknanda. The river stretch under the project is about of about 27 km from village Helong to village Birahi (Fig. 3.5). The operation of Vishnugad-Pipalkoti Hydroelectric Project is linked to the upstream projects on Vishnuprayag (by Jaypee Industries) and of Topovan- Vishnugad (by National Thermal Power Corporation). Downstream of this project, further run of the river power projects are planned, which will also divert water from Alaknanda through headrace tunnel. Salient features of this project are given in table 3.4.

3.2.5 Profile of Alaknanda Hydroelectric Project The 300 MW Alaknanda H. E. project is proposed on Alaknanda River. Alaknanda HYDROELECTRIC Project is proposed to be a Run of the River scheme. The project proposes to generate 300 MW of power and involves construction of a 18 m high diversion barrage across the Alaknanda river 3 km downstream of Badrinath town (Fig. 3.6). The 2.87 km long headrace tunnel will be of a horseshoe shape and 4.3 m dia and an underground power house is proposed near Khirao Ganga. The tail water will be discharged through an underground tail water tunnel upstream of tail of reservoir of under operation Vishnuprayag H. E. project. The salient features of the project are given in table no.3.5 Table 3.5 Salient Features of Alaknanda-Badrinath hydroelectric project

26

Fig. 3.5 Location of Vishnugad-Pipalkoti hydroelectric project (Source: THDC EIA report)

27

Table 3.4 Salient features of Vishnugad-Pipalkoti hydroelectric project

Location 30030/50//N to 30025/31//E ; 79029/30//N to 79024/56// E State Uttarakhand District Chamoli Hydrology Snowy Catchment 2896 km2 Catchment area 4672km2 Maximum 10 daily flow: 1308.12 Cumec (average) Average Annual Runoff: 5682.6 MCM Head Race Tunnel Type Modified Horse Shoe Size 8.8 M Length 13.4 KM U/S Surge Shaft No. 01 Type Controlled orifice Diameter/ Depth U/S 2 m/ 110m D/S Surge Shaft No. 01 Type Underground Diameter / Depth 120 x 12 x 27 Tail Race tunnel Type Modified Horse Shoe Size 8.8m Length 3.07 km Penstock Underground Power House Complex Number 4 Size 5.20 M/ 3.65 M dia Type Circular Length 351 m/36.7 m Underground Power House Complex Installed Capacity 111 x 4 = 444MW Size 127 x 20.3 * 50 M Turbine Francis.4Generating Units Gross / Net Head 237m/211m Switch Yard Size and Type 8 Bays/GIS/420 KV Transmission of Power By transmission Line Constructed by Power grid Corporation

28

Table 3.5 Salient features of Alaknanda-Badrinath hydroelectric project

LOCATION State Uttarakhand District Chamoli River Alaknanda Location of Barrage site 3 km downstream of the

Badrinath Shrine on the Alaknanda River 790 29.7’E, 300 43.4’ N Location of Power House 790 30.3’E, 300 41.2’

N

2. HYDROLOGY Catchment area at the Barrage Site 1015.93 sq km

Snow Catchment 660 sq km

Design flood (SPF) 1780 m3/s PMF 2880 m3/s

3. BARRAGE & RESERVOIR Type Gated Barrage FRL 2922.0 m (three units operating) Reservoir Area 2.27 ha MOL 2920.5 m (one unit operating) Average river bed level at axis 2905.0 m Width of barrage 40 m Sill Level 2907.0 m Design discharge 1780 m3/s (SPF) Gates 4 No radial gates, 7m wide x 15.5 m high

4. INTAKE STRUCTURE Width of Intake 4 x 10m openings at the screens Orientation with respect to barrage axis 900 Regulating gates 2 Nos. 3.5 m wide x 3.5 m high Design discharge 68.5 m3/s (including silt

flushing discharge)

5. DESILTING ARRANGEMENT No. and size of desilting galleries 2 nos. 11 m wide x 11.4 m deep (settling

zone)

Length 250 m Particle size to be excluded 0.20 mm and above Flow through velocity 0.24 m/s

6. HEAD RACE TUNNEL Size and type 4.3 m dia horseshoe section Velocity 3.68 m/s Length 2,886 m Design discharge 57.1 m3/s Slope 1:98

SURGE SHAFT Type Underground, restricted orifice Diameter 15.0 m Height 46 m Orifice Diameter 4.2m Top level 2941.0 m Bottom level 2895.0 m Maximum upsurge 2936.0 m Minimum down surge 2906.8 m Adit at Top 5 m dia D-section

PRESSURE SHAFT Main penstock 775 m long x 3.6 to 3.0 m dia Branches 1.8 m dia (unit penstocks)

POWER HOUSE Type Underground Installed capacity 300 MW Size of Power house 85.0 m x 20.0 m x 39.82 m Gross head 621.8 m Net head 603.20 m Centre line of jet El.2300.2

TAILRACE Type 5 m dia D-section Length 1780 m No. & Size of unit duct 3 Nos., 3.5 m dia D- Bed gradient 1:300

29

section Draft tube gates 3.5 m wide x 3.5 m high Highest Flood Level 2283 m approx

TURBINE No. & Type 3 nos. Pelton, vertical axis Rated Power 100.0 MW Rated net head 603.20 m Max / Min net head 619.04 m/ 603.20 m Rated discharge 19.1 m3/s per unit Speed 300 rpm Specific speed 32.13 Wheel Pitch Diameter 3.33 m

MAIN INLET VALVE Type Spherical Valve Diameter 1.6 m Location Inside machine hall

GENERATOR Type Synchronous Numbers 3 Rated Capacity 100 MW Speed 300 rpm No. of Phases 3 Frequency 50 Hz Power Factor 0.9 Rated Terminal Voltage 11 kv Excitation System Thyristor excitation system

GENERATOR STEP UP TRANSFORMER Location Inside Transformer cavern No. 10 Rated Bank of 3 1- f, 127.65 MVA Voltage Ratio 11/220/_3kV Frequency 50 Hz Type of Cooling OFWF

TRANSMISSION LINES (220 kV) Type Double circuit Terminating Station Kauripass (Joshimath) Total Length 17 km

POWER BENEFITS 90% dependable year 1117.0 GWh (Design energy)

50% dependable year 1278.2 GWh

CONSTRUCTION PERIOD 67 months including commissioning

30

Fig.3.6 Location of Alaknanda-Badrinath Hydroelectric Project (Source: GMR EIA report)

31

4.0 Approach and Methodology

4.1. Framework for Cumulative Environmental Impact Assessment (CEIA)

The project is designed to assess the cumulative impacts of the hydroelectric projects (both commissioned and proposed) on the biodiversity value of Alaknanda and Bhagirathi basins, in the State of Uttarakhand. The aim of CEIA is to consider the impacts of past, present and future human actions on a predefined receptor. The major challenge to this kind of assessment includes unclear or non-existing methodologies for scoping of cumulative effects and poor consideration of past or likely future human activities beyond the plan or project in question (Therivel and Ross, 2007). Therefore, proper methodological framework is required to fill in the requirements and overcome the limitations of cumulative assessment. The methodological framework adopted for this study conforms to the standard practices followed worldwide in the evaluation of cumulative effects (Council on Environmental Quality,

1997; Canter and Sadler, 1997). The process of CEIA is based on (a) Scoping, (b) Establishing Biodiversity Baselines, (c) Impact Prediction and Evaluation and (d) Decision Support including Mitigation Opportunity (Fig 4.1). The framework provided in the flowchart (Fig 4.2.) depicts the sequence of activities and tools adopted in the study. The CEIA was designed to be executed in nine months from January to September 2011, divided into three phases, targeting scoping (January-March), biodiversity assessment (April-June) and data synthesis & report preparation (July-September). With this timeline, this interim report is likely to have certain gaps, and therefore, the information presented may be treated accordingly, unless a clear emphasis is made on the information and inference thereof. The project team consisted of expertise from variety of biodiversity components and technology (Appendix 1).

32

Fig 4.1. The process of CEIA adopted in the study

33

Fig 4.2. Flowchart of methodological framework adopted to undertake the CEIA

4.1.1 Scoping

Scoping is the most important step in the impact assessment process as it is essentially aimed at defining the boundary of the study and formulating the scope of work to be accomplished under the impact assessment studies. Scoping involves identifying the sources of the impacts and those receptors that are likely to be subjected to significant cumulative effects. In this project, scoping component comprised of (a) desk reviews, (b) preliminary field surveys (reconnaissance) and (c) determining Zone of Influence, based on the available knowledge, field assessment and GIS based analysis. The Zone of Influence for each of these projects will be influenced by the activity centers where all associated infrastructure development is planned and where all physical actions onsite will take place. The Zone of Influence will vary for each project based on disturbances caused by the size of scheme, submergence zone, diversion of river, area of powerhouse and key construction activities,

such as dam, headrace/tailrace tunnels, muck disposal area and infrastructure developments. Therefore, the Zone of Influence are nonlinear, variable in sizes and shapes depending on the location,

34

length and area of various project activities. Given that this interim report is restricted to five projects i.e. Kotlibhel IA, Kotlibhel IB, Kotlbhel II, Vishnugad-Pipalkoti and Alaknanda-Badrinath, the Zone of Influence for these projects have been delineated (Fig 4.3.), with some scope for improvisation in the delineation of the external limit, since the information required on all the activities were not readily available. Nonetheless, the information obtained for each of the Zone of Influence will hold true for these projects sites, since the Zone of Influence includes the activity centre, spatial area representing all infrastructure development and a buffer area surrounding this whole area and hence will encompass all conspicuous and inconspicuous impact sources.

4.1.1.1 Desk Studies

Desk studies involved review and gleaning of information from the detailed project reports (DPRs), EIA reports and EMP reports for all the five projects, for improving the understanding of the project profile and the nature and extent activities envisaged to visualize the range of impacts. The project authorities (NHPC, THDC & GMR) provided the relevant documents. Generation of baseline information depends on information generated both from primary and secondary sources. An extensive and elaborate literature survey was undertaken to pull out information on floral and faunal (terrestrial and aquatic) values within the study area. Various institutions and organizations working on these aspects were also contacted to procure information on various parameters. The information on hydrology and the environmental flows has been provided by IIT, Roorkee. 4.1.1.2 Reconnaissance The multidisciplinary project team undertook series of surveys in the selected project sites, and gathered information on biodiversity components, represented by terrestrial and aquatic elements.

Mammals and birds were taken to represent the terrestrial system, while the fishes were taken to represent the aquatic system, since these taxonomic groups have flagship values and keystone effects, and are highly sensitive changes in the habitat and intensity of disturbance in their habitats. The hydroelectric projects have direct bearing on the surrounding habitats and environmental flow, thereby, affecting these groups. During the interim period, the biodiversity value of the areas, within the Zone of Influence, was qualitatively assessed, and the information provided in the various reports, were included to bridge the void.

35

4.1.1.3 Determining the Zone of Influence The Zone of Influence (ZoI) is defined as the farthest possible distance of influence of the project, emanating from various impact sources. These sources are activities location and extent of (a) Dam, (b) Barrage, (c) Submergence, (d) Tailrace tunnel, (e) Diversion zone, (f) Muck deposits, and (g) Built-up areas for establishing various infrastructures including road network. Ideally, the geographic coordinates of these sources are mapped using GIS, and a buffer line (outward impact) of 500m on either side (for line features) or around (for point features) the impact sources are created. All these polygons (i.e. the outline of these buffers) were connected to form the Zone of Influence within the activity centers. Projects have variable Zone of Influence depending on the size of the scheme. In the

present case, want of geographic coordinates for features such as dam, submergence and tailrace tunnel constrained the efforts of accurate delineation of Zone of Influence- Effort will be made to correct any discrepancy in the final report. The Zone of Influence determined for the five projects, have considered most of the factors and are thus fairly realistic in their area and shape and therefore, only a minor variation is expected in the final zonation. Fig 4.3. provides the Zone of Influence for all the five project sites, covered in the interim report.

Fig. 4.3. Zone of Influence, based on broad impact sources within the activity centers

36

4.1.2 Establishing Biodiversity Baseline 4.1.2.1 Floral attributes

The broad physiognomic classes of vegetation in the area i.e., forests, scrub (primary or secondary), grasslands and herbaceous meadows (alpine) have been characterized in terms of species composition and structure. Remote sensing data (LISS – IV) have been used to assess the overall vegetation cover and other land use / land cover (LULC) categories in both the basins. These data are also being used to stratify the major classes of vegetation for further detailed vegetation survey and analysis of floral attributes. Based on field sampling of terrain features, various biophysical features and distribution of major floral and faunal communities, broad habitat types along the survey route have been listed which may fall within low, medium and high impact zones of HEPs. Prior to field surveys, collation of secondary literature, maps, working plans of various forest divisions was done. Detailed field surveys to quantify vegetation structure and floristic composition in the study area are under way. Stratified random sampling of vegetation communities have been used following standard phytosociological approach (Mueller-Dombois & Ellenberg 1974; Kent & Coker 1992). It has been found that 10x10 square plots for tree layer, 5x5 m for shrubs and 1x1m quadrats for ground (herbs and grasses) are adequate to sample the vegetation in Western Himalaya as used by many workers. Hence, nested plots of these dimensions are being laid all along the survey localities. The following categories of land forms and vegetation (physiognomic classes) have been found in the survey area: Land forms: Rocky slope, Gentle slope, Flat alluvial banks, Gorge, Upland Valley, Terminal and lateral moraines, Terraces (old and new), Landslides and Landslips and Debris. Physiognomic classes of vegetation: Dense Forest, Open Forest, Secondary scrub, Grassy slopes, Alpine scrub, Alpine meadow, Sparse vegetation cover and major communities within each category. Ethno-botanical Surveys: Questionnaire surveys in sample villages / Households would be done to document the species of ethnobotanical value e.g., timber, fodder, fibre, fuel wood, folk medicine, subsidiary food and wild fruits. Environmental and vegetation parameters collected as each sampling site:

37

Environmental / Habitat Parameters

Vegetation Parameters

Geographical coordinate /GPS reading Altitude Soil Type Canopy Cover Shrub Cover Ground Cover Moss Cover Lichen Cover Weed Cover Rock Cover (%) Slope Aspect Human Pressure (0,1,2,3)

Tree Species & Number Tree GBH Shrub Species & Number Shrub Height Herb Species & Number NTFP Species and their abundance RET Species and their abundance, if any

Data Analysis

General species richness (of trees, shrubs, climbers, herbs and grasses), populations of rare, endemic or threatened taxa, if any along with their habitat types, abundance of alien invasive species (AIS).

Vegetation structure and community composition following standard phytosociological procedures (Curtis & Cottam (1956).

4.1.2.2 Faunal attributes

Mammals

Information on mammal distribution and abundance in the study area was collected from various sources such as publications, reports and databases (Agarwal et al. 1998, Bhatnagar et al 2002, Bhattacharya et al. 2006, Bhattacharya and Sathyakumar 2008, Kala 2004, Kittur et al. 2010, Lamba 1987, Maheshwari and Sharma 2010, PSL 2006, Schaller 1977, Prater 1980, Sathyakumar 1992, 1993, 1999a, 1999b, 2001a, 2001b, 2004, 2006a, 2006b Sathyakumar and Bhatnagar 2002, Sathyakumar and Bashir 2010, Sathyakumar and Johnsingh in press, Sathyakumar et al. 1992, in press, Tak and Kumar 1987, ZSI 1995). Field surveys in the project influence zones and informal interviews with local villagers in the project area were carried out in the different project sites to ascertain the presence/absence of mammals, particularly RET species. Sign surveys along trails/transects and scanning method were used to assess the status of mammals in the project area following methods used by Sathyakumar (1993, 1994) and WII (1998). During sign surveys, evidences of mammals such as tracks, scats/pellet groups/ other signs were recorded. Binoculars and spotting scope were used to scan for species such as Himalayan tahr and goral that inhabits habitats such as open rocky or grassy slopes with scattered trees and scrub.

38

Birds

Data on bird distribution and abundance in the study area was collected from different sources (Ali and Ripley 1983, Bhattacharya and Sathyakumar 2007, Green 1986b, Lamba 1987, Reed, 1979 Sathyakumar 1994, Sathyakumar and Sivakumar 2007, Tak and Kumar 1987, ZSI 1995). Field surveys in the Zone of Influence were carried out in the different project sites to ascertain the presence/absence of birds particularly RET species. Point counts (Bibby et al. 2000), line transects (Laake et al.) and call count methods (for Cheer, Tragopan & Koklass Pheasants during April/May) were used to assess the status of birds in the project area following methods suggested by Sathyakumar et al., 2007 and WII 1998. Bird Field guides (Ali and Ripley 1983, Grimette et al 2003) were used for bird identification.

Fishes

In addition to the primary data on fish distribution and abundance collected during a period of three months, the secondary data from different publications and the data sources (Badola 2001, Payne et al.

2004, Sinha 2007) have also been used to understand the current distribution pattern of fishes in the basin, especially in the Zone of Influence of project sites. Apart from main streams of the rivers Ganga, viz., Alaknanda and Bhagirathi, major tributaries of the river were also sampled for fishes. We also related the location of Zone of Influence with existing or proposed Protected Areas while assessing the impact Samples were collected at all sites during daytime (07:00 – 17:00 hrs). Experimental fishing was carried out in all sampling points with the help of project team members and locally hired professional fishermen. Fishes were collected with cast nets (mesh 0.6 x 0.6 cm.), drag nets or locally called mahajal (mesh 0.7 x 0. 7 mm., L x B = 80 m. x 2.5 m. with varying mesh sizes) and fly collecting nets (indigenous nets using nylon mosquito nets tied with the bamboo in both ends). At each sampling site,

all gears were used at least ten times during each sampling occasion. All specimens were identified based on the classification system of Nelson (2006) and scientific names were verified using www.fishbase.org. The color, spots if any, maximum size and other characters of the fishes caught were recorded in a format developed for this purpose. Fishes were also collected from nearby fish market and landing centre associated with the river system which was not collected during experimental sampling. Taxonomic discrepancies were resolved, with the latest database.

39

4.1.3 Impact Prediction and Evaluation Interaction matrices were one of the earliest types of methodologies developed for usage in impact studies. For example, in 1971, Leopold, et al. promulgated a simple interaction matrix for usage across the range of actions conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey (Leopold, et al, 1971). The “Leopold matrix” displays project actions or activities along one axis (typically the x-axis), with appropriate environmental factors listed along the other axis (y-axis) of the matrix. When a given action or activity was expected to cause a change in an environmental factor, this is noted at the intersection point in the matrix and further described in terms of separate or combined magnitude and importance considerations. Many variations in the Leopold matrix have occurred over the four decades of EIA

practice (Canter, 2008). The Argonne Multiple Matrix (AMM) method represents advancement over traditional interactive matrices such as the Leopold Matrix (Leopold et al. 1971, cited in Lane et al. 1988).This matrix was developed by Bain et al. (1986) to analyze the cumulative effect of multiple projects. The total cumulative effects for any combination of projects are the sum of project-specific effects adjusted for interactions among projects and their effects (Smit and Spaling, 1994). The AMM can differentiate additive from interactive processes of cumulative environmental change, and can account for multiple projects of the same type (e.g. hydroelectric dams). It may be equally applicable to assessments of multiple projects which are related but of different kind (e.g. a hydroelectric dam, a transmission corridor, and a road network). The methodology for this matrix consists of three phases:

1) Impact Analysis: In this phase, expert opinion is used to assign impact ratings or scores to each project from an evaluative scale of impact significance (in this case 0 to 5), weighting coefficients to account for the relative importance of each component and to develop interaction coefficients which indicate the effects of each pair of projects on each component.

2) Evaluation: This involves screening of all possible project combinations to identify acceptable project combinations on the basis of maximum allowable total-impact values for each target resource i.e. ‘screening criteria’. The objective is to identify the combinations of projects with the lowest cumulative effects score.

3) Documentation: This involves nothing but clear and concise documentation of identified probable impacts for final recommendations. (Smit and Spaling, 1994; Stull et al.,1987)

The AMM was used as an integral part of the assessment of cumulative effects on fish and wildlife in Idaho’s Salmon River Basin (Irving and Bain, 1989). Matrices are utilized to specify the interactive effects of multiple projects. The matrices used in this assessment (Appendix 2) was based and modified from the typical AMM.

40

4.1.3.1 Development of Criteria In order to determine the impacts in quantitative terms, the biodiversity values and hydroelectric projects activities were defined as 'Impact Receptors' and 'Impact Sources' respectively. Impact Receptors were evaluated based on eight criteria (Table 4.1), while Impact Sources were evaluated based on seven criteria (Table 4.2).

Table 4.1. Criteria for Impact Receptors (reflecting the biodiversity values)

S.No. Indicator Description

1. RET (Rare, Endangered and Threatened) Species, as per IUCN and other Global Criteria

Number of RET species present in the project within Zone of Influence. These values offer weightage to biodiversity scores provided for the each Zone of Influence.

2. Endemic Species Number of endemic species present in the Zone of Influence, reflecting the irreplaceability, and national commitment.

3. Schedule Species Number of species that are listed in the Schedule I of Indian Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, reflecting legal provisions.

4. Habitat Specialist Number of species that have narrow habitat niche, and that any change in their habitat would cause local extinction, and global crisis

5. Habitat Diversity Number of habitat types available for mammals, birds and fishes. This is a surrogate for habitat heterogeneity, that is linked to biodiversity richness

6. Species Richness Number of species of mammals and birds, and the scores are cumulative for both the taxa.

7. Breeding/Congregation Whether or not, the Zone of Influence contains breeding sites and congregation opportunities for the target taxonomic groups.

8. Migratory Pathways/Corridor

Whether or not, the Zone of Influence is migratory pathways/corridor for terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity

Table 4.2. Criteria for Impact Sources (reflecting the disturbance regimes) S.No. Indicator Description

1. Volume of Diverted Water The quantum of water deprived for ecological sustenance, thereby, affecting the environmental flow.

2. Diverted River Length The length of river which would be deprived of water by water diversion through head/tailrace tunnel.

3. Reservoir Area The location and extent of area that would be submerged, causing habitat loss.

4. Barrier Influence of Dam The magnitude of effects on the movement of terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity by the establishment of dam.

5. Biotic Interference The disturbance caused by various human activities for developing logistics and infrastructure, including housing establishments for staff.

41

6. Barrier Influence from Linear Constructions (e.g. Road)

The magnitude of effects on the movement of terrestrial biodiversity by the construction linear structures such as road and extended walls.

7. Forest Area Diverted The location, extent and nature of forest area diverted for the project activities.

4.1.3.2 Scoring and Weighting of Impacts Scores ranging from 1 to 5 were assigned to Impact Receptor and Sources with 1 representing the lowest value and the 5 representing the highest value in both the criterion. On a relative term, all the values were pooled for the five project sites, and any sites scoring maximum scores for individual criteria received the value of 5. In situation where binary responses were obtained (e.g. whether or not Zone of Influence contains breeding/congregation sites), the site with 'no such value; received a score of 1, while the site with 'such value' received a score of 5. This scoring system allowed for standardization of the values generated for individual indicators, and therefore, it became discernable while arriving at cumulative scores. Once the scoring for individual indicators were set, sum of score for individual projects were obtained for Impact Receptors and Impact Sources. The score of Impact Sources were multiplied with the scores of Impact Receptors to arrive at cumulative impact values. In an ideal situation, a site can receive maximum score of 40 for Biodiversity Values, i.e. Impact Receptors (5 x eight indicators), and 35 for Impact Sources (5 x seven indicators). Multiplication of these values would represent the maximum impacts on the biodiversity from the project. Alternatively, the multiplication could be applied at individual indicator level, thereby, allowing for understanding the variation in impacts by different impact sources on specific biodiversity values. This scoring system offers opportunity for mitigation. In our scheme of methodology, we adopted both the model, since the former would present a broader overview at the project level, such that a decision could be drawn, while the later would allow for mitigation of specific indicators. Additionally, these projects were also evaluated based on the conservation value of the site, in terms of proximity to Protected Area Network and World Heritage Sites. The final values generated for arriving at cumulative scores are presented and discussed in the chapter 6. It is important to mention the caveat that since this interim report pertains to five projects only, the relative weightage of the scores have been limited to these five projects, and therefore, there is a likelihood of some change taking place in the cumulative score in final

analysis. Further, the current scoring does not include a standard threshold, and that the final scores reflect the relative impacts of the projects on the biodiversity values.

42

4.1.3.3 Changes in Environmental Flows A global review of the present status of environmental flow methodologies revealed the existence of some 207 individual methodologies, recorded for 44 countries within six world regions. These could be differentiated into hydrological, hydraulic rating, habitat simulation and holistic methodologies, with a further two categories representing combination-type and other approaches. In an international context, the development and application of methodologies for prescribing Environmental Flow Requirements (EFRs), began as early as the 1950s, in the western U.S.A, with marked progress during the 1970s, primarily as a result of new environmental legislation (Stalnaker 1982; Trihey & Stalnaker 1985).

Outside the U.S.A., the process by which environmental flow methodologies evolved and became established for use is less apparent, as there is little published information on the topic (Tharme 1996). In some countries, for instance England, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, Environmental Flow Assessments for rivers only began to gain ground as late as the 1980s. Other parts of the world, including parts of eastern Europe and much of South America and Asia, appear less advanced in the field, with little published mainstream literature that deals specifically with environmental flows. This suggests that many countries have either not yet recognised the critical importance of Environmental Flow Assessments in the long-term maintenance and sustainability of freshwater systems or have not made such assessments a priority (Tharme 1996). Presently, there are many formal methodologies exists for prescribing environmental flow needs. These methodologies have been reviewed in depth by various workers (Stalnaker and Arnette, 1976; Wesche and Rechard, 1980; Morhardt, 1986; Estes and Orsborn, 1986; Stewardson and Gippel, 1997). Probably the most up to date information on the global situation with regards to Environmental Flow Assessment is contained in Tharme (2000). The majority of environmental flow methodologies can be grouped into four reasonably distinct categories: hydrological, hydraulic rating, habitat simulation and holistic. There are also a number of hybrid approaches which comprise elements of one or more of these main types of methodology. They are Flow Stressor-Response (FSR) approach, the Downstream

Response to imposed Flow transformations (DRIFT) approach and Instream Flow Incremental Methodology (IFIM) approach.

The study conducted by IIT, Roorkee, had followed Hughes and Louw (2010) method which consider the various components of an integrated environmental water requirement determination framework for rivers integrating hydrology, hydraulics, and ecological response into a flexible approach. Considering

the minimum hydraulic requirement of various species of aquatic organisms (macro-invertebrates, fishes and otters) the minimum environmental flow was calculated based on the Mean Annual Flow. But

43

this does not meet the minimum flow required for the various life history traits of a species, because the important activities like breeding, growth, metamorphosis and migration are mainly depending on the seasonal variation in natural flow pattern. Moreover, the flow requirements for the life history stages of many fishes are depending on the seasonal flow. Taking this into account, the environmental flow required for different sector of the river will be calculated form Mean Seasonal Flow (MSF). In this approach last 30 years flow data will be obtained from different sources and that can be used for calculated the mean seasonal flow required for different sector of rivers.

44

45

5.0 Baseline Information 5.1 Overview of biodiversity values in Alaknanda and Bhagirathi river basins Riverine habitats generally occupy a small proportion in the total landscape yet play a critical role as corridors and migration pathways for several faunal and floral species. They also serve as ‘edge’ habitats, facilitate river courses and also assist in prevention of soil erosion. They are often designated as ‘sensitive habitats’. The courses of Bhagirathi and Alaknanda support a number of forest formations which are typically riverine in nature such as Khair – sissoo (Acacia catechu – Dalbergia sissoo) and Jamun – Putranjiva (Syzygium cuminii – Putranjiva roxburghii) in the lower areas, alder (Alnus nepalensis), Hippophae – Myricaria and Willow (Salix) communities at higher altitudes. The riverine forests support a large number of rare, threatened and endangered (RET) species of flora and fauna. Among the faunal groups several species of herpetofauna, riverine birds such as laughing thrushes, red starts, forktails, whistling thrush and mammals especially otters, weasels and fishing cats are of high conservation significance. Among fishes, there are several threatened species including golden mahseer, snow trout etc that breed in this landscape. Many species of fish require the riverine habitats as well as the floodplains for their breeding. Some of the threatened taxa of flora typically found along the riverine forests and stream courses of Bhagirathi and Alaknanda include Datisca cannabina, Itea nutans, Eriocaulon pumilio, Eria occidentalis, Flickingeria hesperis, Nervilia mackinnonii and Cautleya petiolaris, among others. Several species of medicinal and aromatic plants are also confined to riverine areas. All in all, within the basin, out of a total of 950 species of plants found in the basin 20 are RET species. Among mammals, out of 85 species 6 are RET species, 6 out of 530 species of birds and 23 out of 57 species of fishes are in the RET category. 5.2 Floral Values Quantitative information on various parameters of vegetation from both the basins is being collected. Based on a preliminary survey of the study area and perusal of published literature (Nayar & Sastry 1987 – 90), the following statements can be made for a select project sites:

i. A total of 19 rare, threatened and vulnerable species of angiosperms are recorded from both the Bhagirathi and Alaknanda catchments which have high conservation value. Several species among these are of high ethno-botanical significance (Appendix 3).

ii. A preliminary checklist of flowering plants (trees, shrubs and herbs) recorded from Kotlibhel I, II and III are given in Appendix 4.

iii. Of the 16 species of RDB species reported from Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve, 7 are found within or in vicinity of GMR project sites. Other species of high conservation significance found along riverine stretch (along Alaknanda) between Chamoli and Badrinath are shown in plate 5.1

46

iv. Detailed analysis of communities and habitats affected by hydro-electric projects would be done after the completion of field work.

Plate 5.1 Some RET and NTFP species from riverine forests of Alaknanda basin, Uttarakhand

47

5.3 Faunal Values

5.3.1 Mammals

5.3.1.1 Mammals in the project areas of Kotlibhel IA, IB and II hydro-electric projects The Kotlibhel IA and IB hydro-electric projects are located on rivers Alaknanda and Bhagirathi respectively, a few kilometers before the confluence of these two rivers at Devprayag (c. 680m). The Kotlibhel II hydro-electric project is located in the river Ganges near Kaudiyala. The project areas of

these three hydro-electric projects have riverine habitats along the rivers and mixed forests in the middle and higher slopes. Anthropogenic pressures and developmental activities in and around Devaprayag have resulted in degradation of forested habitats and consequently poor status of terrestrial wildlife in the area. About 12 species of mammals (excluding chiropterans and rodents) are reported to occur in the study area. These include: the Common leopard (Panthera pardus), Asiatic black bear (Ursus thibetanus), Jungle cat (Felis chaus), Jackal (Canis aureus), Sambar (Rucervus

unicolour), Barking deer (Muntiacus muntjac), goral (Nemorhaedus goral), wild pig (Sus scrofa), Himalayan yellow-throated marten (Martes flavigula), Himalayan palm civet (Paguma larvata), West Himalayan langur (Semnopithecus entellus) and Rhesus macaque (Macaca mullata). Of these, only three mammals fall in the Rare, Endangered, Threatened (RET) categories and/or Schedule 1 of the Indian Wildlife (Protection) Act (IWPA) viz., Common leopard, Asiatic black bear and Jungle cat (Plate 5.2; Table 5.1).

Table 5.1 RET species of birds and mammals in the five selected hydro-electric project sites

BIRDS Common Name

Scientific Name IUCN IWPA Kothlibel 1A

Kothlibel 1B

Kothlibel 2 Vishnugad-Pipalkoti

Alaknanda-Badrinath

White-backed Vulture

Gyps bengalensis CE I √ √ √ √

Red-headed Vulture

Sarcogyps calvus CE I √ √ √ √

Egyptian Vulture

Neophron percnopterus

E I √ √ √ √

Cinereous Vulture

Aegypius monachus

NT I √ √ √ √ √

Himalayan Monal

Lophophorus impejanus

LC I √

Cheer Pheasant Catreus wallichii V I √ √ √ √ MAMMALS

Common Name

Scientific Name IUCN IWPA Kothlibel 1A

Kothlibel 1B

Kothlibel 2 Vishnugad-Pipalkoti

Alaknanda-Badrinath

Asiatic black bear

Ursus thibentanus V I √ √ √ √ √

Himalayan Ursus arctos V I √

48

brown bear isabellinus

Jungle cat Felis chaus LC I √ √ √ √ Common leopard

Panthera pardus NT I √ √ √ √ √

Snow leopard Panthera uncia E I √ Himalayan musk deer

Moschus chryogaster

E I √

Serow Nemorhedus sumatraensis

NT I √

Himalayan tahr Hemitragus jemlahicus

NT I √ √

5.3.1.2 Mammals within Zone of Influence of Vishnugad-Pipalkoti and Alaknanda-Badrinath hydro-electric projects The Vishnugad-Pipalkoti and Alaknanda-Badrinath hydro-electric projects are located on river Alaknanda in the upper reaches of the catchment (1,000-3,000m). About 35 mammals (excluding chiropterans) have been recorded from this area (Sathyakumar 1994). The Vishnugad-Pipalkoti hydro-electric projects is located in the Outer Himalaya (c. 800m to 1,200m) that has riverine forests along Alaknanda, chir pine forests, and, temperate mixed forests with scattered tree and scrub on open rocky and grassy slopes. About 15 species of mammals are reported to occur in this area. These include: Rhesus macaque, West Himalayan langur, Common leopard, Asiatic black bear, Jackal, Sambar, barking deer, goral, Himalayan tahr (Hemitragus jemlahicus), wild pig, Himalayan yellow-throated marten, Himalayan palm civet, Porcupine (Hystrix indica) and two species of Flying squirrels (Petaurista spp.). The Alaknanda-Badrinath hydro-electric project area (c. 2700m to 3,100m) encompasses the upper temperate forests, subalpine forests, open rocky and grassy slopes with scattered trees and scrub, and alpine meadows. About 18 species of mammals are reported to occur in this area. These include: West Himalayan langur, Common leopard, Snow leopard (Panthera uncia), Himalayan brown bear (Ursus

arctos isabellinus), Asiatic black bear, Red fox (Vulpes vulpes), Himalayan weasel (Mustela sibirica), sambar, barking deer, goral, Himalayan tahr, wild pig, Himalayan musk deer (Moschus chrysogaster), Himalayan yellow-throated marten, Himalayan palm civet, Porcupine, pika (Ochotona royeli) and two species of Flying squirrels.

49

5.3.2 Birds

About 250 species of birds are reported to occur in the Alaknanda Catchment area (Sathyakumar 1994) of which only a few species fall under the RET categories and/or Schedule I of IWPA (Plate 5.2). Four species of vultures viz., Indian white backed vulture (Gyps bengalensis), Red headed vulture

(Sarcogyps calvus), Egyptian vulture (Neophron percnopterus), Cinereous vulture (Aegypius

monachus), and Cheer Pheasant (Catreus wallichi) occur in the project areas of Kotlibhel IA, IB and II and Vishnugad-Pipalkoti. In Alaknanda-Badrinath hydro-electric project area, only Cinereous vulture and the Himalayan monal pheasant (Lophophorus impejanus) are the two RET / IWPA species present in the area.

50

Plate 5.2 Some RET species of mammals and birds in Alaknanda basin, Uttarakhand

51

5.3.3 Fishes

Riverine ecosystem of India have suffered from intense human intervention resulting in habitat loss and degradation and as a consequence many fresh water fish species have become heavily endangered, particular in Ganges basin where heavy demand is placed on fresh water. This was coupled with irreversible changes in natural population by introduction of exotic species and diseases (Dudgeon et

al. 2005; Arthington and Welcomme 1995, Arthington et al. 2004, De Silva et al. 2007). River conservation and management activities in most countries including India suffer from inadequate knowledge of the constituent biota. Therefore, research is being pursued globally to develop conservation planning to protect freshwater biodiversity (Pusey et al. 2010; Margules & Pressey 2000; Lipsey and Child 2007).

The basin of river Ganges, which has very high cultural, heritage and religious values drains about 1,060, 000 km2 area and it is the fifth largest in the world (Welcomme 1985). The River originates from ice-cave ‘Gaumukh’ (30055’ N / 70 0 7’ E) in the Garhwal Himalaya at an altitude of 4100 m and discharges into Bay of Bengal. The length of the main channel from the traditional source of the Gangotri Glacier in India is about 2,550 km. The mean annual water discharge is the fifth highest in the world with a mean of 18,700 m3 /s. Extreme variation in flow exists within the catchment area, to the extent that the mean maximum flow of the Ganga is 468.7x 109 m3 which is 25.2% of India’s total water resources and a vast amount of sediment (1625x 106 tons) are transported downstream by the river and distributed across the fringing floodplains during the monsoon. The basin sustains more than 300 million people in India, Nepal and Bangladesh (Gopal 2000). In India, all tributaries of the Ganges are controlled by barrages diverting flow for irrigation and as a result fish catch has been declined, and

thereafter, loss of species diversity have been reported (Das 2007; Payne et al. 2004). Moreover, 29 freshwater fish species in river Ganga have been recently listed as threatened (Lakra et al. 2010). In India, 2246 indigenous finfishes have been described of which 765 belongs to freshwater (Lakra et al. 2009). In the Ganges, a total of 143 species belong to 11 orders, 72 genera and 32 families were recorded, which is about 20% of freshwater fish of the total fishes reported in India. The overall species richness of the Ganga basin is high (Hamilton 1822; Hora 1929; Venkateswarlu and Menon 1979; Day 1875-1878; 1889; Bilgrami and Datta Munshi 1985) despite several threats. This is the first time in India, a cumulative impact of hydro-projects on the biodiversity of a basin has been initiated with major objective of assessing the fish diversity.

52

Fish diversity in the Alaknanda and Bhagirathi basins

A total of 79 fish species belonging to 32 genera and 13 families were recorded from the Alaknanda and Bhagirathi basin, of these, 69 species reported in the zone of influence of five selected hydro-electric projects (Appendix 5). The cyprinidae was the major dominant family and much behind were the presence of other families like, Balitoridae and Sisoridae. Overall, the community structure in the basin was characterized by a few specialized cyprinid types, specifically the snow trouts (Schizothorax spp.), the mahseers (Tor spp.) and the lesser barils (Barilius spp.), the hillstream loaches (Nemacheilus spp.) and the sisorid torrent cat fishes (Glyptothorax spp.). There was no record of fish above 2400- 3000 masl elevation. The relative abundance of conservation and management important fish species in this river stretch was dominated by B. bendelisis (18.64%) followed by S. richardsonii (16.21%), T.

putitora (8.51%), S. montana (5.49%), T. tor (4.5%), G. gotyla (1.49%) and G. pectinopeterus (0.77%).

Although much research was addressed on various ecological aspects (Nautiyal and Lal 1984, 1985; Nautiyal et al. 1998; Singh 1988; Sharma 2003) of the species like golden mahseer (T. putitora, T. tor) and snow trouts (Schizothorax species) from some tributaries in the basin, however, detailed ecological information is still lacking for several cold water species in the region. Estimates of catches at four points along the Alaknanda in the Garhwal Himalaya showed a range of between 1035 to 2475 kg km-1 year-1 with an average of 1650 kg km-1 year-1 while a lower tributary, the Nayar river believed to be an important fish breeding habitat in the region, produced 621 kg km-1 year-1 (Payne and Temple 1996).

Fish diversity in the Zone of Influence of five selected hydro-electric projects

Although, a total of 79 fish species belonging to 32 genera and 13 families were recorded from the Alaknanda and Bhagirathi basin, of these, 69 species reported in the zone of influence of five selected hydro-electric projects. Highest number of species (N=56) reported in the Zone of Influence of Kotlibhel II project, which is located in the river Ganges at Kaudiyala (Table 5.2). Zone of Influence of Kotlibhel IA, 1B and Vishnugad-Pipalkoti project have reported with 41, 49 and 22 species respectively. Large number of threatened species also recorded in the Zone of Influence of Kotlibhel II followed by Kotlibhel 1B, 1A and Vishnugad-Pipalkoti. Some RET species of fishes found in the Alaknanda basin are shown in Plate 5.3. There was no fish found in the Zone of Influence of Alaknanda-Badrinath project. Migratory species such as mahseer and snow trouts were found in Zone of Influence of all projects except Vishnugad-Pipalkoti where mahseer were not reported.

53

Table 5.2. Distribution of fishes in the Zone of Influence of five hydro-electric projects in Uttarakhand.

Description Kotlibhel IA (Bhagirathi)

Kotlibhel IB (Alaknanda)

Kotlibhel II

Vishnugad Pipalkoti

Alaknanda-Badrinath

No. of Species 41 49 56 22 0

No. of Habitat Specialists 4 4 7 3 0

Threatened Species 12 12 16 4 0

No. of Endemic Species 0 2 2 0 0

No. of Species listed in WPA, 1972

0 0 0 0 0

Breeding/Congregation Sites Yes Yes Yes Yes No

Migratory route Yes Yes Yes Yes No

Habitat Diversity 3 3 5 2 2

Ecological Services (economic value)

Low Medium Medium Low Nil

Identification of critical fish habitats in the Alaknanda-Bhagirathi basins

Among all tributaries in the basin, the Nayar River was reported with highest number of 57 species. The Nayar River is the only spring/rain fed tributary available in these basins. Many cold water fishes including mahseer and snow trouts were observed breeding in this river at least twice in a year especially between March and August. Heterogeneity in the habitats, gradual sloping throughout the river, excellent growth of algae on the substratum provide better food sources for fish and other microbes in the river, oligotropic condition, etc make this river is more conducive for fishes in the region. Therefore, this river has been identified as the critical fish habitat in these basins.

54

Fig 5.1. Map showing the location of proposed Fish Conservation Reserve which includes the river stretch between Devprayag and Rishikesh as well as the Nayar River.

55

Plate 5.3 Some RET species of fishes from Alaknanda basin, Uttarakhand

56

57

6.0 Impact Prediction

6.1 Impacts of the five selected projects on biodiversity Using the methodology described in the Chapter 4, impact matrix was created for each of the five projects. Initially, matrices of original values obtained for each of the impact receptors and impact sources were created for each project, and scores were assigned to these indicators (Table 6.1, & 6.2). The information provided in these tables provides an overview of the variation in the biodiversity values and disturbance indicators for each of the five projects. Of the project sites, RET species is relatively highly represented in the projects, excepting for Vishnugad-Pipalkoti project. Endemic species are found higher in Alaknanda-Badrinath project site, while all the sites have over 10 species that are listed in the Schedule I of IWPA. Kotlibhel II has high habitat specialists and habitat diversity. Interestingly, all the project sites are represented by over 400 species of flora and fauna, with maximum being in

Kotlibhel II. Almost all the sites have breeding/congregation sites, but the migration pathways exist in the lower three projects (Kotlibhel II, IA & IB). In terms of the impact sources, Kotlibhel II is affected by volume of water diverted, river diversion, and reservoir area. Biotic disturbance is relatively higher in Vishnugad-Piplakoti project. Although a glance at the impact sources would appear to be relatively on a lower scale, if taken with biodiversity values, the cumulative impacts are substantial for Kotlibhel II, Kotlibhel IB and Alaknanda-Badrinath projects, invoking a decision that would favor the biodiversity values. These matrices represent the index of impact level, as a function of biodiversity value multiplied by the level of disturbance caused by impact sources at individual indicators. The values were assigned based on the perceived effect each of the sources would have on the each of the biodiversity values. The values, thus, multiplied have been assigned for each of the five projects (Table 6.3, 6.4, 6.5, 6.6 & 6.7). As per the preliminary findings, the Kotlibhel II project significantly affects the breeding/congregation sites and migration pathways of wildlife, especially the fish fauna, particularly due to reservoir area. Additionally, the RET species, habitat diversity and habitat specialists are also affected by this project. The findings suggest that this particular project would have a significant effect on the biodiversity, and that it would be difficult to visualize the commissioning of the project, without compromising on the biodiversity value including some irreplaceable ones. In the Kotlibhel IA project, the biodiversity values are compromised by barrier influence of the dam, which affect the breeding/congregation sites, migration pathways, and in lesser degree, RET species and habitat specialists. The Kotlibhel IB project located on the Alaknanda river is comparable with Kotlibhel II project in terms of the magnitude of

58

effects on the breeding/congregation sites, migration pathways, and on the habitat specialists and species richness. Interestingly, almost all the impact sources in the project have similar effects on the impact receptors. Given the available information, the impacts by the Vishnugad-Pipalkoti project is relatively less, and a clear picture would emerge after completion of the field work and in the final report. Although lesser in degree, the biotic disturbance is a significant source of impact from this project. The project has the longest diversion channel, suggesting that the river may be dried, but the side streams appear to compensate for the loss. However, the exact value of loss and gain would be evaluated in due course

of time. Alaknanda-Badrinath project significantly affect the breeding/congregation sites, followed by RET species, endemic species and species richness. All the impacts sources have mixed effect on the biodiversity values. Although the relative weight of the impacts are lower in this project, key factors such as proximity to PA boundary and other national interests, and presence of already commissioned projects, make this project to enhanced cumulative impacts on the overall biodiversity value. The cumulative values for the individual projects on biodiversity value indicate that except for Vishnugad-Pipalkoti project, all the projects have high biodiversity value (Table 6.8.). Similarly on the impact sources, the cumulative values are relatively high for Kotlibhel II, followed by Kotlibhel IB and Vishnugad-Pipalkoti. However, in the final score incorporating the biodiversity value (multiplicative function), the total impacts by the individual projects are in the order of Kotlibhel II, Alaknanda-Badrinath, Kotlibhel IB, Kotlibhel IA, and Vishnugad-Pipalkoti projects.

59

Table 6.1. Biodiversity value (impact receptors) of the five project sites (the scores are in parenthesis)

Table 6.2.Disturbance indicators (impact sources) of the five project sites (the scores are in parenthesis)

RET

Species Endemic species

Species in WPA

Habitat Specialists

Habitat diversity

Species richness

Breeding/ congregational

sites

Migratory sites

Total Score

Kotlibhel IA 19 (2) 1 (1) 10 (1) 5 (2) 9 (1) 412 (1) Y (5) Y (5) (18)

Kotlibhel IB 18 (1) 3 (1) 10 (1) 5 (2) 9 (1) 529 (2) Y (5) Y (5) (18)

Kotlibhel II 23 (2) 2 (1) 10 (1) 7 (2) 11 (2) 444 (1) Y (5) Y (5) (19)

Vishnugad-Pipalkoti 11 (1) 1 (1) 11 (1) 2 (1) 8 (1) 413 (1) N (1) N (1) (08)

Alaknanda-Badrinath 20 (2) 8 (3) 13 (2) 0 (1) 8 (1) 475 (2) Y (5) N (1) (17)

Volume of diverted water

[Design discharge

(m3/s)]

Diverted river

length (m)

Reservoir area (ha)

Barrier influence of dam [Dam height (m)]

Biotic interference [Labour immigration]

Barrier influence due to roads [Area under

approach roads]

Forest area diversion

Total Score

Kotlibhel IA 341.2 (1) 18400 (1) 210.0 (1) 75.6 (2) 1000 (1) 17.2 (1) 258.7 (1) (08)

Kotlibhel IB 587.4 (2) 27500 (2) 450.0 (2) 70.5 (2) 1500 (2) 10.8 (1) 496.2 (2) (13)

Kotlibhel II 1404.9 (3) 28000 (2) 551.0 (3) 58.6 (1) 1500 (2) 27.0 (2) 653.3 (2) (15)

Vishnugad-Pipalkoti 228.9 (1) 17243 (1) 24.6 (1) 65.0 (2) 2500 (3) 21.7 (2) 80.0 (1) (11)

Alaknanda-Badrinath 57.3 (1) 7000 (1) 2.3 (1) 18.0 (1) 650 (1) 15.5 (1) 46.5 (1) (07)

60

Table 6.3. Impact matrix for the Kotlibhel II project

Table 6.4. Impact matrix for the Kotlibhel IA project

Impact Receptors

Impa

ct S

ourc

es

RET species

Endemic species

Species in WPA

Habitat specialists

Species richness

Habitat diversity

Breeding/ congregational sites

Migratory corridors

Volume of diverted water 2 1 1 2 1 1 5 5 Diverted river length 2 1 1 2 1 1 5 5 Reservoir area 2 1 1 2 1 1 5 5 Barrier influence of dam 4 2 2 4 2 2 10 10 Biotic interference 2 1 1 2 1 1 5 5 Barrier influence due to roads 2 1 1 2 1 1 5 5 Forest area diverted 2 1 1 2 1 1 5 5

Total Score 16 8 8 16 8 8 40 40

Impact Receptors

Impa

ct S

ourc

es

RET species

Endemic species

Species in WPA

Habitat specialists

Species richness

Habitat diversity

Breeding/ congregational

sites Migratory corridors

Volume of diverted water 6 3 3 6 3 6 15 15 Diverted river length 4 2 2 4 2 4 10 10 Reservoir area 6 3 3 6 3 6 15 15 Barrier influence of dam 2 1 1 2 1 2 5 5 Biotic interference 4 2 2 4 2 4 10 10 Barrier influence due to roads 4 2 2 4 2 4 10 10 Forest area diverted 4 2 2 4 2 4 10 10

Total Score 28 14 14 28 14 28 70 70

61

Table 6.5. Impact matrix for the Kotlibhel IB project

Impact Receptors Im

pact

Sou

rces

RET species Endemic

species Species in WPA

Habitat specialists

Species richness

Habitat diversity

Breeding/ congregational

sites Migratory corridors

Volume of diverted water 2 2 2 4 4 2 10 10 Diverted river length 2 2 2 4 4 2 10 10 Reservoir area 2 2 2 4 4 2 10 10 Barrier influence of dam 2 2 2 4 4 2 10 10 Biotic interference 2 2 2 4 4 2 10 10 Barrier influence due to roads 1 1 1 2 2 1 5 5 Forest area diverted 2 2 2 4 4 2 10 10

Total Score 13 13 13 26 26 13 65 65

Table 6.6. Impact matrix for the Vishnugad-Pipalkoti project

Impact Receptors

Impa

ct S

ourc

es

RET species

Endemic species

Species in WPA

Habitat specialists

Species richness

Habitat diversity

Breeding/ congregational

sites Migratory corridors

Volume of diverted water 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Diverted river length 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Reservoir area 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Barrier influence of dam 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 Biotic interference 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Barrier influence due to roads 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Forest area diverted 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Total Score 10 10 10 10 10 10 11 11

62

Table 6.7. Impact matrix for the Alaknanda-Badrinath project

Impact Receptors Im

pact

Sou

rces

RET species

Endemic species

Species in WPA

Habitat specialists

Species richness

Habitat diversity

Breeding/ congregational

sites Migratory corridors

Volume of diverted water 2 3 2 1 2 1 5 1 Diverted river length 2 3 2 1 2 1 5 1 Reservoir area 2 3 2 1 2 1 5 1 Barrier influence of dam 2 3 2 1 2 1 5 1 Biotic interference 2 3 2 1 2 1 5 1 Barrier influence due to roads 2 3 2 1 2 1 5 1 Forest area diverted 2 3 2 1 2 1 5 1

Total Score 14 21 14 7 14 7 35 7

Table 6.8.Cumulative impact score the five projects

Kotlibhel IA Kotlibhel IB Kotlibhel II Vishnugad-Pipalkoti Alaknanda-Badrinath

Biodiversity Value 18 18 19 08 17

Impact Sources 08 13 15 11 07

Impact Score 144 234 285 88 119

Conservation Importance* 1 1 2 1 3

Cumulative Score 144 234 570 88 357

* Conservation Importance indicates the proximity to the PA/Heritage Site, with a scale of 1 to 5.

63

6.1.1 Impacts on Terrestrial Biodiversity The impacts on terrestrial biodiversity could be gauged from the reduction in the habitat loss and fragmentation caused by these projects. Using the available statistics from the existing documents and broad assessment of the area using the forest cover maps, it is clear that atleast, ca.1500 ha of forest area would be lost to the projects. The figure would be higher if various impact sources identified within Zone of Influence are taken into consideration. This would be presented in the final report after undertaking surface analysis based on forest cover/forest types maps draped on elevation map, which being not readily available would be prepared as a part of this project. However, the present information provided in this interim report does not handicap the general observations and linkages with biodiversity values affected by these projects. 6.1.1.1 Kotlibhel IA, IB and II hydro-electric projects

The tract between Byasi and a few kilometers above Deoprayag, where Kotlibhel hydro-electric projects (IA, IB and II) are proposed, supports a few intact patches of dense riverine forests, scattered hill woodland and steep grassy slopes. Populations of an endangered Red Data Book (RDB) species i.e., Catamixis baccharoides (Asteraceae) has been located in this area. In the event of this project coming up, this species would be affected negatively. In addition, these riverine forests and grassy slopes serve as excellent habitats for species like goat antelope (Nemorrhaedus goral), barking deer (Muntiacus

muntjak), Kalij pheasant (Lophura leucomelanos) and also serve as migration pathways/corridors for a variety of altitudinal migrants, especially the bird groups. Therefore, even though the project areas of Kotlibhel IA, IB and II hydro-electric projects do not form a part of any existing or proposed Protected Area, they do encompass susbstantial wildlife habitats for many mammal and bird species including RET species. Although these projects may not reduce the value of RET mammal and bird species siginificantly, as these are widely distributed in the region. However, the fact that other biodiversity values such as diverse habitat types including considerable proportion of riverine patches (that are unique), and habitat continguity for altitudinal migrants will be compromised by these projects particularly by Kotlibhel II and Kotlibhel IB.

6.1.1.2 Vishnugad-Pipalkoti hydro-electric project

Vishnugad-Pipalkoti project falls within the 10 km aerial radius from the boundary of Kedarnath Wildlife Sanctuary (WS). Given the distance, it is unlikely that this particular project will undermine the value of wildlife habitats/species of the PA, as the project site is at about 1,000m on river Alaknanda and there

are a few mountain ridges from the project site to the boundary of the Kedarnath WS. However, the

64

hydro-electric project area has predominantly secondary scrub and steep grassy slopes on either bank that are habitats for the endangered Cheer pheasant, which a Vulnerable Species (IUCN RDB), listed in the Schedule I of IWPA and is a evolutionary relict (meaning that it does not have any close relatives in the evolutionary scale). These vegetation categories have long been subjected to intensive cutting and annual cool season burning. Presently, the distribution and population status of Cheer pheasant in this area is very poor, largely due to habitat degradation and loss as a result of increasing anthropogenic pressures and developmental activities in the area. The major impact of the hydro-electric project in this area would be the loss of fodder and fuel wood resources extracted by the local communities from the project area and inevitable reduction and further degradation of valuable wildlife habitats for mammals and ground dwelling bird species.

6.1.1.3 Alaknanda-Badrinath hydro-electric project The Alaknanda-Badrinath hydro-electric project is located in the buffer zone of Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve (BR) which has two core zones the Nanda Devi National Park (NP) and Valley of Flowers NP. Both the core zones are inscribed as UNESCO’s World Heritage Site (WHS). The conservation status of the core zones and management success in Nanda Devi BR has been evaluated as excellent (Sathyakumar, 1993, 2004, Kala 2004). However, concerns have been raised regarding the development of many hydro-electric projects within the buffer zone of Nanda Devi BR (Green and Peard 2005) as such activities are likely to compromise the integrity of WHS and connectivity between the two core zones. The buffer zone and transition zones of Nanda Devi BR encompass an area of over 5,500 km2 and spans across three districts viz., Chamoli, Pithoragarh and Bageshwar. Of these, the buffer zone in Chamoli district encompasses a wide range of altitude (1,300m to 6,500m) and diverse wildlife habitats thereby providing connectivity between the two core zones for large carnivores such as the endangered snow leopard and Asiatic black bear (Fig.6.1). The Alaknanda-Badrinath hydro-electric project also falls in the eastern most distribution limits of the endangered Himalayan brown bear. The snow leopard has been reported to occur in Badrinath-Mana and adjacent areas, Khiron valley, Valley of Flowers NP and its upper reaches in the Alaknanda Valley. In Dhauliganga valley, it is reported from Nanda Devi NP and its adjacent areas, Ghamsali, Malari-Lapthal, and Girthiganga areas. Anthropogenic pressures in the buffer zone are at low levels and largely confined to areas in and around the few villages and alpine rangelands thereby providing connectivity between core zones by the movement of large carnivores such as the snow leopard – the apex predator of the high Himalayan

65

ecosystems. The need for large contiguous landscapes for conservation of the snow leopard has been emphasized under the Government of India’s initiative, the Project Snow Leopard (PSL 2006). Similarly, the Himalayan brown bear is a large carnivore that occurs in low densities along a narrow strip (3,000 to 5,000m) in the western Himalayan range in the States of Jammu & Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand (Sathyakumar 2006). The eastern most distribution limit for this species is the Chamoli district in Uttarakhand. Brown bears have been sighted west and east of the proposed hydro-electric project. To the west of the proposed hydro-electric project, brown bear has been recorded from Rudranath in Kedarnath WS, and Khiron Valley. To the east of the proposed hydro-electric project, the brown bear has been recorded from Kaghbusandi, and in and around Valley of

Flowers NP (Fig. 6.1). The current levels of high pilgrim movement during summer months, developmental activities such as building of roads and infrastructure in the area, the Vishnuprayag hydro-electric project have already led to heavy disturbances in the stretch between Vishnuprayag and Badrinath. The proposed Alaknanda-Badrinath hydro-electric project and Khiron ganga hydro-electric project falls in the same stretch and these additional developments may pose a serious threat to the existence and movement of species such as the snow leopard and brown bear.

This area supports seven out of 16 RDB plant species reported from Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve. These include: Cyananthus integer, Gentiana crassuloides, Schizandra grandiflora, Allium stracheyi,

Acer caesium, Calanthe alpina and Oreorchis indica. Little below the project site, close to Pandukeshar, there are a few individuals (<10) of a rare tree Michelia kisopa, which is confined mainly to this valley in Uttarakhand. Hence, the construction of Alaknanda-Badrinath hydro-electric project is likely to cause severe fragmentation and degradation of important wildlife habitats as well as habitat of above mentioned RET species.

66

Fig. 6.1 An image showing parts of the buffer zone of Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve in Uttarakhand and the location of the proposed Alaknanda -Badrinath hydroelectric project. The

locations of reported sightings of the Snow Leopard and the Himalayan brown bear are also shown highlighting the importance of connectivity and corridors for movement of these large

carnivores.

6.1.2 Impacts on Aquatic Biodiversity Zone of Influence of all the project sites were subjected to a scoring system, which has about 26 prescribed indicators under six criteria formulated following National and International guidance (Table 6.9) to understand the biological value of the area.

Table 6.9 Criteria and indicators used to predict the impacts of hydro projects on fish biodiversity.

Criteria

Indicators (in the Zone of Influence of respective project) Threshold Score

I. Fish

Biod

ivers

ity A. Percentage of total number of species occur in the

Zone of Influence in relation with total available None 1

1 to 25% 2

67

species in the basin 26 to 50% 3

51 to 75% 4

>76% 5

B. Percentage of total number of migratory species occur in the Zone of Influence in relation with total available species in the basin

None 1

1 to 25% 2

26 to 50% 3

51 to 75% 4

>76% 5

C. Percentage of Globally threatened species (As per NBFGR) occur in relation with total available threatened species in the basin

None 1

1 to 25% 2

26 to 50% 3

51 to 75% 4

>76% 5

D. Percentage of Regionally threatened species (As per WPA, 1972) occur in relation with total available regionally threatened species in the basin

None 1

1 to 25% 2

26 to 50% 3

51 to 75% 4

>76% 5

I. Fish

Biod

iversi

ty

uniqu

enes

s

E. Percentage of Restricted Range of species occur in relation with total available restricted range species in the basin

None 1

1 to 25% 2

26 to 50% 3

51 to 75% 4

68

>76% 5

F. Percentage of Endemic species occur in relation with total available endemic species in the basin

None 0

1 to 3 1

4 to 8 2

>9 3

G. Nursery and Breeding site provisions for species of conservation significance

None 1

1 to 25% 2

26 to 50% 3

51 to 75% 4

>76% 5

H. Congregation area for migratory species Yes 5

No 1

Criteria

Indicators (in the Zone of Influence of respective project) Threshold Score

II.Ri

ver e

cosy

stem

resil

ience

A. Area (km2) <5 km 1

6-10 2

11-15 3

16-20 4

>20 5

B. Ecosystem contiguity Continuous 5

Separate patches

1

69

C. Habitat diversity 1 to 2 1

3 to 4 2

5 to 6 3

7 to 8 4

> 8 5

D. Adequacy of the site to maintain ecosystem level processes (nutrient flow, etc)

Adequate 5

Needs addition

3

No 1

E. Availability of Invasive Species None 5

1 to 2 4

3 to 4 3

5 to 6 2

> 8 1

III. L

ife S

uppo

rt Sy

stems

/ fun

ction

A. Freshwater discharge/ recharge function Significant 5

Marginal 3

Not al all 1

B. Erosion control Significant 5

Marginal 3

Not al all 1

This project is aimed to assess the fish faunal value of almost all existing, under construction and proposed hydro projects in the Alaknanda and Bhagirathi basins to predict the impact threshold.

70

However, as requested by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, this interim report focused on five projects and predicted impacts on fish diversity. Among assessed five hydro projects, the Kotilibhel II expected to be having very high impact on fish diversity as the Zone of Influence of this project having very high fish diversity value as well as going to adversely impact the one of the better fish breeding ground of the basin (Nayar River). Followed by Kotlibhel II, the Kotlibhel IB is predicted to have high impact on fish diversity. Impact of other three projects on fish biodiversity either medium or low (Table 6.10)

Table 6.10 Scoring and Prediction of impact on fish diversity

Indicators Kotlibhel IA (Bhagirathi)

Kotlibhel IB (Alaknanda)

Kotlibhel II (Ganga)

Vishnugad Pipalkoti

Badrinath-Alaknanda

Percentage of Total Number of Species

5 5 5 3 1

Percentage of Total Number of Migratory Species

5 5 5 3 1

Percentage of Globally Threatened Species

4 4 5 3 1

Percentage of Regionally Threatened Species (As per WPA, 1972)

1 1 1 1 1

Percentage of Restricted Range Species

4 4 5 2 1

Percentage of Endemic Species

1 3 3 1 1

Nursery and Breeding Site Provisions

3 4 5 3 1

Congregation Area for Migratory Species

1 1 5 1 1

Habitat Area Availability 3 3 5 2 1

Ecosystem Contiguity 5 5 5 1 1

Habitat Diversity 2 2 4 1 1

Adequacy of the Site to Maintain Ecosystem Processes

3 3 5 3 3

71

Availability of Invasive Species

1 3 3 5 5

Freshwater Discharge/ Recharge Function

- - - - -

Erosion Control - - - - -

Cultural Value 3 3 5 3 3

Religious Value 5 5 5 3 3

Aesthetic Value 5 5 5 3 3

Fisheries 1 3 5 1 1

Ecotourism Prospects 3 3 5 3 1

Support for Agriculture 3 3 5 3 1

Sum of Indicator Scores 58 65 86 45 31

Maximum Possible Sum of Scores

95 95 95 95 95

Percent of Maximum 61 68 91 47 33

Impact Class on Fish Diversity C B A C D

Predicted Impact Medium High Very High

Medium Low

6.1.3. Changes in environmental flows

It is increasingly recognized that the distribution and abundance of riverine species are limited by the effects of flow regulation (Sivakumar & Choudhury, 2008). A strong correlation exists between stream flow and a river’s physicochemical characteristics such as water temperature and habitat diversity. Research in the distributional ecology of fishes suggests that fish assemblages form in response to the physiochemical factors of the environment. Change in the assemblage structure of stream fishes or species composition is imposed by temporal variation in stream flow, which ultimately affects the entire biodiversity of the river ecosystem. However, ever increasing human population requires water for drinking, agriculture etc. These water requirements are largely compensated by the rivers of India, which ultimately jeopardizes many rivers and the biodiversity present in their basins. Therefore, it becomes necessary to estimate the Minimum Environmental Water Flow and Minimum Environmental Water Level for rivers with reference to their biodiversity and its hydrological regime. Fig 6.2 shows the flows estimated for Ganga and its tributaries.

72

Minimum Environmental Flows

Environmental flows are flows that are left in, or released into, a river system with the specific purpose of managing some aspect of its condition. Their purpose could be as general as maintenance of a ‘healthy’ riverine ecosystem, or as specific as enhancing the survival chances of a threatened fish species and other associated fauna. The flow regime is one of the important components of the river ecosystem, which reflecting its health, geographic location and the geological and topographic features of the area. Ecosystem components such as channel morphology and patterns, water chemistry and temperature and the biotas of channel, bank and associated wetlands, reflect the nature of the river’s flow pattern. In rivers where this flow pattern has been altered by man, all of these components are likely to change from their historical condition, with the degree to which this happens reflecting the severity of the flow manipulation. As far as fishes concern, water flow is one of the important limiting factors for distribution and abundance of reophilic species. Most of the riverian fishes are attracted towards flow for two important reasons, i). To get more dissolved oxygen and ii) flowing water carries lot of drifted materials from upstream, which may serve as main food for may fishes. Natural flow during different seasons will stimulate the reproductive system of aquatic organism and facilities spawning related activities. A modified flow pattern in stream and river brings adverse effects on water quality, species diversity, distribution, migration, spawning and survival of many aquatic organisms.

Suitable river flow is necessary for maintaining the health, function and integrity of the river ecosystems. Moreover, seasonal variations in the flow are equally important to maintain the life history cycle of aquatic biodiversity exists in any river ecosystem. The major aquatic biotic components of Alaknanda-

Bhagirathi basin up to Rishikesh are periphyton, phytoplankton, macrophytes, zooplankton, benthic macroinvertebrates, fish, few reptiles and birds. The only aquatic mammal reported in the basin was otter but its distribution is doubtful nowadays. Changes in environmental flow regime due to hydropower projects should not adversely influence these aquatic fauna and flora.

Several studies have been conducted on the water quality and aquatic biodiversity of Bhagirathi (Sharma 1983; 1984, 1985, 1986;), Bhilangana (Sharma et al. 1990), Alaknanda (Singh and Sharma 1998), Dahuliganga (Sharma et al. 2004), Tons (Sharma et al. 2008b) and Asan (Sharma and Rawat 2009). However, there was no information is available on the precise hydrological requirements of the organisms dwelling habitats of the upper Ganga. Thus, it is possible to provide minimum environmental flow required for different fish communities which occur in different fish zones by studying their spatial distributions with supporting data on immediate habitats.

73

Fig 6.2. Line diagram of Ganga and its major tributaries (Numbers are average flows in MCM-million cubic meters (Source: IIT-Roorkee)

Assessment of Ecological status of Alaknanda and Bhagirathi basin

Normally, the ecological status of a river assessed based on the environmental management class of that river. The definition of the environmental management class (EMC) should be based on existing empirical relationships between flow changes and ecological status/conditions, which are associated

with clearly identifiable thresholds (Smakhtin, et al. 2007). Limited evidence or knowledge is available of such thresholds (e.g., Beecher 1990). In this connection, EMC is a management concept that has been developed and used in the world because of a need to make decisions regardless of the limited lucid hydro-ecological knowledge available. In these conditions of uncertainty with regard to which EMC is required for a particular river, the EMCs may be used as default ‘scenarios’ of environmental protection and associated environmental flows—as ‘scenarios’ of environmental water demand (Smakhtin and Anputhas 2006). It is possible to estimate environmental demand corresponding to all or any of such default EMCs and then consider which one is the most feasible for a river in question, given the existing and future basin developments. We followed the methodology prescribed by the International Water Management Institute (Vladimir, et al. 2007) to assess the environmental management class of the Alaknanda and Bhagirathi Rivers and their basins (Table 6.11).

74

Table 6.11 Ecological status of Alaknanda and Bhagirathi basins

Indicator Alaknanda Bhagirathi Entire Study Area

Rare and endangered aquatic biota 3 3 3

Unique aquatic biota 5 5 5

Diversity of Aquatic Habitats 3 3 4

Presence of protected or pristine areas 2 3 3

Sensitivity of aquatic ecosystems to flow reduction 4 4 4

Percentage of watershed remaining

under natural vegetation 4 4 4

Percentage of floodplains remaining

under natural vegetation (or % of

floodplains remaining)

4 4 4

The degree of flow regulation 2 1 2

Percentage of watershed closed to

movement of aquatic biota by structures

or degree of flow fragmentation

2 2 2

Percentage of aquatic biota that are exotic 4 4 4

Aquatic species’ relative richness 4 4 5

Human population density as % of that in

the main floodplains 2 2 2

Overall water quality 5 5 5

Sum of Indicator Scores 44 44 47

75

Maximum Possible Sum of Scores 65 65 65

Maximum Possible Sum of Scores 68 68 72

Probable Environment Management Class C C C

76

7.0 Interim Findings

7.1 Interim findings on impacts on biodiversity at the five project sites

In this chapter, a synthesis of findings discussed in the chapter 5.0 and 6.0 is provided, in order to reemphasize the consequences of the development of these projects on wildlife species and their habitats. It also highlights pertinent issues that provide certain scientific basis for taking future course of action. These findings are presented in the following sub-sections, looking into individual projects covered in this interim progress report.

7.1.1 Kotlibhel IA, IB & II hydro-electric projects

As described in section 6.1.1.1, the Kotlibhel IA, IB and II projects would negatively affect endangered floral species such as Catamixis baccharoides. Moreover, these project sites harbor riverine forests and grassy slopes that are excellent habitats and migration pathways/corridors for a variety of wildlife

species. On a relative scale, Kotlibhel II and Kotlibhel IB will have significant threats to terrestrial biodiversity compared to Kotlibhel IA.

As far as aquatic fauna is concerned, richest fish diversity with greater number of threatened species was recorded in the Zone of Influence of Kotlibhel II and Kotlibhel IB projects. The Ganges stretch between Devprayag and Rishikesh including Nayar River is the only available undisturbed Critical Habitat for several threatened fishes, especially mahseer and snow-trout in the Garhwal Himalaya. The

catchment between Rishikesh and Devprayag, including Nayar River needs to be free of projects and should be declared as a ‘Conservation Reserve' to ensure protection of fish fauna and the unique riverine forests which exist in this region. Any hydro-electric projects in this region, such as the proposed Kotlibhel II project, will cause irreversible damage to the aquatic biodiversity. Additionally, Kotlibhel IA and Kotlibhel IB projects will act as barriers for migratory species. 7.1.2 Vishnugad-Pipalkoti hydro-electric project

Reiterating the facts presented in section 6.1.1.2, the Vishnugad-Pipalkoti project wil have negative impacts on the availability of fodder and fuel wood resources to the local communities from this area. It will cause loss of habitat for important species such as Cheer pheasant.

Fish diversity including threatened species was found to be comparatively less in the Pipalkoti region than in other proposed sites (e.g. Kotlibhel IA, 1B and II). However, this project would act as a barrier for migratory species. Suitable measures would have to be proposed to facilitate the upward migration

77

of fishes at least during the monsoon. Other negative impacts on terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity are amenable to mitigation if appropriate measures are put in place. 7.1.3 Alaknanda-Badrinath hydro-electric project

Construction of Alaknanda-Badrinath hydro-electric project is likely to cause severe fragmentation and degradation of important wildlife habitats as well as habitat of RET floral species such as Michelia

kisopa, Cyananthus integer, Gentiana crassuloides, Schizandra grandiflora, Allium stracheyi, Acer

caesium, Calanthe alpina and Oreorchis indica. It is important to restate that the Alaknanda-Badrinath hydro-electric project is located in the buffer zone of Nanda Devi BR in the stretch between Vishnuprayag and Badrinath. Other significant consideration is that the current levels of disturbances due to pilgrim movements during summer, road building, the existing Vishnuprayag hydro-electric project, and infrastructure developments in this stretch, have already seriously threatened the Outstanding Universal Values (OUVs) of the Valley of Flowers NP, a World Heritage Site. This WHS is globally recognized for its ‘exceptional beauty, floral biodiversity and aesthetic values’. In order to preserve these OUVs of the WHS, the Uttarakhand State had declared a buffer zone which is also required to be conserved and sustainably used as the integrity of the WHS is very much dependent upon the integrity of the buffer zone also. Numerous developmental activities and disturbances in the buffer zone are a serious threat to the maintenance of the OUVs of this WHS. Moreover, some of these developments are of ‘irreplaceable value’ such as ‘a flowing Alaknanda river’. Further, due to the current levels of developments and disturbances in this region, only a very small stretch of undisturbed wilderness area is left as a corridor (between Vishnuprayag hydro-electric project and Badrinath) for use by wildlife. Therefore, the impacts of the proposed Alaknanda –Badrinath hydro-electric project should not be viewed in isolation and an assessment of all the existing and proposed hydro-electric projects in this stretch of the river between Vishnuprayag and Badrinath would have to be looked in a cumulative manner. Any further developmental activities in the form of proposed hydro-electric projects on the rivers Alaknanda, Khiron ganga and Laxman ganga (Pulna hydro-electric project) will seriously affect the OUVs of the WHS due to cumulative impacts.

The proposed Badrinath and Khiron ganga hydro-electric projects will seriously hamper the movement of species such as the snow leopard and brown bear in Nanda Devi BR as this is the only remaining stretch that is an important corridor for movement of these species. As the rare and endangered brown bear has its eastern most distribution limits in this area, the proposed hydro-electric projects and other developmental activities will further lead to habitat loss and degradation, and consequently shrinkage of the distribution range of this species.

78

As for the fish diversity, there were no fish species reported on the stretch of Alaknanda between Vishnuprayag and Badrinath.

7.2 Interim findings on Environmental flows

Preliminary assessment reveals that the habitats and dynamics of the biota in the Alaknanda and Bhagirathi basins have already been disturbed. Some sensitive species are either lost and/or reduced

in extent, and alien species have also invaded these basins. A total of seven fish sub-zones have been identified in these entire basins based on composition of fish communities. These are (1) Lower and Upper Bhagirathi, (2) Lower Alaknanda, (3) Upper Alaknanda, (4) Ganges between Devprayag and Rishikesh including Nayar, (5) Bhilanganga, (6) Mandakini and (7) Pindari river stretches. IIT-Roorkee has already estimated the Minimum Environmental Flow required in different sections of these basins. However, Wildlife Institute of India would review the suggested flows in the context of life history traits of various fish species especially mahseer and snow-trouts once this information is available. In this connection, the IIT-R has already been requested to provide the required flow data which they have collected from the CWC and other sources. Once the flow data is made available, the Minimum Environmental Flow would be calculated for specific species on spatial (i.e. fish sub-zones) and temporal scales (i.e. seasons).

In a nutshell, it is evident that all the five projects involve loss and reduction of forest cover and wildlife values from submergence, land clearing or exploitation. However, of these five projects, three projects namely Kotlibhel II, Alaknanda-Badrinath and Kotlibhel IB support significant ecological/wildlife values that include irreplaceable components. Any form of development in these areas will have irreversible and unmitigable negative impacts on these values. With regard to the other two projects (Kotlibhel IA and Vishnugad-Pipalkoti), the overall impacts on biodiversity values are relatively less. However, unless adequate mitigative measures are put in place with assured compliance, damage to the biodiversity value in the region would be compromised.

79

REFERENCES

Acreman, M. and Dunbar M.J. (2004). Defining environmental flow requiremnents- a review. Hydrology and Earth

system sciences, 8(5):861-876.

Adams, W. (2000) Downstream impacts of dams. World Commission on Dams. Available from http://www.dams.org/docs/kbase/contrib/soc195.pdf .

Agarwal, S., Sathyakumar, S., and Rana, M.S. (1998). An annotated bibliography on Musk deer. Wildlife Institute of India, Dehra Dun.

Ali, S., and Ripley, S.D. (1983). Handbook of the birds of India and Pakistan. Compact Edition. Oxford University Press, Bombay.

Arthington, A.H., Lorenzen, K., Pusey, B.J., Abell, R., Halls, A., Winemiller, K.O., Arrington, D.A., and Baran, E. (2004). River fisheries: ecological basis for management and conservation. In: Proceedings of the

Second International Symposium on the Management of Large Rivers for Fisheries Volume I. Welcomme, R. and T. Petr, Eds, FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok, Thailand. RAP Publication 2004/16, pp 21-60

Arthington, A.H., Welcomme, R.L. (1995). The condition of large river systems of the world. Proceedings of the World Fisheries Congress (Ed. C.W. Voigtlander). Oxford and IBH Publishing Co Pty Ltd., New Delhi. Chapter 4, pp 44-75

Badola, S.P. (2001). Fishes of Uttaranchal. Srinagar.

Beecher, H. A. (1990). ‘Standards for instream flows’. Rivers 1: 97–109

Berkamp, G., McCartney, M., Dugan, P., McNeely, J., Acreman, M. (2000). Dams, Ecosystem Functions and Environmental Restoration. Thematic Review II.1 prepared as an input to the World Commission on Dams, Cape Town, www.dams.org

Bhatnagar, Y.V., Mathur, V.B. and McCarthy, T. (2002). A Regional Perspective for Snow Leopard Conservation in the Indian Trans-Himalaya In: Sathyakumar, S. and Bhatnagar, Y.V. (Eds.) ENVIS Bulletin: Wildlife and

Protected Areas, 1(1):57-76.

Bhattacharya, T. and Sathyakumar, S. (2007). An ornithological survey of Chenab Valley, Chamoli district, Uttaranchal, including notes on pheasants. Indian Birds. 3(4):138-145.

Bhattacharya, T. and Sathyakumar, S. (2008). Abundance, Group Sizes and Habitat Use Patterns of Himalayan tahr (Hemitragus jemlahicus) and Goral (Nemorhaedus goral) in Chenab Valley, Chamoli District (Uttarakhand). The Indian Forester, 134(10):1359- 370.

Bhattacharya, T., Sathyakumar, S. and Rawat, G.S. (2006). Studies on the Animal – Habitat interactions in the

buffer zone of Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve. Final Report to the Ministry of Environment and Forests,

80

Govt. of India. New Delhi. 103 pp.

Bhattacharya, T., Sathyakumar, S., and Rawat, G. S. (2009). Distribution and abundance of Galliformes in response to anthropogenic pressures in the buffer zone of Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve. International

Journal of Galliformes Conservation, 1:78-84.

Bibby, C.J., Burgess, N.D., Hill, D.A., and Mustoe, S.H. (2000). Bird Census Techniques. 2nd ed. Academic Press, London.

Bilgrami, K.S., Datta Munshi, J.S. (1985). Ecology of River Ganges (Patna-Farakka); Impact of human activities

and conservation of aquatic biota. Final Technical Report, Department of Environment Research Project under MAB Programme

Brismar, A. (2004). Attention to impact pathways in EISs of large dam projects. Environ Impact Assess Rev, 24:59–87.

Canter, L. (1999) Cumulative Effects Assessment, in: Petts, J. (ed.) Handbook of Environmental Impact

Assessment, Volume 1, Environmental Impact Assessment: Process, Methods and Potential, Blackwell Science, Oxford, 405 – 440.

Canter, L.W. (2008). Conceptual models, matrices, networks, and adaptive management– emerging methods for

CEA. Presented at Assessing and Managing Cumulative Environmental Effects, Special Topic Meeting, International Association for Impact Assessment, November 6-9, 2008, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

Canter, L.W. and Sadler, B. (1997) A Toolkit for Effective EIA Practice – Review of Methods and Perspectives on

their Application. A Supplementary Report of the International Study of Effectiveness of Environmental Assessment. International Association of Impact Assessment.

Council on Environmental Quality. (1997). Considering Cumulative Effects under the National Environmental

Policy Act. Executive office of the President of the United States, Washington DC.

Court, J.D., Wright, C.J. and Guthrie, A.C. (1994). Assessment of Cumulative Impacts and Strategic Assessment

in Environmental Impact Assessment. Document prepared for Commonwealth Environmental Protection Agency by J D Court and Associates Pty Ltd and Guthrie Consulting, Commonwealth of Australia. Day 1875-1878; 1889;

Curtis, J.T. and Cottam, G. (1956). Plant Ecology Work Book. Laboratory Field Reference Manual. Burges Publishing Co. Minnesota.

Das, M.K., Samanta, S., and Saha, P.K. (2007). Riverine Health and Impact on Fisheries in India. Policy Paper No. 01, Central Inland Fisheries Research Institute, Barrackpore, Kolkata

De Silva, S.S., Abery, N.W. (2007). Endemic Freshwater finfish of Asia: distribution and conservation status. Diversity and Distribution, 13:172-174

81

Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, DEAT. (2004). Cumulative Effects Assessment, Integrated

Environmental Management, Information Series 7, Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT), Pretoria.

Dickert, T.G. and A.E. Tuttle. (1985). Cumulative Impact Assessment in Environmental Planning – A Coastal Wetland Watershed Example. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 5: 37-6

Dudgeon, D., Arthington, A.H., Gessner, M.O., Kawabata, Z., Knowler, D., Leveque, C., Naiman, R.J., Prieur Richard, A.H., Soto, D., and Stiassny, M. L. J. (2005). Freshwater biodiversity: importance, threats, status, and conservation challenges. Biological Reviews, 81: 163–182.

Dynesius, M. and Nilsson, C. (1994). Fragmentation and Flow Regulation of River Systems in the Northern Third of the World. Science, 266:753-762.

Estes, C.C., Orsborn, J.F. (1986). Review and analysis of methods for quantifying instream flow requirements. Water Resources Bulletin, 22(3): 389–398

FSI, 2007. State of Forest Report, 2005. Forest Survey of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India.

Gleick, P.H., Cooley, H., Katz, D., Lee, E., Morrison, J., Palaniyappan, M., et al.( 2007). The World's Water

2006–2007: the Biennial Report on Freshwater Resources. Pacific institution for studies in development, environment and security.

Goldsmith, E. and Hildyard N. (1984). The Social and Environmental Effects of Large Dams. SanFrancisco, CA, USA:A Sierra Club Book. 404 pp.

Gopal, B., (2000). River Conservation in the Indian subcontinent. In: Global Perspectives on River Conservation: Science, Policy and Practice. Edited by P. J. Boon, B. R. Davies and G. E. Pelts. Wiley and Sons Ltd. 233 – 261

GMR Pvt. Ltd. Environment Impact Assessment and management plan for Alaknanda hydroelectric project. Prepared by CISME, New Delhi.

Graf, W.L. (1999). Dam Nation: A geographic census of American dams and their large-scale hydrologic impacts. Water Resources Research, 35(4): 1305-1311

Green, M. and Peard, G. (2005). World Heritage Nomination IUCN Summary: Valley of Flowers National Park

(India). IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.

Green, M.J.B. (1986b). The birds of Kedarnath Sanctuary, Chamoli district, Uttar Pradesh: status and distribution. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society, 83:603-617

Green, M.J.B. 1986a. The distribution, status and conservation of the Himalayan Musk Deer Moschus

82

chrysogaster. Biological Conservation, 35(4): 347–375.

Grimmett, R., Inskipp ,C. and Inskipp, T. (2003). Pocket Guide to the Birds of the Indian Subcontinent. OUP New Delhi, 1999, softcover 384 p.

Hamilton-Buchanan, F. (1822). An account of the fishes found in the river Ganges and its branches. Edinburgh and London.

Hegmann, G., Cocklin, C., Creasey, R., Dupuis, S., Kennedy, A., Kingsley, L., Ross, W., Spaling, H. And Stalker,

D. (1999) Cumulative Effects Assessment Practitioners Guide, Prepared by AXYS Environmental Consulting Ltd. and the CEA Working Group for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, Hull, Quebec.

Hora ,S.L. (1929). An aid to the study of Hamilton-Buchanan’s “Gangetic fishes”. Mem. Indian Mus.. 9:169-192

Horak, G.C., Vlachos, E.C. and Cline, E.W. (1983). Methodological Guidance for Assessing Cumulative Impacts

on Fish and Wildlife. Prepared for the U.S. Department of the Interior, Eastern Energy and Land Use Team, Kearneysville, West Virginia. 102 pp

Hughes, D.A. and Louw, D. (2010). Integrating hydrology, hydraulics and ecological response into a flexible approach to the determination of environmental water requirements for rivers. Environmental Modelling

and Software, 25, 910-918

Indian Institute of Techology, IIT Roorkee. (2011). Assessment of Cumulative Impacts of Hydroelectric projects in Alaknanda-Bhagirathi basins. Report prepared by AHEC, IIT, Roorkee. Submitted to the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Govt. of India.

Irving, J., and Bain, M. (1989). Assessing cumulative impact on fish and wildlife in the Salmon River, Idaho. In The Scientific Challenges of NEPA: Future Directions Based on 20 Years of Experience, S. Hildebrand and J. Cannon (eds). Chelsea, MI: Lewis Publishers.

Joshi, M.C. (2007). Hydro Power Potential in Uttarakhand. International Conference on Small Hydropower - Hydro Sri Lank a, 22-24 October 2007. Available at <http://www.ahec.org.in/links/International%20conference%20on%20SHP%20Kandy%20Srilan a%20All%20Details/Papers/Policy,%20Investor%20and%20Operational%20Aspects-C/C29.pdf> downloaded on 15th May 2011

Junk, W.J., Bayley, P.B. and Sparks, R.E. (1989). The Flood Pulse Concept in River-Floodplain Systems in Doge, D.P. (ed) Proceedings of the International Large River Symposium (LARS). Can. J. Fish. Aquat.

Sci., 106: 110-127

83

Kala, C. P. (2004). The Valley of Flowers: Myth and Reality. International Book Distributors, Dehradun,

Kent, M. and Coker, P. (1992). Vegetation Description and Analysis. John Wiley and Sons.

Khacher, L. (1978). The Nanda Devi Sanctuary-1977. Journal Bombay Natural History Society, 75:868-887

Kittur, S., Sathyakumar, S., and Rawat, G.S. (2010). Assessment of Spatial and Habitat Use Overlap between Himalayan tahr and Livestock in Kedarnath Wildlife Sanctuary, India. Eur. J. Wildl. Res. Springer Verlag., 56:195-204.

Lakra, W.S., Sarkar, U.K. (2009). Biodiversity of the Native Fish Fauna and their Conservation. In: Fish Souvenir, National Fisheries Development Board, Hyderabad, pp 36-43

Lakra, W.S., Sarkar, U.K., Gopalakrishnan, A., and Pandian, A.K. (2010). Threatened freshwater fishes of India. NBFGR publication, Lucknow, India

Lamba, B.S., (1987). Status Survey of fauna: Nanda Devi National Park (mammals and birds): Records of the Zoological Survey of India. Occasional Paper No. 103.

Lawrence, D.P. (1994) Cumulative effects assessment at the project level. Impact Assessment, 12:253-273.

Leopold, L.B., F.E. Clarke, B.B. Hanshaw, and Balsley, J.R. (1971). A Procedure for Evaluating Environmental

Impact. Geological Survey Circular No. 645. Washington D.C., United States Geological Survey

Lipsey, M.K. and Child, M.F. (2007). Combining the fields of reintroduction biology and restoration ecology. Conservation Biology , 21:1387–1388

Maheshwari, A. and Sharma, D. (2010). Snow Leopard Conservation in Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh. WWF-India, New Delhi, 67pp.

Malanson, G.P. (1993). Riparian Landscapes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Margules, R.C., and Pressey, L.R. (2000). Systematic conservation planning. Nature (London), 405: 243-253.

McAllister, D.E, Hamilton A.L., and Harvey, B. (1997). Global Freshwater Biodiversity: Striving for the Integrity of Freshwater Ecosystemsî, in Special Edition of Sea Wind-Bulletin of Ocean Voice International,11(3):1-140

McCully, P. (1996). Silenced Rivers: the ecology and politics of large dams. Zed Books, London. 350 pp

Morhardt ,J,E. (1986). Instream Flow Methodologies. EA-4819 Research Project 2194-2. Electric Power Research Institute: California.

Mueller-Dombois, D. and Ellenberg, H. (1974). Aims and Methods of Vegetation Ecology. John Wiley and Sons.

Natarajan, A.V. (1989). Environmental Impact of Ganga Basin development on gene-pool and fisheries of the Ganga River system. In: Dodge DP (ed.), Proceedings of the International Large River Symposium

Canadian Special Publication of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, pp 86-97

84

National Hydro Power Corporation, NHPC.. Comprehensive environment impact assessment & environment management plan for Kotlibhel IA hydroelectric project. Prepared by HNB Garhwal University. Srinagar

National Hydro Power Corporation, NHPC.. Comprehensive environment impact assessment & environment management plan for Kotlibhel IB hydroelectric project. Prepared by HNB Garhwal University, Srinagar

National Hydro Power Corporation, NHPC.. Comprehensive environment impact assessment & environment management plan for Kotlibhel II hydroelectric project. Prepared by ICFRE. Dehradun

Nautiyal, P., Bhatt, J.P., Rawat, V.S., Kishor, B., Nautiyal, R., and Singh, H.R. (1998). Himalayan Mahseer: Magnitude of commercial fishery in Garhwal hills. Fish Genetics and Biodiversity Conservation, 5: 107-114

Nautiyal, P., and Lal, M.S. (1984). Food and feeding habit of fingerlings and juveniles of mahseer Tor putitora

(Ham.) in Nayar River. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society , 81: 642-646

Nautiyal, P.,and Lal, M.S. (1985). Fecundity of golden Himalayan mahseer Tor putitora. Journal of Bombay

Natural History Society, 82(2): 253-257 Nayar, M. P. and Sastry, A.R.K. (1987). Red Data Book of Indian Plants – I. B.S.I. Howrah

Nayar, M. P. and Sastry, A.R.K. (1988). Red Data Book of Indian Plants – II. B.S.I. Howrah

Nayar, M. P. and Sastry, A.R.K. (1990). Red Data Book of Indian Plants – III. B.S.I. Howrah

Negi, S. S. (1995). Uttarakhand: land and people. M D Publications Pvt. Ltd New Delhi.Page 49

Nelson, J.S. 1976. Fishes of the World. Wiley-Interscience, New York 416 pp. ISBN 0-471-01497-4

Payne, A.I., Sinha, R.K., Singh, H.R., and Haq, S. (2004). A review of the Ganges Basin: its fish and fisheries. In: Welcomme RL, Peter T (eds.), Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on the Management

of Large Rivers for Fisheries, Vol. 1, FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok, Thailand, pp 229-251

Petts, G.E. (1996). Water Allocation to Protect River Ecosystems. Regulated Rivers: Research and

Management, 12: 353-365. Prater, S.H. (1980). The Book of Indian Animals. Bombay Natural History Society. Pp 324.

PSL. (2006). Towards Project Snow Leopard; report of the National Workshop on Project Snow Leopard. 10–11 July 2006, Leh, Ladakh, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India, Department of Wildlife Protection, Jammu and Kashmir, Nature Conservation Foundation and International Snow Leopard Trust, Mysore, India. Pp93.

Pusey, B.J., Arthington, A.H., Stewart-Koster, B., Kennard, M.J., and Read, M.G. (2010). Widespread omnivory and low temporal and spatial variation in the diet of fishes in a hydrologically variable northern Australian

85

river. J. Fish Biology, 77: 731–753

Reed, T.M. (1979). A contribution to the ornithology of the Rishi Ganga Valley and the Nanda Devi Sacntuary. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society, 76:275-282

Reid, L.M. (1998). Cumulative watershed effects and watershed analysis. In: Naiman R, Bilby R, editors. River

ecology and management: lessons from the pacific coastal ecoregion. NY: Springer-Verlag; 1998. p. 476–501.

Sadler, B and Verheem, R. (1996). Strategic Environmental Assessment: Status, Challenges and Future

Directions. Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment, Publication No. 53, The Hague, The Netherlands, and the International Study of Effectiveness of Environmental Assessment.

Sathyakumar, S and A.J.T.Johnsingh (in press). Himalayan Tahr. In: Johnsingh, A.J.T. and Manjrekar, N. (Eds.)

Mammals of South Asia. Permanent Black.

Sathyakumar, S and Bhatnagar, Y.V. (2002). Mountain Ungulates. ENVIS Bulletin: Wildlife and Protected Areas, 1(1):130.

Sathyakumar, S and Sivakumar, K. (2007). Galliformes of India. ENVIS Bulletin: Wildlife and Protected Areas,

10(1). Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun.

Sathyakumar, S. (1992). The Musk deer. Sanctuary, Asia. 12 (5): 52-57.

Sathyakumar, S. (1994). Habitat ecology of major ungulates in Kedarnath Musk deer Sanctuary, Western Himalaya. Ph.D. thesis, Saurashtra University, Rajkot

Sathyakumar, S. (1999a). Status and management of the Himalayan Brown bear in India. In: Servheen, C.,

Herrero, S., and Peyton, B (Compilers). Bears. Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan. IUCN/SSC

Bear and Polar Bear Specialist groups. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, U.K. :125-128.

Sathyakumar, S. (1999b). Status and management of the Asiatic Black bear in India. In: Servheen, C., Herrero,

S., and Peyton, B (Compilers). Bears. Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan. IUCN/SSC Bear and

Polar Bear Specialist groups. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, U.K. :202-207.

Sathyakumar, S. (2001a). Status and Management of Asiatic Black Bear and Brown Bear in India. Ursus, 12: 21-30.

Sathyakumar, S. (2001b). Musk Deer. In: MacDonald (Ed.). An Encyclopaedia of the Mammals of the World. Second Edition. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Pp. 502-503

Sathyakumar, S. (2004). Conservation status of Mammals and Birds in Nanda Devi National Park – An assessment of changes over two decades. In: Biodiversity Monitoring Expedition Nanda Devi 2003. A

Report to the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Govt. of India. Uttaranchal State Forest Department, Dehradun. 1-14 pp.

86

Sathyakumar, S. (2006). The status of brown bears in India. Understanding Asian bears to secure their future. pp: 7-11. Japan Bear Network, Ibaraki, Japan

Sathyakumar, S. (2006a). Status and Distribution of Himalayan Brown Bear (Ursus arctos isabellinus) in India: An assessment of changes over ten years. The Indian Forester,132(12(a)): 89-96.

Sathyakumar, S.(2006b). Martens, Weasels and Civets of North-western and Western Himalayas. The The

Indian Forester,132(12(a)):132-139.

Sathyakumar, S. and Bashir, T. (2010). Wildlife of the Himalaya: Conservation Issues and the Way Forward. In: Arora, S., Negi, B.S., Bhan, S., and Bali, J.S. (Eds.). Mountain People and their Environment. Soil Conservation Society of India, New Delhi. 322-343

Sathyakumar, S. (1993). Status of mammals in Nanda Devi National Park. In: Scientific and Ecological

Expedition to Nanda Devi. Corps of Engineers, Indian Army. A report. 5-15pp.

Sathyakumar, S., A.J.T.Johnsingh and G.S.Rawat. (in press). Himalayan Musk Deer. In: Johnsingh, A.J.T. and

Manjrekar, N. (Eds.) Mammals of South Asia. Permanent Black.

Sathyakumar, S., Kaul, R., Kalsi, R.S., and Sivakumar, K . (2007). Techniques for Monitoring Galliformes. In: Sathyakumar, S and Sivakumar, K. (Eds.) Galliformes of India. ENVIS Bulletin. Wildlife and Protected Areas, 10(1). Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun. Pp. 177-182.

Sathyakumar, S., Athreya, R.M and Athreya, (V.R. 1992). The Cheer Pheasant - A new recording. WPA News, 37:28.

Sathyakumar, S., Prasad, S.N., Rawat, G.S.and Johnsingh, A.J.T. (1992). Ecology of Kalij and Monal Pheasants in Kedarnath Wildlife Sanctuary, Western Himalaya. In: Jenkins, D. (Ed.). Proc. Int. Symp. Pheasants in Asia 1992. World Pheasant Association. Reading U.K. pp:83-90.

Schaller, G.B.(1977). Mountain monarchs: wild sheep and goat of the Himalayas. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, USA, 425p.

Schindler, D.W. and Donahue, W.F. (2006). An impending water crisis in Canada's Western prairie provinces. Proc Nat Acad Sci, 103(19):7210–6.

Schindler, D.W. (2001).The cumulative effects of climate warming and other human stresses on Canadian freshwaters in the new millennium. Can J Fish Aquat Sci, 58:18–29.

Sharma, R. (2003). Protection of an endangered fish Tor tor and Tor putitora population impacted by

transportation network in the area of Tehri Dam project, Garhwal Himalaya, India. ICOET Proceedings

Sharma, R.C. (1984). Potamological studies on lotic environment of the upland river Bhagirathi of Garhwal Himalaya. .Environment and Ecology 2:239-242

87

Sharma, R.C. (1983). Sustainable utilization and preservation of living aquatic resources of Garhwal Himalaya with special reference to coldwater fisheries. Himalayan Research and Development. 2(1):15-18.

Sharma, R.C. (1985-86). Ecology and problem of survival of Mahaseer in Garwhal Himalayas. Johsard .9 and 10:57-61.

Singh, D., and Sharma, R.C. (1998). Biodiversity, ecological status and conservation priority of the fish of the River Alaknanda, a parent stream of the River Ganges (India). Aquatic Conservation: Marine and

Freshwater Ecosystems, 8: 761-772

Singh, H.R. (1988). Bio ecological studies on the mahseer and snow trout of Garhwal Himalaya. Final Technical Report, ICAR

Singh, J. S., (2006). Sustainable development of the Indian Himalayan region: linking ecological and economic concerns. Curr. Sci, 90:784–788.

Sinha, R.K. (2007). Impact of Man-Made and Natural Hazards on Fisheries of the River Ganga in India. In: Goswami UC (eds.), Natural and Anthropogenic Hazards on Fish and Fisheries. Inland Fisheries Society of India, Barrackpore, India pp 245-261

Sivakumar, K and Choudhury, B. C. (2008). Chambal River, Rajasthan:Importance of water flow and minimum

water level in conservation of all tropic levels in different habitats and biodiversity. J. Landscape

Architecture, 19: 52-57. Smakhtin, V.U.and Anputhas, M. (2006). An assessment of environmental flow requirements of Indian river

basins. IWMI Research Report N 107, Colombo, Sri Lanka.

Smakhtin, V., Arunachalam, M., Behera, S., Chatterjee, A., Das, S., Gautam, P., Joshi, G. D, Sivaramakr ishnan, K. G. , and Unni , K. S. (2007). Developing procedures for assessment of ecological status of

Indian river basins in the context of environmental water requirements. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water Management Institute. 40p. (IWMI Research Report 114)

Smit, B. and Spaling, H. (1994). Methods for cumulative impact assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev,15:81-106.

Sonntag, N.C., Everitt, R.R., Rattie, L.P., Colnett, D.L.,. Wolf, C.P, Truett, J., Dorecy, A., and Holling, C.S. (1986). Cumulative Effects Assessment: A Context for Further Research and Development. A Report to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Research Council (CEARC), Hull, Quebec. Prepared by ESSA Environmental and Social Systems Analysts Ltd., Vancouver, B.C. 99 pp. + appendix

88

Stalnaker, C.B. and Arnette, S.C. (1976). Methodologies for the Determination of Stream Resource Flow

Requirements: An Assessment. US Fish and Wildlife Services, Office of Biological Services Western Water Association

Stalnaker ,C.B. (1982). Instream flow assessments come of age in the decade of the 1970’s. In Research on

Fish and Wildlife Habitat, Mason WT, Iker S (eds). EPA-600/8-82-022. Office of Research and Development. US Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC; 119–142.

Stewardson ,M., and Gippel, C. (1997). In-stream Environmental Flow Design: A Review. Draft Report. Cooperative Research Centre for Catchment Hydrology, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Melbourne: Victoria, AustraliaTharme (2000).

Stull, E.A., Bain, M.B., Irving, J.S.,. LaGory, K.E, and Witmer, B.W. (1987). Argonne National Laboratory,

Methodologies for Assessing the Cumulative Environmental Effects of Hydroelectric Development of Fish

And Wildlife in the Columbia River Basin - Volume 1: Recommendations, Final Report to Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon, Project No. 84-41, Contract No. DEAI79-38BP13461, 150 electronic pages (BPA Report DOE/BP-19461-3)

Tak, P.C., and Kumar, G. (1987). Wildlife of Nanda Devi National Park: an update. Indian Journal of Forestry, 10:184-190.

Tharme, R.E. (2000). An overview of environmental flow methodologies, with particular reference to South Africa. In Environmental Flow Assessments for Rivers: Manual for the Building Block Methodology, King JM,

Tharme RE, De Villiers MS (eds). Water Research Commission Technology Transfer Report No. TT131/00. Water Research Commission: Pretoria, South Africa; 15–40

THDC India Ltd. Environmental Impact Assessment studies for Vishnugad-Pipalkoti hydroelectric project. Prepared by WAPCOS.

Therivel, R., and Ross, B.( 2007).Cumulative effects assessment: Does scale matter? Environmental Impact

Assessment Review (Special Issue on Data and Scale Issues for SEA), 27:365–385

Valdiya, K. S. (1997). Developing a paradise in peril. Proceedings of 7th Pandit Govind Ballabh Pant Memorial Lecture, G.B. Pant Institute of Himalayan Environment and Development, Kosi- Katarmal, Almora, 1997.

Venkateswarlu, T.,and Menon, A.G.K. (1979) A List of Fishes of the River Ganges and its Branches. Acta

Ichthyologica et Piscatotia 9(1):45-70 Webb, R.H., Schmidt, J.C. Marzolf, G.R and Valdez, R.A. (1999). The Controlled Flood in Grand Canyon.

Geophysical Monograph Series, 110, Geological Survey 368 pp

Welcomme, R.L. (1985). River fisheries. FAO Tech. Pap., 262: 330.

89

Wesche, T.A., and Rechard, P.A. (1980). A Summary of Instream Flow Methods for Fisheries and Related

Needs. Eisenhower Consortium Bulletin No. 9. Water Resources Research Institute, University of Wyoming, for the USDA Forest Service.

World Health Organization, WHO. (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: health synthesis. A Report of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Available at http://www.who.int/globalchange/ecosystems/ecosys.pdf

Wildlife Institute of India,WII. (1998). Assessment of ecological values of proposed Chamera Stage II

Hydroelectric Power Project area in Chamba, Himachal Pradesh. WII-EIA Technical Report Wildlife Institute of India, Dehra Dun. 51 pp. (Unpublished).

World Bank. Uttarakhand. Available at http://go.worldbank.org/FE04IF2IP0. Downloaded on 16th May 2011.

World Wildlife Fund, WWF-India. (2011). Assessment of Environmental Flows for the Upper Ganga Basin. WWF-Report.

Zoological Survey of India, ZSI (1995). Fauna of Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve. Zoological Survey of

India, Northern Regional Station, Dehra Dun, 175pp.

90

Appendix 1. Members of the interdisciplinary project team

Project Coordinator- Dr. V.B. Mathur, Dean

Project Advisors- Dr. G.S. Rawat ,Mr. B.C. Choudhury, Dr. V.K. Melkani, Mr. V.K. Uniyal

Component Investigator Research Personnel

Vegetation Ecology Dr. G.S. Rawat Mr. Ajay Maletha

Mammals and Birds Dr. S. Sathyakumar Mr. Nand K. Dimri

River Ecology and Fish Dr. K. Sivakumar

Dr. J.A. Johnson

Mr. P. Gangaiamaran

Biodiversity Inclusive Impact Assessment

Dr. Asha Rajvanshi Ms. Roshni Arora

Spatial Analysis Dr. K. Ramesh

91

Appendix 2. Template of the marix table used for impact prediction and evaluation

Impact Receptors

Impa

ct S

ourc

es

RET species

Endemic species

Species in WPA

Habitat specialists

Species richness

Habitat diversity

Breeding/congregational sites

Migratory corridors

Volume of diverted water

Diverted river length

Reservoir area

Barrier influence of dam

Biotic interference

Barrier influence due to roads

Forest area diverted

TOTAL

92

Appendix 3. Rare, Endangered and Threatened species of plants, listed in the Red Data Book of Indian Plants recorded in the SEA Area, Bhagirathi and Alaknanda Catchments, Garhwal Himalaya

Sr.

No.

Plant Name Localities Habitat Altitude (m) Habit *Uses

1 Acer caesium Wall. ex Brandis

Hanuman chatti, Harsil, Kanchula-Kharak ( 30°27'36.13"N, 79°13'41.55"E), Bansinarayan, Above Silla (way to Kushkalyani) 30°44'35.0''N, 78°37'48.7''E)

Sub-alpine forests 2600 - 3400 H M

2 Aconitum hetrophyllum Wall

Dayara, Kandara, Gidara ( 30°56'28.61"N, 78°36'33.74"E), Bedini-Ali, Mandani, Tungnath, Khedatal

Alpine Meadows 2700-4000 H M

3 Acorus calamus L. Pindar Valley, Akash Kamini (Mandal 30°27'13.10"N, 79°16'49.14"E), Phata (30°35'56.3''N, 79°1'36.5''E)

Fresh water swamps up to 2000 H M

4 Allium stacheyi Baker Dayara, Gidara, Bedini-Ali, Badrinath, Rudranath, Khedatal, Kyarkoti (Syanagad)

Alpine Meadows 3300-4800 H EB

5 Allium humile Kunth Gidara, Kandara, Valley of Flowers NP, Tungnath Alpine Meadows 3400-4000 H M

6 Arnebia benthamii (Wall. ex D. Don) Johnston

Dayara, Gidara ( 30°56'31.58"N, 78°36'44.05"E), Kandara, Kyarkoti-Syanagad (31°5'47.1''N, 78°40'12.4''E)

Sub-alpine/Alpine bouldery areas

3200-4500 H M

7 Berberis osmastonii Dunn. Kheta ( 30° 2'43.04"N, 79°44'17.74"E), Kedarnath Sub-alpine forests 2800-3800 S -

8 Caragana sukiensis Schn. Sukhi ( 31°0'13.81"N, 78°42'7.00"E), Jhala (near to Sukhi) Upper temperate bouldery areas

2400-2700 S SR

9 Catamixis baccharoides Saknidhar near Deoprayag, Only one population Sandstone rocks 800 - 1000 S BC

93

Sr.

No.

Plant Name Localities Habitat Altitude (m) Habit *Uses

Thoms.

10 Coleus barbatus (Andr.) Benth.

Before Kirtinagar, East Khirsu (30°12'8.3''N, 78°55'32.6''E), Khetaswami (30°21'46.8''N, 79°6'1.9''E ), Chirbatiya, Narayanbagarh (pinder valley)

Open slopes 800-2200 H M

11 Cyananthus integer Wall. ex Benth.

Tungnath ( 30°29'10.61"N, 79°13'6.64"E ), Mandani, Rudranath

Alpine rocky slopes 3200-4000 H -

12 Datisca cannabina L. Harsil, Tharali (Pinder valley), Maneri (Bhagirathi valley), Naugaun (Yamuna valley)

Temperate loose slpoes 800-2000 S M

13 Dioscorea deltoidea Wall. ex Griseb.

Kedarnath, ahead Bhangeli (way to Gidara), Badiyargad (upper Yamuna FD)

Temperate forests 1200-2200 C -

14 Epipogium aphyllum (Schm.) Swartz

Gangotri, Ghangarea Sub-alpine forests 2400-4000 H BC

15 Lilium polyphyllum D. Don ex Royle

Gangotri, Ahead Bhairavghati, Radi top Upper temperate bouldery areas

1500-3200 H M

16 Mahonia borealis Takeda Mussourie, Ghesh (pindar valley) Temperate forest 1300-2500 S BC

17 Nardostachys jatamansi DC.

Tungnath, Kedarnath, Mandani, Gidara, Kanasar, Dodital (30°54'12.3"N, 78°31'58.9''), Kushkalyani (way to Sahasratal)

Moist sub-alpine/Alpines rocky slopes

2400-3800 H -

18 Picrorhiza kurrooa Royle Tiungnath, Kedarnath, Mandani, Gomukh, Badrinath, Dodital Moist sub-alpine/Alpines 2400-4200 H -

94

Sr.

No.

Plant Name Localities Habitat Altitude (m) Habit *Uses

ex Benth. (30°54'12.3"N, 78°31'58.9'') rocky slopes

19 Saussurea gnaphalodes D. Don

Chhaya Bugyal, Near Kandara Sub-nival zone, Snowline Above 4000 H BC

20 Trillidium govanianum (D. Don) Kunth

Tungnath( 30°29'19.82"N, 79°12'24.08"E), Mandani, Yamunotri (on the way to Saptarishi)

Alpine/Sub-alpine bouldery areas

2500-3500 H M

M= Medicinal

EB = Ethnobotanical Use

BC = Botanical Curiosity

SR = Soil Enrichment

95

Appendix 4. Trees Species recorded in the Study area (Alakananda and Bhagirathi Basin) Uttrakhand.

S.N Name of the Species Vernacular Name Location Ethnobotanical Notes References

1. Abies pindrow Royle Raga Power house site GMR HE Project M,Ed, Tm, Fl GMR HE Project Report

2. Acacia arabica (Lam). Willd. Khair IZ & SZ M , Fd Kotlibhel EIA Report

3. Acacia catechu (L.F.)Wild. Khair IZ & SZ M,Fl Kotlibhel EIA Report

4. Acacia farnesiana (L.) Willd.) Vilayati Kikar IZ & SZ Fl ,M, Api, Ag. Kotlibhel EIA Report

5. Adina cordifolia Roxb. Haldu IZ & SZ M Kotlibhel EIA Report 6. Aegle marmalos L. Bel IZ & SZ Ed, M , Api Kotlibhel EIA Report 7. Albizia lebbek (L.) Benth. Siris IZ & SZ M, Fl, Fd Kotlibhel EIA Report

8. Anogeisus latifolia (Roxb. ex DC.) Dhauda IZ & SZ Tm, Ag. Kotlibhel EIA Report

9. Asculus indica L. Pangar Alk. Catch M P.C. Phondani et al. 10. Bauhinia purpurea L. Guiral IZ & SZ Ed, M , Dye Kotlibhel EIA Report 11. Bauhinia varigata L. Kachnar IZ & SZ M, Fd, Fl Kotlibhel EIA Report 12. Betula utilis D.Don Bhojpatra Alk. Catch M P.C. Phondani et al. 13. Boehmeria rugulosa Wedd. Genthi IZ & SZ Fd, M Kotlibhel EIA Report 14. Bombex ceiba L. Semal IZ & SZ M , Ed Kotlibhel EIA Report

15. Butea monosperma (Lam.) Kuntze. Dhak IZ & SZ Fd, M Kotlibhel EIA Report

16. Carica papaya L. Papeeta Alk. Catch M P.C. Phondani et al. 17. Cassia fistula L. Amaltas IZ & SZ M, Fd, Fl Kotlibhel EIA Report

18. Cedrus deodara (Roxb.ex D.Don) G.Don Deodar Alk. Catch M, Tm P.C. Phondani et al.

19. Celtis australis L. Kharik IZ & SZ Fl, Tm, Fd Kotlibhel EIA Report 20. Citrus aurantifolia (Christm. Kagji Nimbu Alk. Catch M P.C. Phondani et al.

96

& Panzer) Swingle 21. Dalbergia sissoo Linn. Shisham IZ & SZ M, Fd, Fl Kotlibhel EIA Report 22. Delonix regia Boj. Gulmohar IZ & SZ Fd, Fl Kotlibhel EIA Report 23. Dyospyros montana Roxb. NA IZ & SZ M, Ag. Kotlibhel EIA Report 24. Erythrina variegata L. Dhaul Dhak IZ & SZ M Kotlibhel EIA Report

25. Eucalyptus camaldulensis Dehnh. Safeda IZ & SZ M, Fl, Fd Kotlibhel EIA Report

26. Ougenia oojeinensis Benth. Sandan IZ & SZ M, Tm, Fl, Fd Kotlibhel EIA Report 27. Ficus palmata Forsk. Bedu IZ & SZ M, Fd,Ed Kotlibhel EIA Report 28. Ficus religiosa L. Peepal IZ & SZ M, Fd, Fl Kotlibhel EIA Report

29. Ficus semicordata Buch -Ham. ex Smith Khina IZ & SZ M, Fd,Fb, Ed Kotlibhel EIA Report

30. Ficus benghalensis L. Bargad IZ & SZ M, Fd Kotlibhel EIA Report

31. Grewia optiva Drummond ex Burret Bheemal IZ & SZ M, Fb, Fd, Ed Kotlibhel EIA Report

32. Hippophae rhamnoides L. NA Power house site GMR HE Project M GMR HE Project Report

33. Hippophae salicifolia D.Don Amesh Alk. Catch M P.C. Phondani et al.

34. Jacaranda mimosifolia D.Don Padeli IZ & SZ

Kotlibhel EIA Report

35. Juglans regia L. Akhrot Alk. Catch M,Fd. P.C. Phondani et al.2009

36. Lannea coromandelica (D.Don) Houttuym Kalmina IZ & SZ Tn,Fl,Fd Kotlibhel EIA Report

37. Leucaena leucocephala (Lam.) Wit. Subabul IZ & SZ Sc. Kotlibhel EIA Report

38. Lyonia ovalifolia Wall. Anyar Alk. Catch M

39. Mallotus phillipensis (Lam.) Muell-Arg. Ruina IZ & SZ Ml, Fl, Api, Dy, Ri. Kotlibhel EIA Report

97

40. Mangifera indica L.

Aam IZ & SZ Ed, Tm, M Kotlibhel EIA Report

41. Melia azedarach L.

Daikan IZ & SZ Fd, Ag, M Kotlibhel EIA Report 42. Moringa oleifera Lamk. Sunara IZ & SZ Ed, M Kotlibhel EIA Report

43. Musa paradisiacal L.

Kela Alk. Catch M, Ed P.C. Phondani et al.2009

44. Myrica esculenta Buch-Ham ex D.Don Kafal Alk. Catch M,Ed, Fd, P.C. Phondani et al.2009

45. Phoenix humilis Royle Khajoor IZ & SZ Fb, Ed Kotlibhel EIA Report 46. Phyllanthus emblica L. Anowla Alk. Catch M,Ed, Fd, P.C. Phondani et al.2009 47. Pinus roxburghii Sargent Chir IZ & SZ Tm, M, Fl. Kotlibhel EIA Report 48. Pinus wallichiana Jacks. Kail Alk. Catch M,Fl P.C. Phondani et al.2009

49. Pistacia integrerrima Stewart ex Brandis Kaker singhee Alk. Catch M P.C. Phondani et al.2009

50. Populus ciliate Wall. ex Royle. Ban Pipal

Power house site GMR HE Project M,Fd.Tm GMR HE Project Report

51. Premna barbata Wall. ex Schauer NA IZ & SZ Fd, M, Fl Kotlibhel EIA Report

52. Prunus cerasoides D Don Paiyan IZ & SZ M, Rit. Kotlibhel EIA Report 53. Prunus persica (L.) Batsch Aaru Alk. Catch M, Ed, Fd P.C. Phondani et al.2009 54. Psidium guajava L. Amrood IZ & SZ Ed Kotlibhel EIA Report 55. Punica granatum L. Darim IZ & SZ Ed, M Kotlibhel EIA Report

56. Pyrus pashia Buch - Ham ex D.Don Melu IZ & SZ Fd, Sc, Ed, M, Api. Kotlibhel EIA Report

57. Quercus leucotricophora A. Banj Alk. Catch M, P.C. Phondani et al.2009 58. Rhamnus virgatus Roxb. Cholu Alk. Catch M P.C. Phondani et al.2009

59. Salix disperma Roxb. ex D.Don Jalmala, laila

Power house site GMR HE Project M GMR HE Project Report

98

60. Sapindus mukorossi Gaertner Reetha IZ & SZ M. Kotlibhel EIA Report

61. Spondias pinnata (L.f.) Kurz. Amra Alk. Catch M, Ed,Fl. P.C. Phondani et al.2009

62. Syzygium cumini (L.) Skeels Jamun IZ & SZ Ed, Tm, M, Dy, Tn Kotlibhel EIA Report

63. Taxus baccata (L.) Thuner Alk. Catch M P.C. Phondani et al.2009

64. Terminalia arjuna Roxb. Ex. Dc. Arjuna Alk. Catch M P.C. Phondani et al.2009

65. Terminalia bellerica Roxb. Bahera Alk. Catch M P.C. Phondani et al.2009 66. Terminalia chebula Retzr. Haira Alk. Catch M P.C. Phondani et al.2009

67. Toona ciliate (Wall. ex Roxb.) Rom. Pahari - Tun IZ & SZ Tm, Dy, Api, Soc, F Kotlibhel EIA Report

99

Species (Shrub and undershrub) recorded in Study area (Alakananda and Bhagirathi Basin) Uttrakhand.

S.N Name of the Species Vernacular Name Location Ethnobotanical Notes References

1. Acorus calamus L. Bach Arround Pipalkoti village M NHPC Pipalkoti HE project

2. Adhatoda zeylanica Medikus Baisingu IZ & SZ M, Ed Kotlibhel EIA Report 3. Aerva sanguinolenta (L.) Blume Safedphulia IZ & SZ M, Ed Kotlibhel EIA Report. 4. Agave americana L. Ram Baans IZ & SZ Fb, M, Sc Kotlibhel EIA Report

5. Artemisia roxburghiana Wall. ex Besser Kunja IZ & SZ M, Ri Kotlibhel EIA Report

6. Asparagus officinalis L. Satavar Arround Pipalkoti village M NHPC Pipalkoti HE project

7. Asparagus adscendens Buch - Ham. ex Roxb. Jhimi IZ & SZ Ed, M Kotlibhel EIA Report

8. Barleria cristata L. Saundi IZ & SZ M, Sc. Kotlibhel EIA Report 9. Berberis aristata DC. Chatru Alak. Catch. M P.C. Phondani.2009 10. Berberis asiatica DC. Kirmod IZ & SZ M Kotlibhel EIA Report 11. Berberis lycium Royle Kirmor IZ & SZ M, Sc, Ed. Kotlibhel EIA Report

12. Berberis unmbellata Wall.ex G.Don Bramii Berage site of GMR HE project M GMR HE Project Report

13. Bergenia ligulata (Wall.) Engl. Pashan bhed Arround Pipalkoti village M NHPC Pipalkoti HE project

14. Brugmansia suaveolens (Humb. & Bonpl. Ex Willd.) Berch. & Presl. NA IZ & SZ M. Kotlibhel EIA Report

15. Buddleja asiatica Lours. Bhati IZ & SZ M. Kotlibhel EIA Report 16. Cajanus mollis (Benth.) Maess. ban sem IZ & SZ Fd,Sc Kotlibhel EIA Report

17. Calicarpa macrophylla Vahl. Daya Arround Pipalkoti village M NHPC Pipalkoti HE project

18. Cannabis sativa L. Bhang IZ & SZ M, Fb, Ed Kotlibhel EIA Report 19. Carissa opaca Stapf. ex Haines Karonda IZ & SZ Fd, Sc Kotlibhel EIA Report

100

20. Caryopteris odorata (D.Don) Robinson NA IZ & SZ

Kotlibhel EIA Report

21. Cassia tora L. Chakunda IZ & SZ M. Kotlibhel EIA Report 22. Cestrum nocturnum L. Rat ki rani IZ & SZ M.Api Kotlibhel EIA Report

23. Cinnamomum tamala Fr. Nees Tejpat Arround Pipalkoti village M NHPC Pipalkoti HE project

24. Clematis gauriana Roxb. ex DC. NA IZ & SZ M, Api. Kotlibhel EIA Report 25. Colebrookia oppositifolia Smith Binda IZ & SZ M, Sc. Kotlibhel EIA Report

26. Cotoneaster microphyllus Wall. ex Lindl. NA

Berage site of GMR HE project M GMR HE Project Report

27. Debregeasia longifolia (Burm. f.) Wedd. Syanru IZ & SZ Fd, Fb, M Kotlibhel EIA Report

28. Desmodium gangeticum (L.) DC. NA IZ & SZ

Kotlibhel EIA Report 29. Desmodium velutinum (Willd.) DC. NA IZ & SZ Fi, M, Sc Kotlibhel EIA Report 30. Desmodium laxiflorum DC. NA IZ & SZ M,Fd Kotlibhel EIA Report 31. Dodonaea angustifolia L.f. Sinatha IZ & SZ

Kotlibhel EIA Report

32. Elsholtzia fruticosa (D.Don) Rehder Pothi Berage site of GMR HE project M GMR HE Project Report

33. Ephedra gerardiana Wall. ex Stapf. Som lata IZ & SZ M GMR HE project Area 34. Eupatorium perfoliatum L. Bashya Alak. Catch. M P.C. Phondani.2009 35. Eupatorium adenophorum Sprengel Kharnabakura IZ & SZ Fd,M Kotlibhel EIA Report 36. Euphorbia royleana Boissier Sulla IZ & SZ M, Sc. Kotlibhel EIA Report

37. Ficus sarmentosa Buch - Ham. ex Smith. NA IZ & SZ Fd, Ed. Kotlibhel EIA Report

38. Flacourtia indica (Burm.f.) Merrill. NA IZ & SZ Fd, Ed, M. Kotlibhel EIA Report 39. Helictreres isora L. Bhendu IZ & SZ Fb, M Kotlibhel EIA Report 40. Holmskioldia sanguinea Retz. NA IZ & SZ M Kotlibhel EIA Report 41. Indigofera astragalina DC. Sakina IZ & SZ M, F. Kotlibhel EIA Report

42. Jatropha curcus L. Pahari Arand IZ & SZ Fl, M. Kotlibhel EIA Report

101

43. Juniperus communis L. Junipers Berage site of GMR HE project M GMR HE Project Report

44. Juniperus indica Bertol. Dhupi IZ & SZ M GMR HE project Area

45. Lagerostroemia indica L. Dhatura IZ & SZ

Kotlibhel EIA Report

46. Lantana camara L. Kuri - ghas IZ & SZ Fl, M, Sc. Kotlibhel EIA Report 47. Murraya koenigii. (L.) Sprengel. Kadi patta IZ & SZ M Kotlibhel EIA Report 48. Nerium oleander L. Kaner IZ & SZ

Kotlibhel EIA Report

49. Opuntia elatior Miller Nagfani IZ & SZ Ed Kotlibhel EIA Report

50. Pelargonium graviolense L.Herit. Geranium Arround Pipalkoti village M. NHPC Pipalkoti HE project

51. Plumbago zeylanica L. Chitrak IZ & SZ M. Kotlibhel EIA Report

52. Pogostemon benghalense (Burm.f.) Kuntze NA IZ & SZ Api Kotlibhel EIA Report

53. Prinsepia utilis Royle. Bhekal Alak. Catch. M P.C. Phondani.2009

54. Pteracanthus angustifrons (Clarke) Bremek. Pathora IZ & SZ M. Kotlibhel EIA Report

55. Pupalia lappacea (L.) Juss. Nagdaminee IZ & SZ M Kotlibhel EIA Report 56. Rhamnus virgatus Roxb. Chentuli IZ & SZ

Kotlibhel EIA Report

57. Rhododendron triqueter (Wall.) Lawson. NA IZ & SZ

Kotlibhel EIA Report

58. Rhododendron anthopogon D.Don Awon Alk. Catch M P.C. Phondani et al.2009

59. Rhododendron campanulatum D.Don Burans

Berage site of GMR HE project M GMR HE Project Report

60. Rhus parviflora Roxb. Tungla IZ & SZ Ed, Fl, M. Kotlibhel EIA Report 61. Ricinus communis L. Arandi IZ & SZ M, Sc. Kotlibhel EIA Report

62. Rosa moschata Herm. Kunj pani Berage site of GMR HE project M GMR HE Project Report

63. Rosa sinensis L. Gulab Alak. Catch. M P.C. Phondani.2009 64. Roylea cinerea (D.Don) Baillon IZ & SZ M, Ed. Kotlibhel EIA Report

102

65. Roylea cinerea (D.Don) Baillon. Karui IZ & SZ Ed Kotlibhel EIA Report 66. Rubus ellipticus Smith. Hinsalu IZ & SZ M, Sc. Kotlibhel EIA Report

67. Rubus foliolosus D.Don Kala hisar IZ & SZ Ed Kotlibhel EIA Report

68. Salix denticulate Anderss. bashal,chhoti bashroi

Berage site of GMR HE project Fl,Fd GMR HE Project Report

69. Scurrula cordifolia (Wallich) G.Don NA IZ & SZ

Kotlibhel EIA Report 70. Sida cardifolia L. Balu IZ & SZ Fb, M. Kotlibhel EIA Report

71. Skimmia laureola Sensu Hook.f. Nairpat Berage site of GMR HE project Fd,Ed, M GMR HE Project Report

72. Sorbia tomentosa (Lindl.) Rehder. Bakhree jhar Power house site GMR HE Project M,Fd GMR HE Project Report

73. Tamarix dioica Roxb.ex Roth. NA IZ & SZ

Kotlibhel EIA Report 74. Tephrosia candida (Roxb.)DC. Ban tor IZ & SZ Fd. Kotlibhel EIA Report

75. Thymus linearis Benth. Ban ajwain Arround Pipalkoti village M NHPC Pipalkoti HE project

76. Urtica dioica L. Kandali IZ & SZ Fb, M. Kotlibhel EIA Report

77. Viburnum grandiflorum wall. ex DC. Thallana Berage site of GMR HE project Fl GMR HE Project Report

78. Vitex negundo L. NA IZ & SZ

Kotlibhel EIA Report 79. Woodfordia fruticosa (L.) Kurz Dhola IZ & SZ M, Dy, Sc. Kotlibhel EIA Report 80. Xanthium indicum Koening. Kuru IZ & SZ

Kotlibhel EIA Report

81. Zanthoxylum armatum DC. Timru IZ & SZ M, Rit. Kotlibhel EIA Report 82. Ziziphus mauritiana Lam. Ber IZ & SZ M, Ed. Kotlibhel EIA Report

103

Species (Herbs) recorded in Study area (Alakananda and Bhagirathi Basin) Uttrakhand.

S.N Name of the Species Vernacular Name Location Ethnobotanical Notes References

1. A. bupleurifolius (L.) DC. NA IZ & SZ

Kotlibhel EIA Report 2. Aconitum heterophyllum Wall. Atis

M P.C. Phondani.2009

3. Abelmoschus esculentus L. Bhindi IZ & SZ Ed. Kotlibhel EIA Report 4. Achyranthes aspera L. NA IZ & SZ M. Kotlibhel EIA Report 5. Aconitum balfourii Stapf. Mithabish Alak. Catch. M P.C. Phondani.2009

6. Acorus calamus L. Bach

Arround Pipalkoti village ,Alak. Catch. M

NHPC Pipalkoti HE project, P.C. Phondani.2009

7. Ageratum conyzoides L. Kansura IZ & SZ M Kotlibhel EIA Report 8. Ageratum houstonianum Mill. Gundhry IZ & SZ M Kotlibhel EIA Report

9. Ajuga bracteosa Wall. ex Benth. Neelkanthi IZ & SZ M Kotlibhel EIA Report

10. Ajuga macrosperma Wall. ex Benth. NA IZ & SZ M Kotlibhel EIA Report

11. Allium ampeloprasum L. Lahsun jangli

Arround Pipalkoti village M NHPC Pipalkoti HE project

12. Allium humile Kunth Jamu faran Alak. Catch. M P.C. Phondani.2009 13. Allium sativum L. Lahsun IZ & SZ Ed, M. Kotlibhel EIA Report 14. Allium cepa L Payaz IZ & SZ Ed, M. Kotlibhel EIA Report

15. Aloe barbadensis Mill. Ghritkumari

Arround Pipalkoti village M NHPC Pipalkoti HE project

16. Aloe vera (L.) Burm. f. NA IZ & SZ M. Kotlibhel EIA Report

104

17. Alternanthera pungens Homb, Bonpl & Kunth NA IZ & SZ

Kotlibhel EIA Report

18. Alternanthera pungens Humb. NA IZ & SZ

Kotlibhel EIA Report 19. Alysicarpus vaginalis (L.) DC. NA IZ & SZ

Kotlibhel EIA Report

20. Amaranthus viridis L. NA IZ & SZ M. Kotlibhel EIA Report

21. Ammi majus L. Visnasa

Arround Pipalkoti village M NHPC Pipalkoti HE project

22. Anagallis arvensis L. NA IZ & SZ

Kotlibhel EIA Report

23. Anaphalis triplinervis (Sims.) Clarke. Bugla

Power house site GMR project Sc. GMR HE Project report.

24. Anaphalis adnata Wall. ex. DC. NA IZ & SZ

Kotlibhel EIA Report

25. Androsace sarmentosa Wall. Rock jasmine

Berrage site of GMR HE project M GMR HE Project report.

26. Androsace umbellata (Lour.) Merrill NA IZ & SZ Api Kotlibhel EIA Report

27. Angelica glauca Edgew. Choru Alak. Catch. M P.C. Phondani.2009 28. Apluda mutica L. NA IZ & SZ

Kotlibhel EIA Report

29. Arenaria serpyllifolia L. NA IZ & SZ

Kotlibhel EIA Report 30. Argemone ochroleuca Sweet NA IZ & SZ M Kotlibhel EIA Report 31. Argemone mexicana L. Pili kateli IZ & SZ M. Kotlibhel EIA Report

32. Arisaema tortousom (Wall.) Schott NA IZ & SZ

Kotlibhel EIA Report

33. Arisaema tortousom (Wall.) Schott Bag mungari Alak. Catch. M P.C. Phondani.2009

34. Arnebia benthami (Wall ex D.Don) Jhonston. Balchari Alak. Catch. M P.C. Phondani.2009

35. Artemisia creuntus L. NA IZ & SZ Ed. Kotlibhel EIA Report

105

36. Artemisia nilagarica (Clarke) Pamp. Pati

Arround Pipalkoti village M. NHPC Pipalkoti HE project

37. Artemisia spinosus L. NA IZ & SZ

Kotlibhel EIA Report 38. Artemisia capillaris Thunb. Marwa jhirun IZ & SZ M. Kotlibhel EIA Report

39. Arthraxon hispidus (Thunb.) Makino. NA

Berrage site of GMR HE project M GMR HE Project report.

40. Arundinella nepalensis Trinius NA IZ & SZ

Kotlibhel EIA Report

41. Aster peduncularis Wallich ex Nees Phulyan IZ & SZ M Kotlibhel EIA Report

42. Avena fatua L. Jawatu IZ & SZ Fd. Kotlibhel EIA Report

43. Baliospermum montanum (Wild.) Muell.-Arg. NA IZ & SZ M Kotlibhel EIA Report

44. Bergenia ciliate (Haw.) Sternb. Silphori Alak. Catch. M. P.C. Phondani.2009 45. Bidens pilosa L. Kumur IZ & SZ M. Kotlibhel EIA Report

46. Bidens biternata (Lour.) Merrill & Sherff Kura IZ & SZ M. Kotlibhel EIA Report

47. Boerhavia diffusa L. NA IZ & SZ M Kotlibhel EIA Report 48. Brachiaria ramosa (L) NA IZ & SZ Fd. Kotlibhel EIA Report 49. Brachypodium campestris L. Sarsoo IZ & SZ Ed. Kotlibhel EIA Report

50. Brachypodium sylvaticum (Huds.) P. Beaur. NA

Power house site GMR project Fd GMR HE prject report

51. Brassica rapa L. NA IZ & SZ

Kotlibhel EIA Report 52. Bupleuram falcatum L. NA IZ & SZ M. Kotlibhel EIA Report

53. Calamagrostis emodensis Griseb. NA

Power house site GMR project M GMR HE project Report.

54. Calendula arvensis L. Calendula Arround M NHPC Pipalkoti HE project

106

Pipalkoti village

55. Callicarpa macrophylla Vahl. NA IZ & SZ

Kotlibhel EIA Report

56. Campanula alsinoides Hook.f. & Thomsan Bell flower

Berrage site of GMR HE project Ed. GMR HE Project report.

57. Canabis sativa L. Bhang Alak. Catch. M P.C. Phondani.2009

58. Capsella bursa-pastoris (L.) Medikus NA IZ & SZ

Kotlibhel EIA Report

59. Capsicum annuum L. Mirch

M P.C. Phondani.2009 60. Cardiospermum helicacabum L. NA IZ & SZ Ed. Kotlibhel EIA Report 61. Carex myosurus Nees. NA IZ & SZ

Kotlibhel EIA Report

62. Carum carvi L. Kala jeera Alak. Catch. M P.C. Phondani.2009 63. Cassia absus L. NA IZ & SZ

Kotlibhel EIA Report

64. Cassia mimosoides L. NA IZ & SZ

Kotlibhel EIA Report 65. Celosia argentea L. Gadrya IZ & SZ Ed; M Kotlibhel EIA Report 66. Centella asiatica L. NA IZ & SZ

Kotlibhel EIA Report

67. Chenopodium album L. Bhettu IZ & SZ Ed, M Kotlibhel EIA Report

68. Chloris dolichostachya Lagasca. NA IZ & SZ

Kotlibhel EIA Report

69. Chlorophytum tuberosum (Roxb.) Baker. Safed musli Alak. Catch. M. P.C. Phondani.2009

70. Cirsium wallichii DC NA

Berrage site of GMR HE project M. GMR HE Project report.

71. Colocasia elculenta (L.) Schott. NA IZ & SZ Ed. Kotlibhel EIA Report 72. Commelina benghalensis L. Kansura IZ & SZ M. Kotlibhel EIA Report 73. Conyza stricta Willd. NA IZ & SZ

Kotlibhel EIA Report

74. Conyza japonica (Thumb.) NA IZ & SZ Ed. Kotlibhel EIA Report

107

Lessing 75. Coriandrum sativum L. Dhaniya Alak. Catch. M. P.C. Phondani.2009 76. Cotula anthemoides L. NA IZ & SZ

Kotlibhel EIA Report

77. Crepis mulitcaulis Ledebour. NA IZ & SZ M. Kotlibhel EIA Report 78. Crotalaria medicaginea Lam. Van methi IZ & SZ M. Kotlibhel EIA Report 79. Cucumis sativus L. Kakree Alak. Catch. M. P.C. Phondani.2009 80. Cucumis hardwickii Royle. Elaroo Alak. Catch. M. P.C. Phondani.2009

81. Curcilago orchids Gaertn. Kali musli

Arround Pipalkoti village M. NHPC Pipalkoti HE project

82. Curcuma domestica Valet. Haldi Alak. Catch. M. P.C. Phondani.2009 83. Cuscuta europaea L. NA IZ & SZ M. Kotlibhel EIA Report 84. Cyathocline purpurea (D.Don) NA IZ & SZ

Kotlibhel EIA Report

85. Cymbopogon citrates (D.C.) Stapf Lemon grass

Arround Pipalkoti village M. NHPC Pipalkoti HE project

86. Cymbopogon winterianus Jowitt. Citronela grass

Arround Pipalkoti village M. NHPC Pipalkoti HE project

87. Cymbopogon martini (Roxb.) Wat. Mirchya ghas Alak. Catch. M. P.C. Phondani.2009

88. Cynodon dactylon (L.) Persoon Doob IZ & SZ

Kotlibhel EIA Report

89. Cynoglossum glochidiatum Wall. ex Benth NA IZ & SZ

Kotlibhel EIA Report

90. Cyperus corymbosus Rottboell NA IZ & SZ

Kotlibhel EIA Report 91. Cyperus niveus Retz. NA IZ & SZ

Kotlibhel EIA Report

92. Cyperus compressus L. NA IZ & SZ

Kotlibhel EIA Report 93. Datura stramonium L. NA IZ & SZ

Kotlibhel EIA Report

94. Dactylorhizia hatagirea D.Don Hatajari Alak. Catch. M. P.C. Phondani.2009

108

95. Daucus carota L. Gajar Alak. Catch. M. P.C. Phondani.2009

96. Delphinium denudatum Wall. ex Hook. F. Nirbisi IZ & SZ M. GMR HE project Area

97. Desmodium triflorum (L.) DC. Kudaliya IZ & SZ Fd. Kotlibhel EIA Report 98. Dicliptera bupleuroides Nees. NA IZ & SZ

Kotlibhel EIA Report

99. Digitalis purpurea L. Digitalis

Arround Pipalkoti village M NHPC Pipalkoti HE project

100. Digitaria ciliaris (Retz.) Koeler NA IZ & SZ

Kotlibhel EIA Report

101.Drymaria cordata (L.) Wild ex Romer Pit papera IZ & SZ M,. Fd Kotlibhel EIA Report

102. Echinops cornigerus DC. Kantela IZ & SZ Ed, M. Kotlibhel EIA Report

103.Elettaria cardomomum (L.) Maton. Badi elachi Alak. Catch. M P.C. Phondani.2009

104. Eleusine coracana (L.) Gaertn. Koda IZ & SZ

Kotlibhel EIA Report 105. Emilia sonchifolia (L.) DC. NA IZ & SZ

Kotlibhel EIA Report

106. Epilobium latifolium L. River beauty

Power house site GMR project M GMR HE project Area

107. Epilobium brevifolium D.Don NA IZ & SZ

Kotlibhel EIA Report 108. Eragrostis minor Host. NA IZ & SZ

Kotlibhel EIA Report

109.Eriophorum comosum (Wall.) Wall. ex Nees NA IZ & SZ Fb. Kotlibhel EIA Report

110. Euphorbia chamaesyce L. NA IZ & SZ

Kotlibhel EIA Report 111. Euphorbia hirta L. . Dudhi IZ & SZ M. Kotlibhel EIA Report 112. Evolvulus alsinoides (L.) Sankhpuspi IZ & SZ M. Kotlibhel EIA Report 113. Filago hurdwarica Wall. ex DC. NA IZ & SZ

Kotlibhel EIA Report

114. Fragaria indica Andrews Gand khaphal IZ & SZ M. Ed Kotlibhel EIA Report 115. Fumaria indica (Haussk.) Pit papera IZ & SZ M Kotlibhel EIA Report

109

Pugsley 116. Galinsoga parviflora Cav. NA IZ & SZ

Kotlibhel EIA Report

117. Galium aparine L. Lesskuri

Power house site, Barrage site of GMR project M GMR HE project Area

118.Gentiana capitata. Buch. –Ham. ex D.Don Chiratu IZ & SZ M Kotlibhel EIA Report

119. Geranium roberttianum L. NA

Power house site GMR project Orn, M GMR HE project Area

120. Geranium ocellatum Cambess. Kaphlya IZ & SZ M Kotlibhel EIA Report

121.Gerbera gossypina (Royle) G. Beauv. Kapasi IZ & SZ M Kotlibhel EIA Report

122. Glycine max (L.) Merrill. Bhatt IZ & SZ Ed. Kotlibhel EIA Report

123.Gnaphalium luteo-album (D.Don) NA IZ & SZ M Kotlibhel EIA Report

124.Hedychium spicatum Var.acuminatum (Rosc) Wall. Van Haldi Alak. Catch. M P.C. Phondani.2009

125. Heliotropium strigosum Willd. NA IZ & SZ M Kotlibhel EIA Report

126.Heteropogon contortus (L.) Beauv. ex Romer & Schultes NA IZ & SZ

Kotlibhel EIA Report

127. Hypoxis aurea Lour. NA IZ & SZ M Kotlibhel EIA Report

128. Impatiens balsamina L. NA IZ & SZ

Kotlibhel EIA Report

129.Kalanchoe integra (Medikus) Kuntze Bis kapra IZ & SZ

Kotlibhel EIA Report

130. Lamium amplexicaulis L. NA IZ & SZ Fd. Kotlibhel EIA Report 131. Lathyrus sativus L. NA IZ & SZ Fd. Kotlibhel EIA Report 132. Lathyrus spharicus Retz. NA IZ & SZ Fd. Kotlibhel EIA Report

110

133. Lathyrus aphaca L. Kureheli IZ & SZ Fd. Kotlibhel EIA Report

134.Launaea asplenifolia (Willd.) Hook. F. NA IZ & SZ

Kotlibhel EIA Report

135. Lepidum sativum L. Chdrasur IZ & SZ M, Ed, Fd Kotlibhel EIA Report

136.Leucas cephalotus (Roth.) Sprengel Gumba IZ & SZ

Kotlibhel EIA Report

137. Leucas lanata Benth. NA IZ & SZ M Kotlibhel EIA Report

138.Lobelia heyneana Roemer & Schultes NA IZ & SZ

Kotlibhel EIA Report

139. Lotus corniculata L. NA IZ & SZ

Kotlibhel EIA Report

140.Macrotyloma uniflorum (Lam.) Verdc. Cheerkaguli Alak. Catch. M P.C. Phondani.2009

141. Malva sylvestris L. Gurchanti IZ & SZ M Kotlibhel EIA Report

142. Malvastrum coromendalianum (L.) Garcke Suchi IZ & SZ

Kotlibhel EIA Report

143.Mazus pumilus (Burm. f.) Van Steenis Mastura IZ & SZ M P P Kotlibhel EIA Report

144. Medicago sativa L. NA IZ & SZ

Kotlibhel EIA Report 145. Megacarpea polyandra Benth. Bermula Alak. Catch. M P.C. Phondani.2009 146. Mentha arvensis L. Podina Alak. Catch. M P.C. Phondani.2009

147.Micromeria biflora (Buch.-Ham.ex D.Don Gorakhopan IZ & SZ M Kotlibhel EIA Report

148.Microstylis muscifera (Lindl.) Ridl. Reebjak Alak. Catch. M P.C. Phondani.2009

149.Miscanthus nepalensis (Trin.) Hack. Feyari ghass

Power house site GMR project Fd GMR HE project Area

150. Momordica charantia L. Karela Alak. Catch. M P.C. Phondani.2009

151. Morina longifolia Wall. Biskandru Power house site GMR M GMR HE project Area

111

project 152. Musa paradisiaca L. Kela IZ & SZ Ed, Fb, M, Ri. Kotlibhel EIA Report 153. Nardostachyas grandiflora DC. Jatamansi Alak. Catch. M P.C. Phondani.2009

154. Nepeta hindustana (Roth.) Haines. NA IZ & SZ

Kotlibhel EIA Report

155.Notholirion thomsonianum (Royle) Stapf NA IZ & SZ

Kotlibhel EIA Report

156. Ocimum basilicium L. Kali tulsi

Arround Pipalkoti village M NHPC Pipalkoti HE project

157.Ocimum kilimandscharicum Guerke. Kapoor tulsi

Arround Pipalkoti village M NHPC Pipalkoti HE project

158. Ocimum sanctum L. Tulsi IZ & SZ M Kotlibhel EIA Report 159. Origanum vulgare L. Ban Tulsi IZ & SZ M, Rit. Kotlibhel EIA Report 160. Oryza sativa L. NA IZ & SZ Ed. Kotlibhel EIA Report 161. Oxalis corniculata L. Chilmori IZ & SZ M; Ed. Kotlibhel EIA Report 162. Paeonia emodi Wall. ex Royle. Chandra Alak. Catch. M P.C. Phondani.2009 163. Panicum mialaceum L. Cheena Alak. Catch. M P.C. Phondani.2009 164. Perilla frutescens (L.) Britton Bhangjeera IZ & SZ M.Ed. Api. Kotlibhel EIA Report 165. Physalis divaricata D.Don. Damphu IZ & SZ Ed; M. Kotlibhel EIA Report

166.Picrorhiza kurrooa Royle ex Benth. Kutki Alak. Catch. M P.C. Phondani.2009

167. Pilea umbrosa wedd. NA

Power house site GMR project M GMR HE project Area

168. Plantago ovate Forsk. Isabgol Alak. Catch. M P.C. Phondani.2009 169. Podophyllum hexandrum Royle. Bankakri Alak. Catch. M P.C. Phondani.2009

170. Polygomum plebeium R. Br. Dondya Dondya IZ & SZ M. Kotlibhel EIA Report

112

171.Polygonatum verticillatum (L.) All. Salam misri Alak. Catch. M P.C. Phondani.2009

172.Potentilla fulgens wall. ex Lehm. Bajaradanti Alak. Catch. M P.C. Phondani.2009

173. Potentilla supina L. NA IZ & SZ

Kotlibhel EIA Report 174. Ranunculus muricatus L. NA IZ & SZ M Kotlibhel EIA Report

175. Ranunculus laetus Wall. ex D.Don NA IZ & SZ M Kotlibhel EIA Report

176. Raphanus sativus L. Muli Alak. Catch. M P.C. Phondani.2009

177.Rauwolfia serpentine (L.) Benth. ex Kurz. Sharpgandha Alak. Catch. M P.C. Phondani.2009

178. Reinwardtia indica Dumort. Phiunli Alak. Catch. M P.C. Phondani.2009 179. Rheum austral D.Don Dolu Alak. Catch. M P.C. Phondani.2009

180. Rosularia rosulata (Edgew.) Ohba NA IZ & SZ M Kotlibhel EIA Report

181. Rumex hastatus D. Don Almora IZ & SZ M, Ed. Kotlibhel EIA Report

182. Saccharum spontaneum L. wild sugar cane

Power house site GMR project M GMR HE project Area

183.Salvia coccinia Buch’ hoz ex Etlinger NA IZ & SZ

Kotlibhel EIA Report

184.Saussurea costus (Falc.) Lipsch. Kuth Alak. Catch. M P.C. Phondani.2009

185.Saussurea obvallata (DC) Edgew Brahm kamal Alak. Catch. M P.C. Phondani.2009

186. Saussurea heteromalla (D Don) Hand. NA IZ & SZ

Kotlibhel EIA Report

187. Scutellaria linearis Benth. NA IZ & SZ M. Kotlibhel EIA Report

188. Scutellaria scandens Buch. –Ham. ex D.Don kutlaphul IZ & SZ M. Api Kotlibhel EIA Report

189. Sedum motanum Wall. ex NA Power house Ed,M. GMR HE project Area

113

Edgew. site GMR project

190. Sedum multicaule Wallich ex Lindley cane IZ & SZ M Kotlibhel EIA Report

191. Selinum tenuifolium wall. Bhutkeshi Alak. Catch. M P.C. Phondani.2009

192. Senecio nudicaulis Buch.-Ham. ex. D Don NA IZ & SZ

Kotlibhel EIA Report

193. Sesamum orientale L. Til Alak. Catch. M P.C. Phondani.2009 194. Sida rhombifolia L. NA IZ & SZ

Kotlibhel EIA Report

195.Sida cordata (Burm. f.) Borss. Waalk. Bhiyli IZ & SZ M Kotlibhel EIA Report

196. Solanum nigrum L. NA IZ & SZ

Kotlibhel EIA Report 197. Solanum viarum Dunal. NA IZ & SZ

Kotlibhel EIA Report

198. Solanum erianthum D.Don NA IZ & SZ

Kotlibhel EIA Report 199. Sonchus asper (L.) Hill. NA IZ & SZ

Kotlibhel EIA Report

200. Stellaria media (L.)Villars. Badalau IZ & SZ M, Ed. Kotlibhel EIA Report

201.Swertia chirayita (Roxb. ex Fleming) Cheriata Alak. Catch. M P.C. Phondani.2009

202. Tagetus erecta L. NA IZ & SZ

Kotlibhel EIA Report

203. Taraxacum officinale Weber. NA

Barrage site of GMR Project, IZ & SZ of Kotlibhel Area M GMR and Kotlibhel HE. Project Report

204. Thalictrum foliolosum DC NA IZ & SZ

Kotlibhel EIA Report 205. Thalictrum javanicum Blume. Peeli jari Alak. Catch. M P.C. Phondani.2009

206. Themeda triandra Forssk. Red grass

Power house site GMR project Orn GMR HE project Area

114

207. Trigonella corniculata L. Van mathi IZ & SZ

Kotlibhel EIA Report 208. Trigonella foenum Graecum L. Methi Alak. Catch. M P.C. Phondani.2009 209. Trigonella polycerata L. NA IZ & SZ

Kotlibhel EIA Report

210. Triticum aestivum L. NA IZ & SZ

Kotlibhel EIA Report 211. Valeriana hardwickii Wall. Tagar Alak. Catch. M P.C. Phondani.2009

212.Verbascum chinense (L.) Santapau. NA IZ & SZ

Kotlibhel EIA Report

213. Verbascum thapsus L. NA IZ & SZ

Kotlibhel EIA Report 214. Vicia sativa L. NA IZ & SZ

Kotlibhel EIA Report

215. Vicia faba L. NA IZ & SZ

Kotlibhel EIA Report 216. Vigna radiate (L.) R. Wilczek. Mung IZ & SZ

Kotlibhel EIA Report

217. Vigna ungiculata (L.) Walp. Sunte IZ & SZ

Kotlibhel EIA Report 218. Vigna mungo (L.) Hepper Urad IZ & SZ

Kotlibhel EIA Report

219. Viola canescens Wall. NA IZ & SZ

Kotlibhel EIA Report 220. Withania somnifera (L.) Dunal. Ashwagandha Alak. Catch. M P.C. Phondani.2009. 221. Zanthxylum armatum DC. Timru Alak. Catch. M P.C. Phondani.2009. 222. Zingiber officinale Rosc. Adrak Alak. Catch. M P.C. Phondani.2009.

115

Climbers recorded in Study area (Alakananda and Bhagirathi Basin) Uttrakhand.

Api = Apiculture, Ed.= Edible, Fb. = Fibre, Fd. = Fodder;,M. = Medicinal, Or. = Ornamental,Fl= fuel wood Tm= Timber, Fl= Fuelwood, IZ = Influence Zone, SZ = Submerge Zone, Alak catch. = Alaknanda Catchment. NA = Not Available.

S.N Name of the Species Vernacular Name Location

Ethnobotanical Notes References

1. Abrus precatorius L. IZ & SZ M.

Kotlibhel EIA Report

2. Clematis gauriana Roxb. ex DC. NA IZ & SZ M, Api.

Kotlibhel EIA Report

3. Ficus hederacea Roxb. Beduli IZ & SZ Fd

Kotlibhel EIA Report

9 Ipomoea hederifolia L. NA IZ & SZ

Kotlibhel EIA Report

4. Milletia extensa (Benth) Baker Gauja IZ & SZ

Kotlibhel EIA Report

5. Pergularia daemia (Forsk) Chioaenda. Utraun IZ & SZ

Kotlibhel EIA Report

7.

Rosa moschata Hermm. Kunj pani

Berage site of GMR HE project M

GMR HE Project Report

6. Rosa brunoii Lindley NA IZ & SZ M, Sc, Api.

Kotlibhel EIA Report

8. Smilax aspera L. NA IZ & SZ

Kotlibhel EIA Report

10. Tinospora sinensis (Lour.) Merr. Giali Alak. Catch. M

P.C. Phondani.2009

116

Appendix 5. Check list of fishes occur in the zone influence of five selected hydro-electric projects.

S.No Name of the Fish Species

Kotli

Bhel

IB

Kotli

Bhel

IA

Kotli

Bhel

II Vi

shnu

gad-

Pipa

lkoti

Badr

inath

- Al

akna

nda

NBFG

R 20

09

1 Tor tor(Ham.) + + + - - EN

2 Tor putitora (Ham.) + + + - - EN

3 Tor chilinoides (McClell.) + + + + -

4 Tor hexastrichus (McClell.) + +

+ -

5 Labeo dyocheilus (McClell.) + + + - -

6 Labeodero (Ham.) + + + - -

7 Labeoboga (Ham.) - - + - -

8 Labeo bata (Ham.) - - + - -

9 Chagunius chagunio (Ham.) + + + - - EN

10 Puntius ticto (Ham.) - - + - -

11 Pautius conchonius (Ham.) - - + - -

12 Puntius sophoue (Ham.) - - + - -

13 Puntius chola (Ham.) - - + - - VU

14 Puntius sarana (Ham.) - - + - - VU

15 Barilius bendelisis (Ham.) + + + - -

16 Barilius shacra (Ham.) + +

- -

17 Barilius barna (Ham.) + + + - -

18 Barilius barila (Ham.) + + + - -

19 Barilius vagra (Ham.) + + + - -

20 Raiamas bola(Ham.) + +

- -

21 Danio (Brachydanio) rerio (Ham.) - - + - -

22 Danio aequipinnatus (McClell.) - -

- -

117

23 Danio devario (Ham.) - - + - -

24 Esomus danricus (Ham.) - -

- -

25 Rasbora daniconius (Ham.) - - + - -

26 Schizothorax richardsonii (Gray) + + + + - VU

27 Schizothorax plagiostomus Heckel + - + + -

28 Schizothorax sinuatus Heckel + - + + -

29 Schizothorax progastus(McClell.) + - + + -

30 Schizothorax esocinus (Hecked) + -

+ -

31 Schizothoraichthys micropogon(Heckel) + -

+ -

32 Schizothoraichthys longipinnis (Heckel) + - + + -

33 Schizothoraichthys curvifrons (Heckel) + - + + -

34 Schizothoraichthys niger (Heckel) + + + + -

35 Schizothoraichthys planifrons (Heckel) + + - + -

36 Garra gotyla gotyla (Gray) + + + - - VU

37 Garra lamta (Ham.) + + + - - VU

38 Crossocheilus latius latius(Ham.) + + + - - VU

39 Psilorhynchus balitora (Ham.) + + + - -

40 Lepidocephalus guntea (Ham.) - - + - -

41 Botia dario (Ham.) + + + - - VU

42 Botia almorhe Gray + + + - -

43 Botioa getp (Ham.) +

-

44 Noemacheilus botia (Ham.) - - + - -

45 Noemacheilus rupicola (McClell.) + + + - -

46 Noemacheilus montanus (McClell.) + + + - -

118

47 Noemacheilus beavani Gunther + + + - -

48 Noemacheilus savona (Ham.) + + + - -

49 Noemacheilus denisonii (Jerdon) + + + - -

50 Noemacheilus zonatus (McClell.)

+ + + -

51 Noemacheilus multifasciatus Day + + + - - VU

52 Noemacheilus scaturigina (McClell.) - - + - -

53 Rita rita (Ham.) - - + - -

54 Clupisoma garua (Ham.) + + + - -

55 Amblyceps mangois (Ham.) - - + - - EN

56 Bagarius bagarius (Ham.) - - + - - VU

57 Educhiloganis hodgarti (Hora) + + + - -

58 Glyptothorax madraspatanum(Day) + + + + -

59 Glyptothorax pectinopterus (McClell.) + + + + -

60 Glyptothorax telchitta (Ham.) + + + + - VU

61 Glyptothorax conirostris (Steind.) + + + + -

62 Glyptothorax cavica (Ham.) + + + + - EN

63 Glyptothorax trilineatus Blyth + + + + -

64 Glyptothorax kashmirensis Hora

+ + + -

65 Glyptothorax brevipinnis Hora + + + + -

66 Pseudecheneis sulcatus (McClell.) + + + + - VU

67 Mastacembelus armatus (Lacep.) + -

- -

68 Glyptothorax alaknandi + +

-

69 Glyptothorax garhwali +

-

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

ANNEXURE-III

126

127

ANNEXURE-IV