Cumulative Environmental Impact Assessment - International Rivers

2012 

Cumulative Environmental Impact Assessment

Photo Credit 

Front Cover Back Cover 

K. Sivakumar 

K. Ramesh 

K. Sivakumar 

J Howman 

WPA 

J.A. Johnson 

Milan Trykar 

ISLT 

Ishwari Rai 

H.B. Naithani 

K. Sivakumar 

WII RS&GIS Cell

Assessment of Cumulative Impacts of Hydroelectric 

Projects on Aquatic and Terrestrial Biodiversity in 

Alaknanda and Bhagirathi Basins, Uttarakhand 

The Team 

Project Coordinator 

Dr. V.B. Mathur, Dean 

Project Advisors 

Mr. B.C. Choudhury 

Dr. V.K. Melkani 

Mr. V.K. Uniyal 

Component Investigator Research Personnel 

Vegetation Ecology Dr. G.S. Rawat Ajay Maletha 

Dr. Manish Khandwal 

Mammals and Birds Dr. S. Sathyakumar 

Dr. K. Ramesh 

River Ecology and 

Fishes 

Cumulative 

Environmental Impact 

Assessment 

Dr. K. Sivakumar 

Dr. J.A. Johnson 

Dr. Asha Rajvanshi 

Dr. Vinod B. Mathur 

Nand K. Dimri 

P. Gangaiamaran 

Roshni Arora

Credits: 

Cover : Rajeev Thapa 

Desktop Publishing : Narinder Bist 

Maps : Dr. Panna Lal 

Citation: Rajvanshi, Asha; Roshni Arora; Vinod B. Mathur; K. Sivakumar; S. Sathyakumar; G.S. 

Rawat; J.A. Johnson; K. Ramesh; NandKishor Dimri and Ajay Maletha (2012) Assessment of 

Cumulative Impacts of Hydroelectric Projects on Aquatic and Terrestrial Biodiversity in 

Alaknanda and Bhagirathi Basins, Uttarakhand. Wildlife Institute of India, Technical Report. Pp 

203 plus Appendices.

List of Boxes, Figures and Plates 

Contents 

Chapter 1 – Introduction 1 

1.1 Hydropower potential of Uttarakhand 2 

1.2 Biodiversity profile of Uttarakhand 2 

1.3 Conservation - Development dilemma 3 

1.4 Cumulative Environmental Impact Assessment 4 

1.4.1 The conceptual basis 4 

1.4.2 Merits of adopting Cumulative Environmental 

Impact Assessment (CEIA) 5 

1.5 Application of Cumulative Environmental Impact Assessment (CEIA) 

in the context of Hydropower Planning 6 

1.6 Relevance of CEA in the context of hydropower planning 

in Uttarakhand 7 

1.6.1 CEIA of aquatic biodiversity 8 

1.6.2 CEIA of terrestrial biodiversity 9 

1.6.3 Minimum environmental flows 10 

1.6.4 Social/Cultural issues 10 

1.7 Expected outputs from this study 11 

Chapter 2 – Environmental and Technical Considerations 12 

2.1 Project background 12 

2.2 Objectives of the WII study 12 

2.3 Study tasks and implementation schedule 13 

Chapter 3 – The Study Area and Project Profiles 16 

3.1 The study area 16 

3.1.1 Bhagirathi basin 16 

3.1.2 Alaknanda basin 17 

3.2 Profile of the projects 18 

3.3 Delineation of sub-basins for CEIA 25

Chapter 4 – Approach and Methodology 32 

4.1 Framework for Cumulative Environmental Impact Assessment (CEIA) 32 

4.1.1 Scoping 33 

4.1.1.1 Desk studies 34 

4.1.1.2 Reconnaissance 34 

4.1.1.3 Determining the study boundary and the Zone of Influence 34 

4.1.1.4 Defining sub-basins for CEIA 34 

4.1.2 Establishing biodiversity baseline 35 

4.1.2.1 Flora 35 

4.1.2.2 Fauna 36 

4.1.2.3 Assessing site-specific biodiversity values: Use of criteria 37 

4.1.3 Impact prediction 40 

4.1.3.1 Identification of impact indicators (impact stressors) 

4.1.3.2 An overview of impacts of HEP on aquatic 

40 

and terrestrial biodiversity 41 

4.1.4 Impact evaluation 44 

4.1.4.1 Development of impact evaluation matrix 45 

4.1.4.2 Scoring and weighting of impacts 46 

Chapter 5 – Biodiversity Baseline 48 

5.1 Overview of biodiversity values in Alaknanda and Bhagirathi river basins 48 

5.2 Biodiversity values based on fish fauna 77 

5.3 Biodiversity value based on terrestrial flora and fauna 82 

5.3.1 Mammals 82 

5.3.2 Birds 87 

5.3.3 Plants 89 

5.4 Areas representing critically imporant habitats 95 

5.4.1 Critically important habitats for aquatic species within the 

Alaknanda and Bhagirathi basins 96 

5.4.2 Terrestrial components of conservation significance 99 

5.4.2.1 Critically important habitats for animals 101 

5.4.2.2 Critically important habitats of plants 103 

Chapter 6 – Impact Prediction and Evaluation 105 

6.1 Introduction 105 

6.1.1 Valued environmental/ecological components of the 

Alaknanda and Bhagirathi basins 105 

6.2 Perceived environmental dimensions of ‘good and bad’ projects 106 

6.3 Ecological consequences of Hydro Electric Projects in Alaknanda 

and Bhagirathi basins 107

6.3.1 Prediction of impacts on aquatic ecology and fish diversity 

at the sub-basin levels 107 

6.3.1.1 Habitat loss 107 

6.3.1.2 Barrier effect 107 

6.3.1.3 Changes in sedimentation flows 108 

6.3.1.4 Changes in environmental flows 109 

6.3.1.5 Changes in nutrient flow 110 

6.3.2 Prediction of impacts on terrestrial fauna and flora 

at the sub-basin levels 110 

6.3.2.1 Habitat loss 110 

6.3.2.2 Habitat degradation and disturbances due to HEPs 111 

6.4 Scenario assessment 112 

6.4.1 Scenario assessment for aquatic biodiversity 113 

6.4.2 Scenario assessment for terrestrial biodiversity 123 

6.4.3 Final analysis 134 

Chapter 7 – Environmental Flow 136 

7.1 Introduction 136 

7.2 Methods 136 

7.3.1 Minimum Environmental Flows based on ecological 

status of river (EMC) 137 

7.3.2 Assessment of ecological status of Alaknanda and 

Bhagirathi basin 139 

7.3.3 Environmental Water Requirement as per EMC 142 

7.4. Environmental Water Requirement as per ecology of fishes 146 

7.4.1. Estimation of Minimum Environment Flow based on 

requirements of aquatic biodiversity especially fishes 163 

7.5 Major findings 170 

Chapter 8 – Conclusions and Recommendations 

8.1 Aquatic component 173 

8.1.1 Aquatic biodiversity profile 173 

8.1.2 Critically important fish habitats 174 

8.1.3 Impacts on aquatic biodiversity and their habitats 175 

8.1.3.1 Habitat modification/loss 175 

8.1.3.2 Barrier effect 175 

8.1.3.3 Changes in sedimentation flows 176 

8.1.3.4 Changes in environmental flows 176 

8.1.3.5 Changes in nutrient flow 177

8.2 Terrestrial component 177 

8.2.1 Biodiversity profile and critically imporant habitats 177 

8.2.2 Impacts on terrestrial biodiversity and habitats 178 

8.3 Recommendations 180 

8.3.1 Environmental flows 180 

8.3.2 Present and future scenario 181 

8.3.3 Conservation reserve 181 

8.3.4 Strategic options for regulating impacts of Hydro Electric Projects 181

List of Figures 

Fig.1.1 Forest cover map of Uttarakahand. 

Fig.1.2 Hydro Electric Projects on river Ganga. 

Fig.3.1 Study area showing Alaknanda and Bhagirathi basins and the locations of Hydro Electric 

Projects in different stages of planning and implementation. 

Fig.4.1 The CEIA framework adopted in the study. 

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

Fig.5.1 View of Bhagirathi sub-basin I. 

Fig.5.2 View of Bhagirathi sub-basin II. 

Fig.5.3 View of Asiganga sub-basin. 

Fig.5.4 View of Bhagirathi sub-basin III. 

Fig.5.5 View of Bhagirathi sub-basin IV. 

Fig.5.6 View of Bhilanganga sub-basin. 

Fig.5.7 View of Balganga sub-basin. 

Fig.5.8 View of Alaknanda sub-basin I. 

Fig.5.9 View of Mandakini sub-basin. 

Fig.5.10 View of Alaknanda sub-basin II. 

Fig.5.11 View of Pindar sub-basin. 

Fig.5.12 View of Nandakini sub-basin. 

Fig.5.13 View of Birahi ganga sub-basin. 

Fig.5.14 View of Rishi ganga sub-basin. 

Fig.5.15 View of Dhauli ganga sub-basin. 

Fig.5.19 Fish biodiversity values in Alaknanda and Bhagirathi basins. 

Fig.5.16 View of Bhyundar ganga sub-basin. 

Fig.5.17 View of Alaknanda sub-basin III. 

Fig.5.18 View of Ganges sub-basin (Devprayag to Rishikesh). 

Fig. 5.19 Relative fish biodiversity values in sub-basins of Alaknanda and Bhagirathi. 

Fig.5.20 Mammalian biodiversity value. 

Fig.5.21 Avifaunal biodiversity value of bird. 

Fig.5.22 Plant biodiversity value map. 

Fig.5.23 Very high terrestrial bioidiversity value. 

Fig.5.24 Nayar River, a critical fish habitat in Uttarkhand. 

Fig.5.25 A view of Balganga River, another important breeding ground of fishes. 

i

Fig.5.26 Map showing the location of critically important fish habitats in Nayar River and Balganga 

and their tributaries. 

Fig.5.27 Map showing the location of PAs within the Alaknanda and Bhagirathi basins. 

Fig.5.28 Map showing habitats utilised by snow leopard and brown bear for movement within the 

altitudinal ranges in Alaknanda and Bhagirathi basins. 

Fig.5.29 Map showing critical habitats identified for plants within the Alaknanda and Bhagirathi basins. 

Fig.5.30 Critical habitats of valued biodiversity components significantly overlap with locations of 

Hydro Electric Projects in the Alaknanda and Bhagirathi basins. 

Fig. 6.1 Predicted significance of impacts of all projects on aquatic biodiversity values. 

Fig. 6.2 Predicted significance of impacts of commissioned projects on aquatic values. 

Fig. 6.3 Predicted significance of impacts of commissioned projects and those under construction on 

aquatic values. 

Fig. 6.4 Predicted impact significance on aquatic biodiversity based on inclusion of projects with low 

impact potential. 

Fig. 6.5 Predicted significance of impacts based on exclusion approach to avoid impacts on critically 

important aquatic habitats. 

Fig. 6.6 Predicted significance of impacts of all projects on terrestrial biodiversity values. 

Fig. 6.7 Predicted significance of impacts of commissioned projects on terrestrial biodiversity values. 

Fig. 6.8 Predicted significance of impacts of commissioned projects and those under different stages 

of construction on terrestrial biodiversity vlaues. 

Fig. 6.9 Predicted impact significance on terrestrial biodiversity based on inclusion of projects with 

low impact potential. 


important habitats for terrestrial biodiversity. 

Fig. 6.11 Critically important habitats of valued biodiversity components significantly overlap with 

locations of hydropower projects in the Alaknanda and Bhagirathi basins 

Fig.7.1 Line diagram of Ganga and its major tributaries (Numbers are average flows in MCM-million 

cubic meters. 

Fig.7.2 Relationship between the river flow and species richness in the Alaknanda and Bhagirathi 

Basins. 

Fig.7.3 Calculated Minimum Environmental Flow (MEF) with reference to Mean Annual Flow (i.e. 

20% of MAF) at Kotlibhel IA. 

Fig.7.4 Calculated Minimum Environmental Flow (MEF) with reference to Mean Monthly Flow (i.e. 

20%, 25% and 30% of MMF depending upon season) at Kotlibhel IA. 

Fig.7.5 Observed mean monthly flows during past few years at Kotibhel IA. 

ii

List of Boxes 

Box 1.1: Generic principles of Cumulative Environmental Impact Assessment (CEIA) 

Box 1.2: Regional EIA, SEA and CEIA linkages 

Box 1.3: Impact scenarios arising out of multiple projects 

Box 3.1: Type of Hydro Electric Projects 

Box 4.1: Criterion used for evaluation of natural areas. 

Box 4.2: Examples of relevant questions for guiding the evaluation of impact significance. 

Box 8.1: Ramsar Convention: Guidelines for contracting parties relating to reducing the impact of 

water development projects on wetlands. 

List of Plates 

Plate 5.1 Sub-basins within Alaknanda and Bhagirathi basins. 

Plate 5.2 RET Fishes of Alaknanda-Bhagirathi basin, Uttarakhand. 

Plate 5.3 Some common fishes of Alaknanda-Bhagirathi basin, Uttarakhand. 

Plate 5.4 Important mammals in the two basins. 

Plate 5.5 Important Galliformes in the two basins. 

Plate 5.6 Some RET plant species found in Alaknanda and Bhagirathi basins. 


iii

iv 

List of Appendices 

Appendix–2.1 The MoEF vide letter No. F 8-9/2008-FC dated 23rd July, 2010 

Appendix–2.2 The Terms of Reference (ToR) for the AHEC study 

Appendix–2.3 The broad objectives of WII study as agreed under Terms of reference 

Appendix–2.4 The proposal for the study was approved by MoEF vide letter No. 8-9/2008-FC dated 

16/11/2010 

Appendix – 3.1 Profile of 70 HEPs in Alaknanda and Bhagirathi basins 

Appendix–4.1 Criteria adopted for developing impact matrix. 

Appendix–5.1 Checklist of plant species found in the Alaknand and Bhagirathi basins 

Appendix–5.2 RET/Endemic species of plants recorded in the Bhagirathi and Alaknanda basins. 

Appendix–5.3 Description of RET plant species found in the two basins. 

Appendix–5.4 Checklist of fishes found in the ZoIs of hydroelectric projects in Alaknanda and 

Bhagirathi basins 

Appendix–5.5 Distribution of birds in the sub-basins of Alaknanda and Bhagirathi basins 

Appendix–5.6 Distribution of mammals in the sub-basins of Alaknanda and Bhagirathi basins 

Appendix–5.7 Distribution of mammals in the zones of influence of hydroelectric projects of 

Alaknanda and Bhagirathi basins 

Appendix–5.8 Floristic composition of all HEP sites in the Alaknanda & Bhagirathi basins. 

Appendix–6.1 Statement of Outstanding Universal Value of Nanda Devi and Valley of Flowers World 

Heritage Sites,Uttarakhand , India. 

Appendix–6.2 Project wise derivation of impact potential values for different sub-basin 

Appendix–8.1 Freshwater fish biodiversity in the River Ganga (India): changing pattern, threats and 

conservation perspectives

Chapter I – Introduction 

The State of Uttarakhand came into existence on 9th November 2000 as 27 th State of Indian 

Republic. It lies between 28 o 44’ to 31 o 28’ N Latitudes and 77 o 35’ to 81 o 01 E Longitudes. It was carved 

out from the State of Uttar Pradesh by separating the hill region with a geographical area of 53,483 km 2 

constituting 1.63% of the land area of the country (FSI, 1999). The State has 13 districts sub divided 

into 49 tehsils and 95 development blocks. 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 array of forest types from tropical to alpine. 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 recorded forest cover (Fig. 1.1) of the State is 34,651 km 2 , which 

constitutes 64.79% of its geographic area (FSI, 2009). 

Figure 1.1 Forest cover map of Uttarakahand (Source: FSI, 2009). 

1

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 has irreplaceable values as one of the important 

mountain ecosystems of the world (Singh, 2006). These young and fragile mountains of the Himalaya 

command high conservation significance due to their floral, faunal, geo-hydrological, ecological, sociocultural 

and aesthetic values. Also known as the water tower of the Earth (Valdiya, 1997), the 

Himalaya 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 Foothills, Lesser 

Himalaya, Greater Himalaya and Trans-Himalaya form the eastern most part of the western Himalaya 

(Negi, 1995). This State uniquely endowed with glaciers and rain fed monsoonal rivers following the 

natural incline/gradient has good hydro power potential and is thus recognized as 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 so far through 45 Hydro Electric Projects (HEPs) 

of varying capacities being implemented by State and Central Government agencies and public and 

private sectors (IIT, 2011). Hydropower potential is one of the 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 power. Since its creation, the 

new State, has been witnessing a sharp increase in energy demand. As the power consumption of the 

State has grown more than five times in the last eight years (2002-10), only 52 percent of its power 

needs are met from its natural resources. The State therefore plans to expand its hydropower 

generation capacity to become self reliant and a net exporter of surplus power (IIT, 2011). To meet this 

objective, a large number of Hydro Electric Projects are already in the advanced stages of 

planning/execution and many more projects are being proposed in the important river basins viz., the 

Alaknanda and Bhagirathi basins, of the State. Among the various allotted Hydro Electric Projects in 

these two basins, 17 are commissioned Hydro Electric Projects with total installed capacity of 1851 

MW; 14 projects of 2538 MW capacity are in the advanced stage of construction and 39 projects with 

installed capacity of 4644 MW are in different stages of planning. 

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 with Chir Pine (Pinus roxburghii) as the 

dominant species are primarily found in the lower regions of the Himalaya (iii) Himalayan Moist 

2

Temperate Forests occurring between 1600-2900 m altitude in the Himalaya are 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 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 birchrhododendron 

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 that can grow up to 2m, form as an ideal habitat as ambush cover for 

predators and also provide 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 considerable area (13.68% of its geographic area) under protected area network 

as compared to the national average of 4.8%. There are six National Parks, six Wildlife Sanctuaries, 

one Biosphere Reserve, and two Conservation Reserves. The Nanda Devi NP and Valley of Flowers 

NP have been inscribed on the UNESCO World Heritage List. In terms of floral wealth, the State 

harbours about 4500 species of vascular plants, of which 29 species are endemic. 

The mammalian diversity of Uttarakhand represented by more than 75 species is one of the 

richest in the country (Paramanand et al. 2000; Uniyal & Ramesh 2004; Chandola et al. 2008; Bhardwaj 

& Uniyal 2009 and Bhardwaj et al. 2010, Maheshwari & Sharma 2010). Species falling under lower risk 

category represent a little more than 50% indicating that the species with threatened status represent 

nearly half of the total species found in the State. Some of the threatened/vulnerable mammals in the 

State include Musk deer (Moschus chryogaster), Snow leopard (Panthera uncia), Himalayan brown 

bear (Ursus arctos isabellinus) 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 (Vasudevan & Sondhi, 2010). 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 125 species (Badola, 2001). The Bhagirathi and Alaknanda 

river basins represent two important riparian ecosystems that have significantly contributed to the 

richness of the biodiversity of the State. 

1.3 Conservation - Development dilemma 

Among all types of development projects, hydroelectric dams are often seen as the most 

controversial. Issues linked to dams and especially to the “large dams” are often highly polarized. 

3

Critics of Hydro Electric Projects express their concerns about the wide range of negative 

environmental and related social impacts, from the destruction of unique biodiversity to the 

displacement of vulnerable human populations. Defenders of dams emphasize that these are often the 

economically least-cost source of electric power available from renewable source. However, like most 

other power generation technologies hydropower development also has adverse environmental impacts 

(Ledec and Quintero, 2003). 

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. Available worldwide 

literature on consequences of dam development (Goldsmith and Hildyard, 1984; Graf, 1999; Adams, 

2000; Berkamp et al., 2000;) 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 resulting to impacts on ecosystems and biodiversity elements that these 

streams support and on their attendant socio-economic aspects. 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). 

1.4 Cumulative Environmental Impact Assessment 

1.4.1 The conceptual basis 

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 individual developments are combined, impacts may become larger, 

additive, or even new and therefore significant. 

In recent years, there has been a growing realisation that the EIA process essentially adopted 

to portend the impacts of each development initiative on its individual standing may not be the best 

approach to assess the combined impacts of several projects (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 – this approach focuses on the assessment of 

changes on different components of 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 introduced as early as 

the 1970s in several countries’ EIA legislation and practice guidelines, it was not until the mid-to-late 

4

1980s that these terms began to be incorporated in impact assessment practice. The terms 'cumulative 

impacts, cumulative effects and cumulative environmental changes’ are often used interchangeably. 

Several definitions of ‘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.” 

Although there may be variations and refinements in the definitions associated with cumulative 

impacts, most efforts to incorporate CEIA within the EIA or SEA process have concentrated on 

addressing combined effects from the proposed actions on the environmental systems subsequent to 

appropriately defining baseline conditions and considering proposed actions in relation to surrounding 

projects (Canter, 1999). The principles of cumulative impact assessment have been derived from the 

definition of ‘cumulative effects’ in the CEQ regulations, from surveys of EIA practitioners and from a 

review of published literature. These principles are summarized (Box 1.1) and are meant to be 

considered in the planning and conduct of CEA within EIA process. 

Box 1.1: Generic principles of Cumulative Environmental Impact Assessment (CEIA) 

• 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; 

• 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. 

1.4.2 Merits of adopting Cumulative Environmental Impact Assessment 

Source: Canter, 1999 

Because of the narrow focus of EIA and its inability to provide clarity on the criteria for 

identifying and assessing cumulative effects (DEAT, 2004), it is desirable to assess cumulative effects 

within the EIA. It is through cumulative assessment, project specific EIAs can be placed into a broader 

spatial and temporal perspective to aid in the assessment of “the net result of environmental impact 

from a number of projects and activities”. 

5

Cumulative impact assessment provides valuable and important inputs as an element of 

Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA). SEA has been labeled as being a relatively efficient 

planning and decision support tool than EIA as this evaluation approach allows consideration of 

cumulative effects of the series of projects. Lawrence (1994), Sadler and Verheem (1996), Habib 

(2005), believe that the scope of SEA is more appropriate to the time and space scales at which 

cumulative effects are expressed. 

Depending on whether the assessment of cumulative effects is built upon environmental 

assessments (e.g. as part of the EIA) or will feed into Strategic decisions, the CEIA is an ideal, regional 

based approach which is closely linked to concepts of ‘limits of acceptable change’ and ‘thresholds of 

significance’, which appear to be strongly emerging tools in SEA. Addressing cumulative effects in 

SEA can provide early warning system, sign-post specific requirements for project specific EIA and 

highlight the relevance or futility of mitigation measures based on pre and post project environmental 

reviews (Box 1.2). 

6 

Box 1.2: Regional EIA, SEA and CEIA linkages 

Region 

Based EIA 

SEA as a part of region based EIA 

SEA CEIA 

CEIA as a part of SEA 

1.5 Application of Cumulative Environmental Impact Assessment in the context of 

hydropower planning 

Conflicts over dams have heightened in the last two decades largely due to the social, 

ecological and environmental impacts of dams that were either ignored in the planning process or were 

not adequately evaluated (WCD, 2000). Development outcomes require a substantially expanded and 

reliable basis for decision making, a basis that reflects a full knowledge and understanding of 

environmental consequences and their spatial and temporal dimensions. 

A range of planning tools for example, sectoral environmental assessments (EA), basin-wide 

EAs, regional EAs, and cumulative EA can be used to innovate and improve impact assessment 

outcomes for aiding decision support to provide a new direction to hydropower planning processes. 

Assessment of cumulative effects is being increasingly seen as representing best practice in 

conducting environmental assessments. As cumulative impacts can result from individually minor, but 

collectively significant actions taking place over different temporal and spatial scales, their overall effect

often exceeds the simple sum of previous effects (Cada and Hunsaker, 1990; DEAT, 2004). In the 

context of hydropower development, cumulative impacts can result from (i) multiple actions at a given 

site associated with a single project, or (ii) can be additive or synergistic in nature when potential 

impacts of multiple dams are taken into account and are concentrated in time or space, for example, 

the impacts of series of small dams constructed on a single stream or on streams within a single river 

basin (Ortolano and Shepherd, 1995). Such impacts may occur when the affected system is being 

perturbed repeatedly and increasingly by the same local agent with sufficient frequency so that it does 

not have time to recover between events (time-crowding), or the affected system is being perturbed by 

several similar activities or different activities having similar effects, in an area too small to assimilate 

the combined impacts (space-crowding) (Canter, 1999). 

Synergistic or interactive effects are generally the result of interactions between effects of two 

or more projects that result in combined effects that are greater than the sum of the individual project’s 

effects and typically more complex and difficult to assess than additive effects (Box 1.3). 

Energy 

Project 1 

Project 2 

Project 3 

Box 1.3: Impact scenarios arising out of multiple projects 

Multiple 

Hydro- 

Projects in 

Project 1 

Project 2 

Impact 

1.6 Relevance of CEIA in the context of hydropower planning in Uttarakhand 

The State of Uttarakhand has an estimated hydropower potential of 20,236 MW against which 

only about 1,850.8 MW has been harnessed so far. The hydropower development in State is being 

recognised to have critical significance in meeting the State's energy demand for economic implications 

for sustainable development. Over the next decade a major expansion in hydropower generating 

capacity is therefore planned to meet this demand (Fig. 1.2). 

A 


A 


A 


D 

7

The developments in the hydropower sector in the State of Uttarakhand are therefore in a very 

expansive phase (particulars are described in Chapter 2). From the energy plans prepared to date, it is 

evident that as many as 70 Hydro Electric Projects are largely concentrated in two river basins viz. 

Alaknanda and Bhagirathi. 

It is well understood that land clearing, anthropogenic disturbances in the landscape, combined 

with increasing water withdrawals and alterations of river systems can result in adverse effects to the 

sustainability of natural resources (Schindler, 2001; Gleick et al., 2007). Environmental effects on 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). On the same premise, it becomes relevant to adopt cumulative impact assessment 

approaches in assessment of the impacts of hydropower development on the ecology of the two major 

river basins. 

1.6.1 CEIA of aquatic biodiversity 

Hydro Electric Projects often have major effects on fish and other aquatic life. Reservoirs 

positively affect certain fish species (and fisheries) by increasing the area of available aquatic habitat. 

However, the net impacts are often negative because the dam blocks upriver fish migrations and the 

downriver passage through turbines or over spillways is often unsuccessful (Ledec and Quintero, 

2003). 

8 

Source:www.sandrp.in

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). Many river adapted fish and other aquatic species cannot survive in artificial lakes; changes in 

downriver flow patterns adversely affect many species and water quality deterioration in or below 

reservoirs can kill fish and damage aquatic habitats. Freshwater molluscs, crustaceans, and other 

benthic organisms are even more sensitive to these changes than most fish species, due to their limited 

mobility. 

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 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. 

Riparian vegetation is also an important component of the aquatic ecosystem. Riparian 

vegetation in the project area is very important for providing shelter and cover for the fish. It also 

provides shade to regulate the temperature. There are some specific pockets in the Alaknanda river 

and its tributaries especially the Birahi River in which a considerable riparian vegetation cover is 

present and which provides conducive habitat for fish. 

1.6.2 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 regimes. Species adapted to pulse-stimulated habitats are often adversely affected by flowregulation 

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. 

9

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 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). Moreover, human disturbances 

during construction and operational phases of hydro projects would keep away several shy wild animals 

from the vicinity. 

1.6.3 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 regimes (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: “Environmental flows describe the quantity, quality 

and timing of water flows required to sustain freshwater and estuarine ecosystems and the human 

livelihoods and well-being that depend on these ecosystems” (Brisbane declaration 2007). 

. 

Hence, it is essential to incorporate assessment of environmental flow requirements to ensure 

the amount, timing, and conditions under which water should be released by dams, to enable 

downstream river ecosystems to retain their natural integrity and optimum productivity. It is important to 

recognize that these assessments focus on evaluating impacts on releases are specifically from 

environmental standpoint and not for assessing minimum flows necessary for supporting downstream 

commercial activities and water supply (Acreman and Dunbar, 2004; Petts, 1996). A large number of 

river flow diversion type Hydro Electric Projects in Himalayan region are in different stages of planning 

and implementation. Assessment of impact of changed flow regime on river bed and river bank 

ecology and provision of environmental flows has therefore become a critical requirement in 

development of Hydro Electric Projects. 

1.6.4 Social/cultural issues 

People living in the region depend on the agriculture that provides major support to the 

population and with the rise in population; individual landholdings have significantly shrunk over the 

10

years (Rana et al., 2007). In addition to the expansion of urban areas, road building activities and in 

recent times the Hydro Electric Projects have further marginalized the individual landholding in 

Uttarakhand (Rana et al., 2007; Gaur, 2007). These projects are certainly going to engulf the already 

marginalized productive agricultural fields, thus implying more hardship to the local population in times 

to come (Bhatt, 1997). 

Natural ecosystems (including riverine ecosystems) and their biological components provide a 

range of services that are of substantial ecological, economic and cultural values to society. The 

changes in the riverine ecosystem due to impairment of its provisioning, regulating, cultural and 

supporting functions that are linked to the dam construction often lead to substantial economic and 

social impacts (Berkamp et al., 2000). Apart from providing life's basic needs, changes in river flows 

influence livelihoods, income, and local migration, which in turn may sometimes lead to unrest and 

even political conflicts (McCully, 1996). The consequent impacts on economy and physical security, 

freedom, choice and social relations have wide-ranging impacts on well-being and health (WHO, 2005). 

1.7 Expected outputs from this study 

While it is acknowledged that energy is essential for economic progress and well-being of the 

people of the State, the loss of biodiversity cannot be compensated by economic growth. It is essential 

to ensure that water demands for energy and irrigation do not become a cause of the decimation of 

forested areas, receding wildlife habitats and loss of biodiversity resources that may ultimately become 

compounding factors for accelerated impoverishment of natural resource dependent people. 

Development of water resources in a sustainable manner is therefore essential for the continued 

improvement in the quality of life for humans throughout the world. 

This cumulative impact study encompasses the combined effects of multiple developments or 

activities on a range of receptors. These include landscape, habitats and species. The objective of the 

study is to contribute in strategic assessments to achieve 'green decisions' which according to Fischer 

(http://www.twoeam-eu.net/role.pdf accessed on 21 st January 2012) is 'one that is more 

environmentally sustainable, in terms of leading to greater conservation of biodiversity'. 

In sync with this, the study aims to generate 'alerts' for safeguarding priority areas for 

conservation from impacts of hydropower schemes (existing, underway and proposed) in the two 

basins; provide a 'risk forecast' for specific biodiversity values (Rare, Endangered and Threatened 

(RET) Species and critical habitats) in the event of developments proceeding as planned and finally 

present a menu of scenarios for decision makers to approve options that best help in aligning energy 

planning with biodiversity conservation for sustainable developments in energy sector. 

11

12 

Chapter 2 – Environmental and Technical Considerations 

2.1 Project background 

The Government of Uttarakhand had 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 Hydro Electric 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 (Appendix–2.1) requested the 

Wildlife Institute of India (WII) to conduct a study on the cumulative environmental/ecological impacts of 

Hydro Electric Projects in the Bhagirathi and Alaknanda river basins on the riverine ecosystem including 

terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity in collaboration with specialized institutions. 

The MoEF 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. Th broad objectives of the study conducted by AHEC were: 

a. To assess the cumulative impact of commissioned, under construction and proposed 

Hydro Electric Projects in Alaknanda and Bhagirathi basins. 

b. To estimate the extent to which hydropower potential identified in the basins should be 

developed without risking stability of landforms and environment. At the same time 

ensuring that the quality, quantity, and timing of water flows required to maintain functions, 

assimilative capacity and aquatic ecosystems that provide goods and services to people 

are maintained. 

c. Restrictions, if any, that need to be placed in the development of hydropower in the two 

basins. 

The Terms of Reference (ToR) for the AHEC study are given in Appendix–2.2. 

2.2 Objectives of the WII study 

In response to this directive, the Wildlife Institute of India submitted its technical and financial 

proposal to MoEF for undertaking the desired study. The broad objectives of WII study as agreed 

under Terms of Reference (Appendix–2.3) are: 

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 critically important habitats along the existing and planned Hydro Electric 

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.

The proposal for the study was approved by MoEF vide letter No. 8-9/2008-FC dated 

16/11/2010 (Appendix–2.4) and it was indicated that the cost of the study would be borne by the 

concerned User Agencies whose proposals seeking diversion of forest land for construction of Hydro 

Electric Projects in Ganga river basin were presently pending before the MoEF. These costs for the 

study were determined by MoEF based on the proportion to the area of forest land applied for forest 

diversion by the different project proponent and are presented in Table 2.1. 

Table 2.1 Details of contribution of cost to be recovered from five Hydro Electric Projects in 

Uttarakhand State. 

S. No. Name of the Project Developer Capacity Forest Area 

Proposed to be 

Diverted 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

Kotlibhel Hydro Electric 

Project - (Stage-IA) 


Project - (Stage-IB) 


Project - (Stage-II) 

Vishnugad-Pipalkoti Hydro 

Electric Project 

Alaknanda-Badrinath Hydro 

Electric Project 

Amount to be 

recovered (Rs.) 

NHPC 195 MW 258.737 ha 5,26,316.00 

NHPC 530 MW 496.793 ha 10,10,562.00 

NHPC 530 MW 658.252 ha 13,39,059.00 

THDC 444 MW 80.607 ha 1,63,969.00 

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 provided these funds to the WII for carrying out 

this study vide letters issued by Watershed Directorate (Nos. 1528/IG-1131 () dated 14.12.2010 and 

1805/IG-1131 dated 19.01.2011). 

2.3 Study tasks and implementation schedule 

Based on the objectives of the study, an elaborate scope of work was developed to generate 

information relevant for developing information and knowledge base with reference to the different 

biological components included within the purview of consideration for this study. Table 2.2 provides an 

overview of the specific thrust areas and the tasks envisaged. 

13

Table 2.2 Details of scope of work under various components of the study. 

S.No. Study Components Scope of Work 

14 

1. Vegetation Science • Generation of baseline data and characterization of the river basins on the 

basis of floral attributes, plant association and community structure; 

2. Terrestrial Ecology 

(Mammals and avifauna 

and their habitats ) 

3. Aquatic/River Ecology 

Aquatic mammals and 

fishes and their habitats 

4. Cumulative Impact 

Assessment 

Focus: upstreaming 

biodiversity 

considerations in 

hydropower planning. 

• Assessment of likely impacts of hydropower development on vegetation, 

composition and habitat quality due to anticipated changes in hydrology and 

river flows, alteration in land use, creation of impoundments and rehabilitation 

of human population; 

• Defining conservation priorities for addressing threats to RET taxa, important 

plant communities and forest based resources in the two river basins in the 

State of Uttarakhand. 

• Generation of baseline data and characterisation of the forest areas within the 

two river basins on the basis of faunal richness and delineation of suitable 

habitats, migratory/dispersal corridors in the context of RET species of aquatic 

and terrestrial birds and mammals known to occur in the Alaknanda and 

Bhagirathi river basins of Uttarakhand; 

• Assessment of impacts on species distribution and integrity of habitats of RET 

species as a result of changes in hydrology and land use and submergence of 

natural habitats under existing and proposed hydropower development 

schemes in Uttarakhand; 

• Defining conservation priorities and propose mitigation oriented plans for 

addressing threats to conservation of RET species. 

• Generation of baseline data through survey of the river stretches for delineating 

zones of high fish diversity and abundance and characterising special habitats 

commanding importance as wetland conservation areas in Alaknanda and 

Bhagirathi river basins of Uttarakhand; 

• Development of inventories and evaluate production potential of streams and 

rivers. 

• Assessment of cumulative impacts of changes in hydrology and river flow on 

stream characteristics; habitat quality and contiguity; upstream and 

downstream migration of RET fish species such as golden mahseer and snow 

trout; spawning and breeding success; 

• Determining conservation priorities and proposing species/habitat conservation 

and/recovery/reintroduction plans to avoid and address hydropower 

development induced threats to conservation of RET species, particularly the 

golden mahseer. 

• Collate information from project profiles to assess the impact potential of 

individual projects 

• Integrate information on all biophysical aspects of the study area for 

generating biodiversity values, spatial data at sub-basin. Weight scaling and 

ranking of key impacts of hydropower development on biodiversity values 

using sub-basins as the smallest landscape unit in the two river basin 

• Determine risks associated with changes in habitat size and quality, impacts of 

river flows on aquatic and terrestrial biodiversity. 

• Generate alternate scenarios using inclusion and exclusion approaches to 

profile impacts on biodiversity in different scenarios of hydropower planning.

Table 2.3 Task completion. 

Date of Commencement: 14 th December, 2010 

Inception meeting 14 th Jan, 2011 

Complete transfer of funds to WII 19 th January 2011 

Site visit 06 th to 12 th Jan, 2011 

Site visit 07 th to 12 th Feb, 2011 

Joint WII-IIT meeting 06 th March,2011 

Internal review meeting 08 th March, 2011 




Presentation on the study before the committee 

chaired by Hon’ble Minister of Environment & 

Forests (Independent Charge). 

13 th April, 2011 

Internal review meeting 14 th April, 2011 

Site visit 17 th to 22 th April, 2011 

Internal review meeting 27 th April, 2011 

Meeting of EAC (Hyropower) at MoEF 29 th April, 2011 

Interim report submission to MoEF based on part 

study 

28 th May, 2011 

Site visit 15 th May to 06 th June 

2011 

Internal review meeting 11 thJuly, 2011 

Internal review meeting 14 thJuly, 2011 

Meeting of EAC (Hydropower) at MoEF 15 th July, 2011 

Site visit 23 rd July to 04 th Aug, 

2011 

Internal review meeting 11 thAugust,2011 

Internal review meeting 08 thSep, 2011 

Internal review meeting 26 thSep, 2011 

Site visit 04 th to 08 th Oct, 2011 

Data analysis and report writing Oct, 2011 to Feb 2012 

Draft final report 5 th March, 2012 

Internal review meeting 29 th February, 2012 

Internal review meeting 1 st March, 2012 

Internal review meeting 3 rd March, 2012 

15

16 

Chapter 3 – The Study Area and Project Profiles 

3.1 The study area 

The study area for this assessment encompasses the Alaknanda and Bhagirathi river basins 

containing the 70 commissioned, under-construction and proposed Hydro Electric 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. 

Fig. 3.1 Study area showing Alaknanda and Bhagirathi basins and the locations of Hydro 

Electric Projects in different stages of planning and implementation. 

The Alaknanda and Bhagirathi basins fall in the north-western part of Uttarakhand. The terrain 

in these two basins is predominantly hilly. The total catchment of these basins upto Devparayag is 

19,600 km 2 . Both the basins are characterized with rather rugged river drainage, with deep, steep river 

valleys separated by linear narrow ridges. The slopes are steep and quite unstable in certain regions. 

The climatic zones vary from tropical zone to perpetually frozen zone according to the altitude, falling in 

7 different categories. 

3.1.1 Bhagirathi basin 

The river Bhagirathi originates from the Gomukh (3900 m) in the Gangotri glaciers and western 

face of the Chaukamba peaks (within the physical boundaries of district Uttarkashi). The valley has a 

broad U-shape at higher elevations, characteristic of glacial origin, but at lower elevations the river has

cut a narrow V-shaped fluvial valley. Along the 217 km long river, the elevation ranges from 480 m to 

3200 m and has an average gradient of 1.25%. The total catchment area of Bhagirathi River is 8846.64 

km 2 and the catchment can be further divided into the watershed of Bhagirathi, Bhilangana and Asi 

Ganga rivers. 

Before coming down to Uttarkashi town (1,158m) Bhagirathi receives the Jadganga and 

Asiganga, other glacial and non-glacial fed streams. During its further course, the Bhilangana (glacial 

fed originating from the Khatling glaciers-3950m in Tehri district) merges with it at Tehri (630m), goes 

further downwards at Devprayag (472m), and meets with equally important sister tributary of the 

Ganga- the Alaknanda. Asiganga and Bhilangana are the major tributaries, among which Bhilangana 

has its own tributary, Balganga. The Bhagirathi basin is confined within Tehri Garhwal, Pauri Garhwal 

and Uttarkashi districts (IIT, 2011). 

A total of 32 hydropower projects both large (>25 MW) and small (1MW) with a 

total installed capacity 4871 MW are being planned within this basin (IIT, 2011). There are 9 

commissioned projects, 4 projects are under-construction and 19 are proposed projects. 

3.1.2 Alaknanda basin 

The Alaknanda River originates from Satopanth and Bhagirath Kharak glaciers and runs a 

distance of 224 km till its confluence with Bhagirathi at Devprayag (472m). The basin is extended 

between 30 o 0’ N - 31 o 0’ N and 78 o 45’ E - 80 o 0’ E, covering a total catchment area of about 12587.23 

Km 2 , representing the eastern part of the Garhwal Himalaya. The Alaknanda catchment can be subdivided 

into Alaknanda, Mandakini, Nandakini, Pindar, Dhauliganga and Birahi Ganga sub-catchments. 

Table 3.1 Physiographic characteristics of Bhagirathi and Alaknanda rivers and their tributaries. 

S.No. River 

Total 

length* 

(m) 

Elevation Range 

Highest 

Point 

Confluence 

Point 

Confluence 

Confluence Location 

Bhagirathi River 

1. Bhagirathi 217000 3200 480 1.25% 

Confluences with 

Alaknanda at 

Devprayag 

1(a). 

Bhagirathi- 

Asiganga 

83500 3200 1120 2.49% 

1(b). 

Bhagirathi- 

Bhilangana 

91000 1120 610 0.56% 

1(c). 

Bhagirathi- 

Devprayag 

42500 610 480 0.31% 

2. Asi ganga 20500 2440 1120 6.44% 

Confluences at 

Ganganani Uttarkashi 

3. Bhilangana 109000 3000 670 2.14% Confluences at Tehri 

4. Bal ganga 37000 1730 814 2.48% 

Confluences 

Bhilangana at Ghansali 

17

Alaknanda River 

18 

5. Alaknanda 224000 4016 480 1.58% 

5(a). 

5(b). 

5(c). 

6. 

Alaknanda- 

Dhauli 

ganga 

Alaknanda- 

Pindar 

Alaknanda- 

Devprayag 

Dhauli 

ganga 

47000 4016 1446 5.47% 

60000 1446 795 1.09% 

109000 795 480 0.29% 

50000 2880 1446 2.87% 

7. Rishi ganga 38500 4000 1900 5.45% 

8. Birahi ganga 29500 2160 994 3.95% 

9. Nandakini 44500 2200 880 2.97% 

10. Pindar 114000 2200 775 1.25% 

11. Mandakini 81000 3562 640 3.61% 

*Upper reaches of river have not been accounted 

Joins Bhagirathi at 

Devprayag 


Vishnuprayag 


Karanprayag 


Vishnuprayag 

Confluences Dhauli 

ganga at Tapovan 

Confluences at Birahi 

village 

Confluences 

Alaknanda at 

Nandprayag 


Karnprayag 


Rudraprayag 

Approximately 5.9% of the total geographical area is under agriculture while only 0.6% of the 

land is under the horticultural crops. Forest covers about of 65% land area. The basin comprises 

eighteen development blocks in Bageshwar, Chamoli, Rudraprayag, Tehri and Pauri Districts. Like the 

Bhagirathi valley, the Alaknanda valley is U-shaped in its upper reaches and becomes V-shaped in its 

lower reaches. It is characterised by difficult terrain, wide variation in slopes, high rainfall and high 

humidity, low solar radiation and extreme low (highly elevated regions) to very high temperatures 

(valley regions during the summer). Thus, the climate ranges from sub tropical to alpine (Sati, 2008). 

A total of 38 Hydro Electric Projects both large (>25 MW) and small (1MW) with a total 

installed capacity 4163 MW are being planned within this basin. There are eight commissioned 

projects, 10 projects are under-construction and 20 are proposed projects. 

3.2 Profile of the projects 

A total of 70 Hydro Electric Projects both large (>25 MW) and small (1MW) with 

a total installed capacity 9563 MW are being planned within this basin (Table 3.2 & Appendix 3.1). 

There are 17 commissioned projects, 14 projects are under-construction and 39 are proposed projects.

Table 3.2 List of 70 Hydro Electric Projects on Alaknanda and Bhagirathi river basins. 

S.No. Project Name River Capacity (MW) 

River 

length 

affected 

(m) 

Forest 

land take 

(ha) 

Forest area 

submerged 

(ha) 

1. Agunda Thati Dharam ganga 3.00 2000 NA NA 

2. Alaknanda Alaknanda 300.00 7000 49.648 NA 

3. Asiganga I Asiganga 4.50 3000 NA NA 

4. Asiganga II Asiganga 4.50 2000 NA NA 

5. Asiganga III Asiganga 9.00 4500 NA NA 

6. Badrinath II Rishi ganga 1.25 1500 NA NA 

7. Bal ganga II Bal ganga 7.00 3250 NA NA 

8. Bharon Ghati Bhagirathi 381.00 18500 0 NA 

9. Bhilangana Bhilangana 22.50 2700 4.949 NA 

10. Bhilangana IIA Bhilangana 24.00 5000 NA NA 

11. Bhilangana IIB Bhilangana 24.00 4500 NA NA 

12. Bhilangana IIC Bhilangana 21.00 6500 NA NA 

13. Bhilangana III Bhilangana 24.00 6500 82.84 NA 

14. Bhyundar ganga Bhyundar ganga 24.30 3250 NA NA 

15. Birahi ganga Birahi ganga 7.30 2500 NA NA 

16. Birahi ganga I Birahi ganga 24.00 6500 NA NA 

17. Birahi ganga II Birahi ganga 24.00 4000 NA NA 

18. Bowla Nandprayag Alaknanda 300.00 16000 9.09 NA 

19. Debal Kail ganga 5.00 3500 NA NA 

20. Devsari Pinder 252.00 26305 18.658 60 

21. Dewali Nandakini 13.00 10500 0 NA 

22. Gohana Tal Birahi ganga 50.00 12000 NA NA 

23. Jadh ganga Jadhganga 50.00 2100 NA 8.35 

24. Jalandharigad Jalandharigad 24.00 3500 12.11 NA 

25. Jelam Tamak Dhauli ganga 126.00 8500 70 NA 

19


20 

River 

length 

affected 

(m) 

Forest 

land take 

(ha) 

Forest area 

submerged 

(ha) 

26. Jhala koti Bal ganga 12.50 4750 NA NA 

27. Jummagad Jummagad 1.20 2000 NA NA 

28. Kail ganga Kail ganga 5.00 3000 NA NA 

29. Kakoragad Kakoragad 12.50 3500 4.98 NA 

30. Kaldigad Kaldigad 9.00 4000 NA NA 

31. Kali ganga I Kaliganga 4.00 1500 NA NA 

32. Kaliganga II Kaliganga 6.00 3000 NA NA 

33. Karmoli Jadhganga 140.00 10500 NA 9.94 

34. Khirao ganga Khirao ganga 4.00 2750 NA NA 

35. Kot Budha Kedar Bal ganga 6.00 4750 NA NA 

36. Koteshwar Bhagirathi 400.00 20700 2 220 

37. Kotlibhel IA Bhagirathi 195.00 18400 46.339 211.7 

38. Kotlibhel IB Alaknanda 320.00 27500 146.05 453.7 

39. Kotlibhel II Ganga 530.00 28000 57.45 590 

40. Lata Tapovan Dhauli ganga 170.00 8500 0 NA 

41. Limcha Gad Limcha gad 3.50 1500 NA NA 

42. Lohari Nagpala Bhagirathi 600.00 15000 0 NA 

43. Madhmaheshwar Mandakini 10.00 5500 NA NA 

44. Malari Jelam Dhauli ganga 114.00 6500 NA NA 

45. Maneri Bhali I Bhagirathi 90.00 18000 NA 1.42 

46. Maneri Bhali II Bhagirathi 304.00 22000 NA NA 

47. Melkhet Pinder 15.00 8500 NA NA 

48. 

Nandprayag 

langasu 

Alaknanda 100.00 8000 NA NA 

49. Pala Maneri Bhagirathi 480.00 18642 21.883 19.24 

50. Phata Byung Mandakini 76.00 13000 2.97 4 

51. Pilangad Pilangad 2.25 3000 NA NA


River 

length 

affected 

(m) 

Forest 

land take 

(ha) 

Forest area 

submerged 

(ha) 

52. Pilangad II Pilangad 4.00 2300 NA NA 

53. Rajwakti Nandakini 3.60 2500 NA NA 

54. Ram bara Mandakini 24.00 8000 NA NA 

55. Rishi ganga Rishi ganga 13.20 1000 NA NA 

56. Rishi ganga I Rishi ganga 70.00 6025 1.86 6.2 

57. Rishi ganga II Rishi ganga 35.00 5397 0.83 1.65 

58. Singoli Bhatwari Mandakini 99.00 14500 NA NA 

59. Siyangad Siyangad 11.50 4500 4.96 NA 

60. Srinagar Alaknanda 330.00 4500 339 68.73 

61. Suwari Gad Suwari gad 2.00 2000 NA NA 

62. Tamak Lata Dhauli ganga 250.00 10500 24 NA 

63. Tapovan Vishnugad Dhauli ganga 520.00 15500 0 NA 

64. Tehri Stage 1 Bhagirathi 1000.00 44000 2582 4200 

65. Tehri Stage II Bhagirathi 1000.00 44000 2582 4200 

66. Urgam Kalpganga 3.00 2500 NA NA 

67. Urgam II Kalpganga 3.80 1750 NA NA 

68. Vanala Nandakini 15.00 6500 0 NA 

69. Vishnugad Pipalkoti Alaknanda 444.00 17243 100.39 24.5 

70. Vishnuprayag Alaknanda 400.00 19400 33.248 NA 

Table 3.3 Status of individual projects based on the stages of development. 

Commissioned Under construction Proposed 

ALAKNANDA BASIN 

Badrinath II Kail ganga Alaknanda 

Birahi ganga Kali ganga I Bhyundar ganga 

Debal Kaliganga II Birahi ganga I 

Jummagad Madhmaheshwar Birahi ganga II 

Urgam Phata Byung Bowla Nandprayag 

Vanala Rishi ganga Dewali 

21

22 

Vishnuprayag Singoli Bhatwari Gohana Tal 

Rajwakti Srinagar Jelam Tamak 

Commissioned Under construction Proposed 

BHAGIRATHI BASIN 

Tapovan Vishnugad Devsari 

Vishnugad Pipalkoti Khirao ganga 

Kotlibhel IB 

Lata Tapovan 

Malari Jelam 

Melkhet 

Nandprayag langasu 

Ram bara 

Rishi ganga I 

Rishi ganga II 

Tamak Lata 

Urgam II 

Agunda Thati Lohari Nagpala Bal ganga II 

Bhilangana Asiganga I Bharon Ghati 

Bhilangana III Asiganga II Bhilangana IIA 

Kot Budha Kedar Asiganga III Bhilangana IIB 

Koteshwar Bhilangana IIC 

Maneri Bhali I Jadh ganga 

Maneri Bhali II Jalandharigad 

Pilangad Jhala koti 

Tehri Stage 1 Kakoragad 

Kaldigad 

Karmoli 

Kotlibhel IA 

Limcha Gad 

Pala Maneri 

Pilangad II 

Siyangad 

Suwari Gad 

Tehri Stage II 

Kotlibhel II 

Hydro Electric Projects do impact river ecosystems directly. They also affect terrestrial 

ecosystems in their zones of influence due to impoundment created for storage of water or because of 

land take for construction related activities from natural habitats. The degree of impact to which any one 

project affects a river, varies widely. One of the most important variables is the type of the dam that 

would be constructed (Box 3.1). Other variables include the size and flow rate of the river or tributary

where the project is located; the existing habitat and climatic conditions; the type, size, and design of a 

project; and whether a project is located upstream or downstream of other projects. 

Box-3.1: Type of Hydro Electric Projects. 

Diversion (Run-off) the River 

A diversion, sometimes called runof-river, 

facility channels a portion of 

a river through a canal or penstock. 

It may not require the use of a dam. 

Pump-storage 

When the demand for electricity is 

low, pumped storage facility stores 

energy by pumping water from a 

lower reservoir to an upper 

reservoir. During periods of high 

electrical demand, the water is 

released back to the lower reservoir 

to generate electricity. 

Reservoir (Impoundment) 

The most common type of 

hydroelectric power plant is an 

impoundment facility. An 

impoundment facility, typically a 

large hydropower system, uses a 

dam to store river water in a 

reservoir. Water released from the 

reservoir flows through a turbine, 

spinning it, which in turn activates a 

generator to produce electricity. The 

water may be released either to 

meet changing electricity needs or 

to maintain a constant reservoir 

level. 

(http://www.poweredbymothernature.com) 

In view of the above design considerations in assessing impacts of the Hydro Electric Projects 

in Alaknanda and Bhagirathi basins, the details of types of schemes proposed is presented in Table 

3.4. 

23

24 

Table 3.4 Types of HEPs in different sub-basins. 

Sub-basins 

Types of Scheme 

Bhagirathi I 01 02 

Bhagirathi II 10 01 

Asiganga 04 

RoR Storage Reservoir 

Bhagirathi III 01 01 

Bhagirathi IV 02 

Bhilangana 05 

Balganga 04 

Alaknanda Sub-basin I 02 

Mandakini Sub-basin 05 01 

Alaknanda Sub-basin 2 04 01 

Pindar Sub-basin 03 01 

Nandakini Sub-basin 03 

Birahi ganga 04 

Rishi ganga 01 02 

Dhauli ganga 06 

Bhyundar ganga 01 

Alaknanda Sub-basin 3 04 

Ganga Basin 01 

Run-of-river power projects require diversion of water into penstocks (pipes) that bring water to 

turbines in a power plant at lower elevation. The elevation difference between the intake and the 

powerhouse provides the kinetic energy that powers turbines that produce electricity. Such projects 

require that water be diverted from a section (‘reach’) of the river, which may vary in length from few to 

several kilometres in length. This water is finally returned into the stream below the powerhouse 

through a short channel ‘tailrace’. These various physical aspects of the project that are sometimes 

referred to as the project ‘footprint’ vary with length of river affected by diversions, submergence and 

downstream releases. The details of affected lengths of Bhagirathi and Alaknanda river are provided in 

Table 3.5.

Table 3.5 Affected lengths of Bhagirathi and Alaknanda river and its tributaries due to allotted 

hydropower development. 

S.No. River 

Total 

river 

stretch 

(m) 

River 

stretch 

diverted 

River 

stretch 

submerged 

Affected 

length 

% of river 

length 

diverted 

% of river 

length 

submerged 

% of river 

length 

affected 

Bhagirathi Basin 

1. Bhagirathi 217000 68031 85400 153431 31% 39% 70.71% 

2. Asiganga 20500 10945 0 10945 53% 0% 53.39% 

3. Bhilangana 109000 20369 19000 39369 19% 17% 36.12% 

4. Bal ganga 37000 14721 0 14721 40% 0% 39.79% 

5. 

Small 

tributaries 

73000 16401 0 16401 22% 0% 22.47% 

Alaknanda Basin 

6. Alaknanda 224000 60412 47100 107512 27% 21% 48.00% 

7. Dhauliganga 50000 46794 0 46794 94% 0% 93.59% 

8. Rishiganga 38500 10426 600 11026 27% 2% 28.64% 

9. Birahi ganga 29500 21926 0 21926 74% 0% 74.32% 

10. Nandakini 44500 15507 0 15507 35% 0% 34.85% 

11. Mandakini 81000 34875 500 35375 43% 1% 43.67% 

12. Pindar 114000 24974 10000 34974 22% 9% 30.68% 

13. 

Small 

tributaries 

83000 18780 0 18780 23% 0% 22.63% 

* Upper reaches of river have not been accounted 

3.3 Delineation of sub-basins for CEIA 

A total of 18 sub-basins were delineated within the study area. These sub-basins provide for 

unique ecogeographic character and therefore, reflect biodiversity values accordingly. In the study 

area, the Alaknanda Basin is comprised of 10 sub-basins that are as follows: 

A) Alaknanda basin 

The Alaknanda Basin is comprised of 10 sub-basins. These are: 

1. Alaknanda I sub-basin 

The Alaknanda I spans along the stretch of mainstream River Alaknanda between Devprayag 

and Karanprayag. This sub-basin is drained mainly by Alaknanda River and its major tributary 

Mandakini that joins Alaknanda at Rudraprayag. This sub-basin mainly falls under lower to 

middle Himalayan range and has high ridge mountains and a number of side valleys. The 

variable topography of the area supports wide range of vegetation from subtropical to 

temperate types. Area has subtropical mixed forests, pine in the lower elevations and 

temperate forests in the higher elevations. Anthropogenic pressures and developmental 

activities along this stretch of Alaknanda are high as the main routes to Kedarnath and 

Badrinath is along this river which includes the major towns such as Srinagar, Rudraprayag 

and Devprayag. 

25

26 

This sub-basin harbours 2 Hydro Electric Projects Kotlibhel IB (storage), and Srinagar 

(storage). Among these, Srinagar HEP is under-construction and the Kotlibhel IB is a proposed 

project. All the projects are planned on the mainstream River Alaknanda. 

2. Alaknanda II sub-basin 

The Alakananda II sub-basin covers the stretch of mainstream River Alaknanda between 

Karanprayag to Vishnuprayag. In this sub-basin, tributaries such as the Urgam, Birahi ganga, 

Mandal river, Nandakini and Pindar drain into the main Alaknanda River. The sub-basin falls 

within the middle and lower Himalayan regions and encompasses subtropical mixed and chir 

pine forests at the lower elevations, temperate forests and scattered tree and scrub in the 

middle elevations (near Vishnuprayag) and oak & coniferous mixed sub alpine forests, alpine 

scrub and meadows in the higher elevations (Tungnath, Rudranath regions). Patches of 

riverine forest and scrub occur along the main river. 

There are 5 Hydro Electric Projects within the limits of this sub-basin namely Bowla 

Nandprayag (RoR), Vishnugad Pipalkoti (storage), Nandprayag langasu (RoR), Urgam (RoR) 

and Urgam II (RoR). Urgam HEP is a commissioned project, Vishnugad- Pipalkoti is underconstruction 

and Bowla Nandprayag, Nandprayag Langasu and Urgam II projects are 

proposed. The Urgam and Urgam II projects are planned on River Kalpganga, a tributary of 

River Alaknanda. The other projects are planned on the mainstream River Alaknanda. 

3. Alaknanda III sub-basin 

The stretch of Alaknanda from its origin up to its confluence with Dhauli Ganga falls in this subbasin. 

The River Alaknanda originates from the high peaks near the northern boundary of 

District Chamoli (also international border), flows along Badrinath and south towards 

Joshimath. Tributaries such as Khiron ganga and Bhyundar ganga drain into Alaknanda. This 

sub-basin encompasses the Greater and Trans-Himalayan zones and the transition zones as 

well. The entire sub-basin is very narrow with steep slopes and rugged terrain in the lower and 

middle elevations, but opens up into wider valleys in the north towards the Trans-Himalayan 

regions. The uniqueness of this sub-basin is the gradual transition from Greater Himalayan 

elements (near Joshimath) to Trans-Himalayan elements (at the border). The famous 

Badrinath shrine is located in this sub-basin. Major proportion of this sub-basin was included 

into the buffer zone of Nanda Devi BR. 

A total of 4 Hydro Electric Projects at different stages of construction are situated within the 

sub-basin viz., Vishnuprayag (RoR), Khirao ganga (RoR), Alaknanda (RoR) and Badrinath II 

(RoR). Of these, Badrinath II and Vishnuprayag are commissioned projects whereas the others 

are proposed projects. All the projects are planned on River Alaknanda except Khirao ganga 

project which is planned on River Khirao ganga. 

4. Bhyundar ganga sub-basin 

The main river of the Bhyundar sub-basin is the Bhyundar River that is recognized by this 

name from the point where Paspawati River that originates in the Valley of Flowers NP and

Lakshman ganga that originates in the Lokpal Lake meet and later flow down through the 

Bhyundar Valley for about 15 km to join Alaknanda at Govindghat. This sub-basin is a small 

narrow Valley with steep terrain. This sub-basin located in the Greater Himalayan and the 

transition zone between the Greater and Trans-Himalaya. Only one project is planned in this 

sub-basin the Bhyundar ganga project (RoR). It is a proposed project and is planned on the 

River Bhyundar ganga. 

5. Nandakini sub-basin 

The Nandakini sub-basin covers the catchment of River Nandakini. The River Nandakini 

originates near the high peaks of Nandaghunti and Trishul and as like the Pinder runs eastwest 

to join the Alaknanda at Nandprayag. It is a very narrow sub-basin and similar to Pindar 

sub-basin in terms of its location, topography, forest types, flora & fauna. Some high altitude 

areas of this sub-basin fall within the buffer zone of Nanda Devi BR. 

This sub-basin has 3 Hydro Electric Projects which are Dewali (RoR), Rajwakti (RoR) and 

Vanala (RoR) projects. These projects are at different stages of construction with Vanala and 

Rajwakti being commissioned projects and Dewali project being proposed. All the projects are 

planned on River Nandakini. 

6. Mandakini sub-basin 

The catchment of River Mandakini falls under Mandakini sub-basin. The River Mandakini is one 

of the main tributaries of Alaknanda. Rivers such as Sone ganga, Kali ganga, Mandani ganga, 

and Madh Maheshwar ganga drain into Mandakini River. The sub-basin extends from middle 

to the high Himalayan ranges and encompasses subtropical mixed and chir pine forests at the 

lower elevations (Rudraprayag), temperate forests and scattered tree and scrub in the middle 

elevations, oak & coniferous mixed sub alpine forests, alpine scrub and meadows, moraines, 

glaciers and high altitude lakes in the higher elevations. The upper catchment of Mandakini 

forms the part of the Kedarnath Musk Deer Sanctuary. 

A total of 6 Hydro Electric Projects are planned within this sub-basin viz., Singoli Bhatwari 

(RoR), Madhmaheshwar (RoR), Kaliganga II (RoR), Phata Byung (storage), Kali ganga I 

(RoR), and Ram bara (RoR). Among these, Ram bara is a proposed project while the others 

are under-construction. The Kali ganga I and II projects are planned on River Kali ganga 

(tributary of Mandakini) while the other 4 projects are planned on River Mandakini. 

7. Birahi ganga sub-basin 

As like Nandakini, the River Birahi ganga originate from the high group of peaks of Trishul and 

Nandaghunti flows east-west to join Alaknanda near Pipalkoti. Located in the middle and 

Greater Himalayan ranges, this sub-basin encompasses subtropical mixed and chir pine 

forests at the lower elevations, temperate forests and scattered tree and scrub in the middle 

elevations, and oak & coniferous mixed sub alpine forests, alpine scrub and meadows in the 

higher elevations. 

27

28 

The catchment of River Birahi ganga forms the Birahi ganga sub- basin. This sub-basin 

contains Birahi ganga (RoR), Birahi ganga I (RoR), Birahi ganga II (RoR) and Gohana Tal 

(RoR) Hydro Electric Projects. The Birahi ganga project is under construction whereas Birahi 

ganga I, Birahi ganga II and Gohana Tal are proposed projects. All the projects are planned on 

River Birahi ganga. 

8. Pinder sub-basin 

The River Pinder catchment is covered under Pinder sub-basin. The River Pindar originates 

from the Pindari glacier in Bageshwar District and flows east-west to join the River Alaknanda 

at Karnaprayag in Chamoli District. The Pindar catchment falls within the middle and greater 

Himalayan regions and encompasses subtropical mixed and chir pine forests at the lower 

elevations (Karnaprayag), temperate forests and scattered tree and scrub in the middle 

elevations, and oak & coniferous mixed sub alpine forests, alpine scrub and meadows in the 

higher elevations (near Pindari). Patches of riverine forest and scrub occur along the main 

river. Some high altitude areas of this sub-basin fall within the buffer and transistion zones of 

Nanda Devi BR. 

There are 4 Hydro Electric Projects planned in the sub-basin namely Devsari (storage), Debal 

(RoR), Kail ganga (RoR) and Melkhet (RoR) projects. The Devsari and Melkhet projects are 

planned on the River Pinder and the Debal and Kail ganga projects are planned on River Kail 

ganga, a tributary of Pinder. The Devsari and Melkhet projects are proposed to be built, Kail 

ganga project is under-construction whereas Debal is a commissioned project. 

9. Dhauliganga sub-basin 

The catchment of River Dhauliganga falls within the Dhauliganga sub-basin. The River Dhauli 

ganga originates from the high peaks along the eastern border of District Chamoli (also the 

international border) and runs south west to join Alaknanda near Joshimath. The sub-basin 

encompasses Greater and Trans-Himalayan regions and has high habitat diversity ranging 

from temperate forests, scattered tree and scrub in lower elevations to subalpine forests, alpine 

scrub and meadows, glacier moraines, trans-Himalayan scrub and grasslands in the higher 

elevations. The uniqueness of this sub-basin is the gradual transition from Greater Himalayan 

elements (near Joshimath) to Trans-Himalayan elements (at the international border). 

A total of 6 Hydro Electric Projects are planned within the sub-basin viz., Jummagad (RoR), 

Tapovan Vishnugad (RoR), Lata Tapovan (RoR), Tamak Lata (RoR), Jelam Tamak (RoR) and 

Malari Jelam (RoR). Lata Tapovan, Tamak Lata, Jelam Tamak and Malari Jelam are among 

the proposed projects, Tapovan Vishnugad is under-construction and Jummagad is a 

commissioned project. All projects are planned on River Dhauliganga except Jummagad which 

is planned on River Jummagad, a tributary of Dhauliganga. 

10. Rishi ganga sub-basin 

The Rishi ganga basin covers the catchment of River Rishi ganga. The River Rishi ganga 

originates at the base of Nanda Devi west peak (7817m) and flows northwest to join Dhauli 

ganga at Reni village. The Nanda Devi Sanctuary was declared as Nanda Devi National Park

in 1982 and closed for all human activities in 1983. In 1988, the Nanda Devi NP was inscribed 

as UNESCO World Heritage Site. In order to protect the integrity of this site and the sustainable 

development of the local communities, the Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve was created in 1988 

with a buffer zone surrounding this NP. The Nanda Devi NP is located in the Greater 

Himalayan region and encompasses the temperate, subalpine, alpine, moraine habitats and 

many glaciers. 

This sub-basin harbours 3 projects which are Rishi ganga (RoR), Rishi ganga I (storage) and 

Rishi ganga II (storage). All the projects are planned on River Rishi ganga. Rishi ganga I and II 

are proposed projects whereas Rishi ganga project is under-construction. 

B) Bhagirathi basin 

The Bhagirathi basin is comprised of 7 sub-basins which are: 

1. Bhagirathi I sub-basin 

This sub-basin that is drained by Bhagirathi and its main tributary, Jadh ganga fall in the 

Greater and Trans-Himalayan regions. It encompasses the temperate forests, temperate 

scattered tree and scrub, subalpine forests and scrub, alpine scrub and meadows, moraines 

and glaciers. The entire catchment of Bhagirathi forms the Gangotri National Park including a 

considerable stretch of snow-clad mountains and glaciers. The Gangotri, after which the 

National Park has been named, is one of the holy shrines of Hindus and located inside the 

Park. The National Park area forms a viable continuity between Govind National Park and 

Kedarnath Wildlife Sanctuary of Uttarakhand state. High ridges, deep gorges and precipitous 

cliffs, rocky craggy glaciers and narrow valleys characterize the area. 

There are 2 Hydro Electric Projects located within this sub-basin namely, Karmoli (storage) and 

Jadhganga (storage). Both these projects are proposed projects and are situated on River 

Jadhganga. 

2. Bhagirathi II sub-basin 

The stretch of Bhagirathi from its confluence with Jadh ganga to the location of its confluence 

with Asi ganga has been categorised as Bhagirathi II sub-basin. This sub-basin falls in the 

middle and high Himalayan ranges and much of the sub-basin has been degraded due to 

development and anthropogenic pressures consequently there are no PAs. 

A total of 11 Hydro Electric Projects are planned within this sub-basin viz., Lohari Nagpala 

(RoR), Limcha Gad (RoR), Bharon Ghati (RoR), Kakoragad (RoR), Siyangad (RoR), 

Jalandharigad (RoR), Maneri Bhali I (RoR), Pala Maneri (storage), Suwari Gad (RoR), Pilangad 

(RoR) and Pilangad II (RoR). The Pilangad and Maneri Bhali I projects are commissioned, 

Lohari Nagpala project is under-construction whereas all the other projects are proposed. The 

Maneri Bhali, Lohari Nagpala, Bharon Ghati and Pala Maneri projects are planned on River 

Bhagirathi, the Pilangad and Pilangad II projects are planned on River Pilangad and the other 

projects are planned on smaller tributaries of River Bhagirathi. 

29

30 

3. Bhagirathi III sub-basin 

The length of River Bhagirathi between point of confluence of River Bhilangana with River 

Bhagirathi to that of River Asiganga is covered within the Bhagirathi III sub-basin. This subbasin 

falls in lower and middle Himalayan range and has high ridge mountains. The Tehri Dam 

located at the confluence of Bhagirathi and Bhilangana and its Reservoir extends up to 44 km 

up stream fall within this sub-basin. The land on both the sides of the river is primarily 

agriculture land and the vegetation is mostly degraded scattered pine and mixed forests and 

xerophytic shrubs. Area above the submergence zone is very close to Uttarkashi town and 

most of it is human settlements. 

Only one project, Maneri Bhali II (RoR), is situated in the sub-basin. This project is located on 

mainstream Bhagirathi and is a commissioned project. 

4. Bhagirathi IV sub-basin 

This sub-basin includes the area from Bhagirathi-Bhilangana confluence to Devprayag where 

Bhagirathi joins Alaknanda. It falls in the lower Himalaya and has patches of riverine habitats 

along the river and mixed sub-tropical forests in the middle and higher slopes. Anthropogenic 

pressures and developmental activities in whole sub-basin have resulted in degradation of 

forested habitats. 

The section of river Bhagirathi between Devprayag and the point of confluence of River 

Bhilangana falls within the Bhagirathi IV sub-basin. There are 4 projects are planned in the subbasin 

namely, Kotlibhel IA (storage), Koteshwar (storage), Tehri Stage 1 (storage) and Tehri 

Stage II (storage) among which Tehri stage 1 and Koteshwar are commissioned and Kotlibhel 

IA and Tehri stage projects are proposed. 

5. Asiganga sub-basin 

The catchment of River Asiganga lies within the Asiganga sub-basin. The river Asiganga is one 

of the major tributaries of Bhagirathi. It originates from Dodital lake (2240m) and joins 

Bhagirathi near Uttarkashi. The sub-basin falls in the middle and high Himalayan ranges and 

encompasses subtropical pine mixed forests, temperate oak and conifer forests, subalpine 

forests and scrub, and alpine scrub and meadows. The valley is marked by undulating and 

rugged terrain and steep slopes with highly mountainous, precipitous ridges interspaced by 

deep gorges. The valley is seemingly narrow through which the fast flowing Asiganga passes. 

A total of 4 Hydro Electric Projects lie within the sub-basin which are Asiganga III (RoR), 

Asiganga II (RoR), Asiganga I (RoR) and Kaldigad (RoR). The Asiganga I, II and III projects are 

planned on River Asiganga and the Kaldigad project is planned River Kaldigad, a tributary of 

Asiganga. All the projects are under-construction except Asiganga III which is proposed to be 

built. 

6. Bhilangana sub-basin 

The Bhilangana sub-basin covers the catchment of River Bhilangana. The Bhilangana River 

originates from Khatling glacier and joined by Balganga at Ghansali. It falls in the middle and

greater Himalayan regions and encompasses subtropical mixed and chir pine forests at the 

lower elevations (Ghansali), temperate forests and scattered tree and scrub in the middle 

elevations (Ghutu), and coniferous mixed sub alpine forests, alpine scrub and meadows in the 

higher elevations (below Khatling). 

The sub-basin constitutes of 5 projects viz., Bhilangana (RoR), Bhilangana III (RoR), 

Bhilangana IIC (RoR), Bhilangana IIB (RoR), and Bhilangana IIA (RoR). The Bhilangana and 

Bhilangana III projects are commissioned, whereas the other 3 projects are proposed. All the 

projects are planned on River Bhilangana. 

7. Balganga sub-basin 

The Balganga sub-basin is drained by Balganga and its tributary Dharamganga that joins 

Balganga at Budhakedar. This sub-basin falls in the middle and greater Himalayan ranges and 

is a broad valley with many lakes and glaciers in the higher altitudes. Habitats such as 

temperate mixed forests, temperate scattered tree and scrub with open grassy slopes, pine 

forests are present in this sub-basin including patches of riverine forests along Balganga. A 

total of 4 projects are planned in this sub-basin namely, Balganga II (RoR), Agunda Thati 

(RoR), Kot Budha Kedar (RoR) and Jhala koti (RoR). All projects are planned in River 

Balganga except Agunda thati which is situated on River Dharamganga, a tributary of 

Balganga. The Agunda thati and Kot Budha Kedar are commissioned projects where as the 

Balganga II, and Jhala Koti projects are proposed. 

8. Ganga sub-basin 

The stretch of River ganga between Devprayag and Rishikesh is covered under Ganga subbasin. 

The stretch of Ganga from Devprayag to Rishikesh falls in the lower Himalayan range 

and encompasses the subtropical sal and mixed forests, open grassy slopes and scrub, and 

patches of riverine forests along the river. One major tributary, the Nayar joins Ganga near 

Byasi. This stretch of the Ganga is heavily used for adventure activities such as river rafting, 

camping, rock climbing and also for religious/spiritual purposes. This basin harbours one 

project which is the Kotlibhel II (storage) project. It is a proposed project which is planned on 

River Ganga. 

31

32 

Chapter 4 – Approach and Methodology 

4.1 Framework for Cumulative Environmental Impact Assessment (CEIA) 

The study was designed to assess the cumulative impacts of the Hydro Electric Projects 

(commissioned, under-construction and proposed) on the biodiversity values of Alaknanda and 

Bhagirathi basins, in the State of Uttarakhand. The overall goal of CEIA was to assess the impacts of 

past, present and future hydropower developments on biodiversity values. The major challenge to this 

kind of assessment is the lack of tailor made methodologies for scoping of cumulative effects and 

consideration of past or likely future human activities beyond the plan or project in question (Therivel 

and Ross, 2007). Development of an appropriate methodological framework for conducting CEIA in the 

context of hydropower development was the foremost requirement. The methodological framework for 

this study was adopted from standard practices followed globally in the evaluation of cumulative effects 

(Council on Environmental Quality, 1997; Canter and Sadler, 1997; CEAA,1999; Dube, 2003; Caltran 

2005). The specific process of CEIA involved (a) Scoping, (b) Establishing Biodiversity Baselines, (c) 

Impact Prediction and Evaluation and (d) Decision Support (Fig 4.1). The CEIA was designed to be 

executed over a nine month period from January to September 2011, but additional time frame upto 

February 2012 was actually used for analysis and report writing. 

Scoping 

Defining the boundary of the study area and Zone of Influence of projects 

Development of evaluation criteria and knowledge base 

Baseline Generation 

Development of baseline of terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity, 

including RET species and medicinal plants 

Impact Evaluation 

Assessment of cumulative impacts based on weight scoring of 

biodiversity values and impact potential of the projects 

Decision support 

Scenario Fig 4.1 modeling The Framework for projecting of CEIA present adopted and in futuristic the study. trends of 

impact significance on biodiversity values 

Fig. 4.1 The CEIA framework adopted in the study.

4.1.1 Scoping 

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

Scoping is the most important step in the impact assessment process as it is essentially aimed 

at identifying the sources of the impacts or “impact stressors” and those receptors that are likely to be 

subjected to significant cumulative effects and defining the boundary of the study. 

In this assessment, scoping effort included (a) desk reviews, (b) preliminary field surveys 

(reconnaissance) for determining scope of assessment and determining the larger boundary of the 

study and the Zone of Influence within this boundary, based on the available knowledge, field 

assessment and impact analysis. The Zone of Influence for each of these projects was defined as an 

area which 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 varies thus 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 is nonlinear, variable 

in size and shape, depending on the location, length and area of various project activities. 

33

4.1.1.1 Desk Studies 

Desk studies involved review and gleaning of information from the detailed project reports 

(DPRs), EIA reports, the report by IIT, Roorkee for improving the understanding of the project profile 

and the nature and extent of activities envisaged to visualize the range of impacts. An extensive and 

elaborate literature survey was undertaken to collect secondary 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 supplement information on key study parameters. Literature on 

CEIA studies conducted globally was consulted. 

4.1.1.2 Reconnaissance 

The Institute’s multidisciplinary team undertook series of surveys in the selected project sites 

and gathered information on different terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity components. As Hydro Electric 

Projects have a direct bearing on the habitats of both terrestrial and aquatic species dependent on 

environmental flows, specific taxa were targeted for conducting impact assessment. Taxonomic groups 

that have flagship values and keystone effects, and are highly sensitive to changes in the habitat and 

intensity of disturbance in their habitats were selected for the assessment. In this study, mammals, 

birds and plants were considered to represent the terrestrial system and fishes were included to 

represent the aquatic system. During the study period, the biodiversity values of the area within the 

Zone of Influence were assessed based on qualitative criteria such as cover, habitat diversity and 

species presence/ absence. 

4.1.1.3 Determining the study boundary and the Zone of Influence 

As cumulative impacts are considered within spatial (geographic) and temporal boundaries, the 

boundaries of study area for cumulative impacts analysis are often broader than the boundaries used 

for the project-specific analysis, which focuses on the immediate project area. These boundaries were 

identified based on working knowledge of resources, development actions proposed and regulatory 

mandates. Within these study boundaries, Zones of Influence (ZoI) were identified. 

The Zone of Influence is defined as the farthest possible distance of influence of the 

development project, emanating from various impact sources. Identification of impact sources took into 

consideration the 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. These features joined together formed the threshold distance of 

Zone of Influence and the extent of area was determined based on 500m polygons drawn around the 

fused features. 

4.1.1.4 Defining sub-basins for CEIA 

It is known from experience that project-based assessments do not befit the conceptual and 

operational basis of CEIA (Kennett, 2002; Antoniuk, 2000; Dubé, 2003; Duinker and Greig, 2006). CEIA 

at the project level remains constrictive, reactive and divorced from broader planning and decisionmaking 

contexts (Harriman and Noble, 2008). In other words, it becomes imperative to conduct CEIAs 

at a larger landscape level. In this study, the two basins Alaknanda and Bhagirathi were the large 

landscape units within which the sub-basin landscape unit formed the smallest unit for assessing the 

34

iodiversity values and the development induced impacts on these. The site level information gathered 

from the project ZoIs was taken to be useful source of information to collate data at the sub-basin level, 

specifically for the impact sources. 

A total of 18 sub-basins were delineated within the study area (Table 4.1.), based on the extent 

of the major tributaries of Bhagirathi and Alaknanda basins and also the single stretch of the main 

streams. Similar classification was also used by IIT Roorkee in their study. 

Table 4.1. List of sub-basins in the study area. 

Major Basin Sub-basin Number of Hydro Electric 

Projects 

Alaknanda I Sub-basin 2 

Alaknanda II Sub-basin 5 

Alaknanda III Sub-basin 4 

Bhyundar ganga sub-basin 1 

Nandakini Sub-basin 3 

Alaknanda Mandakini Sub-basin 6 

Birahi ganga Sub-basin 4 

Pinder Sub-basin 4 

Dhauliganga Sub-basin 6 

Rishi ganga Sub-basin 3 

Sub-total 38 

Bhagirathi I Sub-basin 2 

Bhagirathi II Sub-basin 11 

Bhilangana III Sub-basin 1 

Bhilangana IV Sub-basin 4 

Bhagirathi Asiganga Sub-basin 4 

Bhilangana Sub-basin 5 

Balganga Sub-basin 4 

Ganga Sub-basin 1 

Sub-total 32 

Total 70 

4.1.2 Establishing biodiversity baseline 

4.1.2.1 Flora 

The broad physiognomic classes of vegetation in the area i.e., forests, scrub (primary or 

secondary), grasslands and herbaceous meadows (alpine) were characterized in terms of species 

composition and structure. Remote sensing data (LISS – IV) was interpreted to assess the overall 

vegetation cover and other land use / land cover (LULC) categories in both the basins. Prior to field 

surveys, collation of secondary literature, maps, working plans of various forest divisions was done. 

35

Stratified random sampling of vegetation communities was used following standard 

phytosociological approach (Mueller-Dombois & Ellenberg 1974; Kent & Coker 1992),The following 

categories of land forms and vegetation (physiognomic classes) occur in the study area: 

Land forms: Rocky slope, Gentle slope, Flat alluvial banks, Gorge, Upland Valley, Terminal and lateral 

moraines, Terraces (old and new), Landslides, 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. 

Table 4.2. Environmental and vegetation parameters observed during sampling. 

36 

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 

4.1.2.2 Fauna 

Mammals 

Information on mammal distribution and abundance in the study area was collected from 

various sources such as publications, reports and databases (Bhattacharya et al. 2006, Bhattacharya 

and Sathyakumar 2008, Kala 2004, Maheshwari and Sharma 2010, PSL 2006, Schaller 1977, Prater 

1980, Sathyakumar 1994, 2001, 2006a, 2006b, Sathyakumar and Bhatnagar 2002, Sathyakumar et al. 

1992, 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. Status of mammals in the project area was 

assessed based on visual encounters and indirect evidences (tracks, scats, pellet groups and other 

signs) following standard methods (Sathyakumar 1993, 1994, WII 1998) and also based on secondary 

sources including expert knowledge. 

Birds 

Data on bird distribution and abundance in the study area was collected from different sources 

(Ali and Ripley 1983, Bhattacharya and Sathyakumar 2007, Sathyakumar and Sivakumar 2007, ZSI 

1995). Field surveys in the Zone of Influence and also in other parts of sub-basins were carried out in 

the different project sites to ascertain the presence/absence of birds particularly RET species. Bird field 

guides (Ali and Ripley 1983, Grimmette et al 2003) were used for bird identification.

Fishes 

For generating baseline of biodiversity resources, the primary data on fish distribution and 

abundance was collected during field visits spread over a period of six months. This information was 

adequately supplemented by the the secondary data from different publications and the data sources 

(Badola 2001, Payne et al. 2004, Sinha 2007) 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. The 

location of Zone of Influence was also seen in the context of proximity to 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 by the 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 not 

collected during experimental sampling were collected from nearby fish market and landing centre 

associated with the river system. Taxonomic discrepancies were resolved using the latest database. 

4.1.2.3 Assessing site-specific biodiversity values: Use of criteria 

I. Rationale for using criteria 

The goal of systematic conservation planning is to provide a structured, scientifically defensible 

and effective framework for protecting biodiversity. The assignment of biodiversity value to land units is 

a key component of this process. Assessing and assigning biodiversity values to the sites aid in 

prioritizing sites for conservation. Such assessments can be made using different criteria and 

thresholds that not only focuses on a single biodiversity component but are also related to ecosystem 

and environmental diversity (Regan et.al. 2007). Environmental or ecological criteria can be useful for 

describing baseline environmental conditions and considering potential cumulative effects (Canter 

1999). 

Criteria (which explicitly and consistently differentiate the factors contributing to significance 

determination judgments) and thresholds (a clearly defined performance level that explicitly establishes 

significance) are a crucial component of impact significance determination procedures within the 

environmental assessment process (Gartner Lee Limited (GLL), 2001; Sippe, 1999). Threshold and 

criteria application can occur before and after considering mitigation potential (Lawrence 2007). A 

criterion is a comparative mechanism that facilitates assessment and judgment. There are both generic 

(e.g., positive/negative, degree of intensity, spatial extent, frequency, duration, reversibility, likelihood, 

direct/indirect, cumulative effects potential) and feature-specific (e.g., linked to specific setting types, 

locations, limits and impacts) criteria (Vanclay, 1999). Thresholds refer to the point at which additional 

37

system perturbations, no matter how little, will culminate in major system degradation or collapse 

(Contant and Wiggins 1993). A threshold value can be either a maximum or minimum number or a 

related qualitative measure, which, if exceeded or not met, causes the predicted effect (Witmer et al., 

1987). 

Most ecological assessments use a series of criteria to evaluate impact significance and 

importance either quantitatively or qualitatively. No standard set of criteria has emerged and multitudes 

have been used in practice (Treweek, 1999). Names used for similar criteria vary from system to 

system. The idea of evaluating the significance of natural areas for conservation has found wide 

application and such evaluations are bring used for environmental assessments, planning systems and 

individual protected areas (Smith and Theberge 1986). 

The criteria used in 22 systems for evaluation of natural areas summarized by Smith and 

Theberge (1986) are given in Box 4.1. 

Treweek (1999) generated a set of questions (see Box 4.2) based on some of the criteria given 

in Box 4.1. These questions help in guiding the derivation of criteria relevant for application in impact 

assessment. 

It should be noted that identification of criteria is somewhat subjective, value driven and 

dependent on the experience and background of the group (Regan et al., 2007). 

38 

Box 4.1: Criterion used for evaluation of natural areas. 

Source: Smith and Theberge, 1986

Box 4.2: Examples of relevant questions for guiding the evaluation of impact significance. 

• Will the loss or redistribution of habitat affect the long term viability of associated species? 

• Will carrying capacity, stress thresholds of assimilative capacity be exceeded? 

• If this habitat is destroyed, will the associated species find an alternative habitat? 

• If this habitat is destroyed, will the remaining habitat be adequate to support associated species? 

• If this habitat is destroyed, can it be replaced using current technology and within a reasonable 

timeframe? 

• Will the ecosystem resilience or stability breakdown? 

• Will the predicted population reductions for a species result in loss of long-term population viability? 

• Will significant, irreversible loss of biodiversity occur? 

• Will the reduced generic diversity result in reduced ability to withstand environmental change on future? 

• Will the loss of one habitat type be more damaging than the loss of another? 

• Will the post-development state of an ecosystem be significantly different from its pre-impacted 

condition? 

• Should any losses of the ecosystem components or functions be mitigated or compensated for and if so, 

which ones? 

• Will proposed mitigation measures guarantee the maintenance of natural resources within acceptable 

limits, i.e. will the residual condition of ecosystems (post-impact and taking account of mitigation) be 

acceptable? 

(Source: Treweek, 1999 In Rajvanshi et al., 2007) 

II. Determination of criteria for the present study 

For this study, a set of criteria were identified to assess the biodiversity values of the impacted 

area at the sub-basin levels. These criteria capture the importance of the ecological/biological 

characteristics of these areas, especially in terms rarity, vulnerability or irreplaceability of their values. 

Different set of criteria were evolved for assessing aquatic and terrestrial biodiversity (Table 4.3. and 

Table 4.4.). 

Table. 4.3. Criteria for assessing terrestrial biodiversity values. 

S.No. Criteria Description Applicable Taxa 

RET (Rare, 

Endangered and 

Mammals/Birds/Plants 

1. 

Threatened) 

Species, as per 

IUCN and other 

Global Criteria 

Number of RET species present in the sub-basin. 

2. Schedule Species 

Number of species that are listed in the Schedule-I Mammals/Birds 

of Indian Wildlife Protection Act (IWPA), 1972, 

reflecting legal provisions. 

3. Species Richness 

Number of different species represented in a set 

or collection of individuals. 

Mammals/Birds/Plants 

4. Medicinal Species 

Number of species having medicinal properties 

hence valuable ecologically and economically. 

Plants 

39

Table. 4.4. Criteria for assessing aquatic biodiversity values. 

S.No. Criteria Description 

1. 

40 

RET (Rare, Endangered 

and Threatened) Species, 

as per IUCN and other 

Global Criteria 

2. Endemic Species 

3. Habitat Diversity 

Number of RET species present in the sub-basin. 

Number of endemic species present in the sub-basin, 

reflecting the irreplaceability, and national importance that the 

species command 

Number of habitat types available. This is a surrogate for 

habitat heterogeneity and biodiversity richness 

4. Species Richness Number of different species present in a given land units 

5. Breeding/Congregation 

6. 

Migratory 

Pathways/Corridor 

Presence/ absence of breeding sites and congregation 

opportunities for the target taxonomic group in a sub-basin. 

Presence/ absence of migratory pathways/corridor for aquatic 

biodiversity in the sub-basins 

4.1.3 Impact prediction 

Ecological assessments rely crucially on outcomes of impact prediction. It involves relating the 

project induced activities with ecosystem characteristics to determine the changes that may result in 

these charactersitics due to interactions (DEAT 2004). 

The evaluation of impacts involves assessing the severity and extent of impacts on ecosystem 

components relative to the baseline (Treweek 1999). 

Information about predicted changes is needed for assigning impact significance, prescribing 

mitigation measures, and designing and developing environmental management plans and monitoring 

programme (ADB 1997). This stage in a cumulative environmental process generally involves scenario 

building to project existing and futuristic trends of impacts and their significance for biodiversity values. 

This stage thus provides alternative scenarios for decision makers to promote least impacting option (of 

discouraging or relocating sites) and technology alternative. 

4.1.3.1 Identification of impact indicators (impact stressors) 

In the current study, the specific impact indicators were used (Table 4.4) based on their 

potential to cause definite changes in characteristics of receptors. The report by IIT Roorkee formed the 

basis for obtaining values for specific indicators.

Table 4.5. Criteria for impact indicators (reflecting the disturbance regimes). 

S.No. Indicator Description 

1. 

River Length Affected 

(River dryness and 

submergence) 

2. Forest Area Loss 

The length of river which would be deprived of water by water 

diversion through head/tailrace tunnel, and the area lost to 

submergence. 

The location, extent and nature of forest area cleared and 

submerged due to Hydro Electric Projects construction and 

operation. 

4.1.3.2 An overview of impacts of HEP on aquatic and terrestrial biodiversity 

This section provides an overview of the major impacts associated with hydropower 

development. While some impacts occur only during construction stage, most important impacts usually 

are linked to operation of the dam and reservoir. Other significant impacts can result from 

complementary civil works such as access roads, power transmission lines, and quarries and borrow 

pits (modified from Ledec and Quintero 2003). The specific impacts that are significant from the 

standpoint of this study are: 

a) Altered flow regime (volume of diverted water) 

There is a growing awareness of the essential role of flow regimes as a key factor shaping the 

ecology of rivers (Bunn and Arthington 2002). Distribution, abundance, and diversity of stream and river 

organisms are all determined by the complex interaction between flows and physical habitat (Schlosser 

1982, Poff and Allan 1995, Ward and others 1999, Nilsson and Svedmark 2002). Not only on a larger 

scale, the subtle variations in flow and near-bed velocities can govern the distribution and abundance of 

particular species of plants and animals at even the smallest spatial scales (e.g., Wetmore and others 

1990). Close associations with physical habitat can be found in many stream organisms ranging from 

algae and aquatic plants to invertebrates and fish. Alteration of flow regimes is therefore affirmed to be 

the most serious and continuing threat to ecological sustainability of rivers (Naiman and others 1995, 

Sparks 1995, Lundqvist 1998, Ward and others 1999). 

Impacts on aquatic biodiversity: Alteration of river flow affects habitat quality in a detrimental 

manner. A certain level of downstream flow is needed to maintain a minimum volume and area of 

habitat, and ‘desirable’ in-stream conditions (McAllister et.al. 2001). The altered seasonal pattern can 

influence oxygen levels, temperature, suspended solids, drift of organisms, and cycling of organic 

matter and other nutrients, as well as having direct impacts on biota (Batalla, et al. 2004). Complex 

interaction between flows and physical habitat is a major determinant of the distribution, abundance, 

and diversity of stream and river organisms (Schlosser 1982, Poff and Allan 1995, Ward and others 

1999, Nilsson and Svedmark 2002). Normal seasonal flow patterns are a key to maintaining river 

biodiversity. 

Flow alteration affects all the trophic levels of the aquatic food chain. The influence of river 

flows on recruitment and growth of aquatic plants is well established. Spatial and temporal variation in 

plant assemblage structure is influenced by flooding and scouring, desiccation, substrate stability and 

localized variations in water velocity, turbulence and shear stress (Chambers and others 1991, Biggs 

41

1996, French and Chambers 1996). Seedling survival, as well as plant growth rates are affected by 

changes in rates of water level fluctuation and disturbance frequency (floods and spates) and intensity 

(velocity and shear stress) (Blanch and others 1999, 2000, Froend and McComb 1994, Rea and Ganf 

1994, Sand-Jensen and Madsen 1992). 

Spatial and temporal dynamics of benthic communities in streams is also majorly dependent on 

the physical disturbance from floods and droughts (Resh and others 1988). As the macro-invertebrates 

are vulnerable to rapid diurnal changes in flow, the erratic flow of regulated river downstream, 

hydroelectric dams can results in the formation of species-poor macro-invertebrate communities in 

these stretches (Munn and Brusven 1991). In some cases, flow regulation may favour the proliferation 

of specific taxa (e.g., orthoclad chironomids) (Munn and Brusven 1991). 

As with the aquatic flora and invertebrates, the fish faunal composition in the rivers is 

maintained by the river flow cycle. The richness of the fish fauna often increases as habitat complexity 

increases, with depth, velocity, and cover being the most important variables governing this relationship 

(Gorman and Karr 1978, Schlosser 1982, Felley and Felley 1987, Pusey and others 1995). Fish 

assemblage structure (i.e., taxonomic composition and relative abundance pattern) is also strongly 

related to habitat structure (Meffe and Sheldon 1988, Pusey and others 1993, 1998, 2000). 

Associations between fish and their habitat are influenced by flow variability at a range of spatial scales. 

Poff and Allan (1995) demonstrated regional differences in fish assemblage structure and functional 

organization in streams of differing flow variability in the northern mid-western United States. 

Hydrologically variable streams (i.e., those with a high coefficient of variation of daily flows, moderate 

frequency of spates) were characterized by species with generalized feeding strategies and preference 

for low water velocity, silt, and general substrata. Modifications to flow regimes affect fish diversity and 

the functional organization of fish communities in regulated rivers. Flow plays a profound role in the 

lives of fish with critical life events linked to flow regime (e.g., phenology of reproduction, spawning 

behavior, larval survival, growth patterns and recruitment) (Welcomme 1985, Junk and others 1989, 

Copp 1989, 1990, Sparks 1995, Humphries and others 1999). Many of these life events are 

synchronized with temperature and day length, such that changes in flow regime that are not in natural 

harmony with these seasonal cycles may have a negative impact on aquatic biota. 

Impacts on terrestrial biodiversity: Typically, riparian forest tree species are dependent on river flows 

and a shallow aquifer, and the community and population structure of riparian forests is related to the 

spatial and temporal patterns of flooding at a site (McCartney et.al. 1999). Water release protocols can 

lower water tables lateral to the rivers which may affect vegetation there (McAllister et.al. 2001). This 

might consequently affect the faunal species dependent on this forest type. 

b) Disturbed continuity of the river (diverted river length) 

River continuity is essential for the overall functioning of the system. There is ample available 

evidence indicating the overall importance of connectivity and continuity in the river corridor for regional 

biodiversity by maintaining the river corridor functioning for meta-populations, gene flow and species 

dispersal (Gouyon et al., 1987; Johansson et al., 1996; Henry et al., 1996; Andersson et al., 2000; 

Imbert & Lefèvre, 2003). 

42

Impacts on aquatic biodiversity: As a result of water diversion, the flow of the river below the dam 

reaches very low levels or becomes nil especially during lean season leaving that stretch deprived of 

water. Induced desiccation of rivers causes mortality of aquatic flora and fauna thriving in these river 

stretches. The process also hampers the dispersal of species present upstream or downstream as a 

result of habitat fragmentation. 

Impacts on terrestrial biodiversity: Drying of river stretches also has negative impacts on terrestrial 

biodiversity. Rivers are the major source of drinking water for the regional terrestrial fauna. Drying of 

long river stretches might affect the occupancy of the nearby areas by the terrestrial species due to 

water scarcity leading to degradation of habitat quality, and affects on dispersal of migratory avifauna. 

The riparian vegetation habitat in these stretches will also get degraded due to water deprivation in turn 

affecting the dependent floral and faunal species. 

c) Submergence (Reservoir Area) 

One of the largest upstream impacts of dam construction (both storage and Run of the river 

type) is submergence. The area flooded by the reservoir is a strong proxy variable for many 

environmental and social impacts (Goodland, 1997). 

Impacts on aquatic biodiversity: The argument that the loss of riverine habitat associated with 

impoundments is balanced by the creation of lake-habitat is somewhat deceptive as natural lakes and 

wetlands often function in very different ways. The water levels maintained in large impoundments are 

generally not constant as a result of which the productive littoral areas are rarely sustained. Moreover, 

as compared to natural stream levels, water levels in these impoundments are usually significantly 

elevated, flooding part of the terrestrial–aquatic interface and creating a new littoral zone with steeper 

banks, less complex aquatic habitat, and different physicochemical conditions for aquatic plants and 

animals (Walker and others 1992). 

Conversion of one quarter of the river to lentic habitat results in the loss of fishes adapted to turbid 

riverine habitats (Stanford and Ward 1986). Also, introductions of highly competitive exotic fishes that 

can thrive in impoundments and regulated river reaches contribute to the extirpation of native fishes, 

posing as a significant threat. 

Impacts on terrestrial biodiversity: The most obvious effect of storage reservoirs on terrestrial 

ecosystems is the permanent destruction through inundation. Terrestrial biotopes are completely 

destroyed. All terrestrial plants and animals contained previously in the submerged areas completely 

disappear from the submerged areas. Many animals are caught and drowned during the filling of new 

reservoirs. Large scale impoundments may eliminate unique wildlife habitats and extinguish entire 

populations of endangered species especially those preferring valley bottoms (Bardach and Dussart, 

1973; Nilsson and Dynesius, 1994). Large reservoirs may also disrupt natural migration corridors. 

Upstream impoundment not only affects the river banks and areas in vicinity but its impacts radiate till 

the farther reaches of the floodplains 

43

d) Barrier influence of dam 

The most immediate and obvious impact of dam development is its physical presence as a 

barrier. Dams pose as a barrier leading to a plethora of impacts on the local biodiversity thereby 

disrupting the continuity of the riparian ecosystem. 

Impacts on aquatic biodiversity: The viability of populations of many species that are strictly aquatic 

depends on their ability to move freely through the stream network. Anadromous fishes which migrate 

long distances within the main channels and larger tributaries of rivers are particularly sensitive to 

barriers to fish passages, which in turn may obstruct their migratory pathways and interfere with the 

completion of their life cycles. The disappearance or decline of the major migratory fish species often 

follows river impoundment and the blocking of passage in the system (Bonetto and others 1989; 

Cadwallader 1986; Harris 1984a,b; Joy and Death 2001; Welcomme 1985, 1992). 

Impacts on terrestrial biodiversity: Rivers and their adjoining riparian zones are considered to be the 

most important corridors for movements of animals in natural landscapes (Forman and Godron 1986; 

Malanson 1993). Natural riparian zones are also effective pathways for plant dispersal (Jansson et.al., 

2000). Dam acts as a barrier to terrestrial animal movement and plant dispersal, particularly reduction 

of riparian zone as a migration corridor (Deall 2010). 

e) Clear felling (forest area diverted/cleared) 

One of the primary impacts of dam development in such areas is deforestation or clear felling. 

Such an activity itself has multitude of impacts on terrestrial species and also on aquatic species. 

Impacts on aquatic biodiversity: Following deforestation, the soil in the area becomes loose leading 

to greater levels of soil erosion. The soil which is being washed away gets deposited in the river which 

leads to increased siltation of the river. Excess amounts of silt and sediments can deteriorate water 

quality, an essential component of fish habitat. Moreover, increased silt levels and turbidity might also 

leads to clogging and abrasion of the gills of fish and other aquatic organisms and behavioural 

changes, including movement and migration of aquatic fauna especially fishes (Birtwell, 1999). Such 

impacts have already been noticed in the case of Mekong river system. 

Impacts on terrestrial biodiversity: Deforestation leads to direct elimination of crucial habitats for 

terrestrial species. Several important tree, shrub and herb species are removed from these areas and 

might lead to extinction of certain endemic species. It also adversely affects the faunal species residing 

in these areas and which are dependent on these floral species. On a landscape level, deforestation 

leads to habitat fragmentation and degradation of habitat quality. It also leads to destruction of vital 

animal/plant corridors which ultimately effects migration and gene dispersal. 

4.1.4 Impact evaluation 

The significance of an impact is widely accepted to be a function of the magnitude of the impact 

(i.e. aspects of development likely to bring change) and the sensitivity of the receptor (i.e. components 

of the site sensitive to such change). 

44

The determination and interpretation of impact significance in cumulative assessments are 

influenced by many variables, hence demanding greater precision. A cumulative effect on a Valued 

Ecosystem Component (VEC) may be significant even though each individual project-specific 

assessment of that same component concludes that the effects are insignificant. This is a fundamental 

principle in the understanding of cumulative effects. Project-specific assessments that focus on the 

incremental contribution of the project being assessed can assist in making such conclusions as they 

must consider the implications of other actions also affecting the VECs. However, this inclusion (and 

sometimes the analytical approach used) requires the consideration of additional factors influencing 

determination of significance in (cumulative effects component (Hegmann et. al. 1999) 

These are: 

• exceeding of a threshold; 

• effectiveness of mitigation; 

• size of study area; 

• incremental contribution of effects from action under review; 

• relative contribution of effects of other actions; 

• relative rarity of species; 

• significance of local effects; 

• magnitude of change relative to natural background variability; 

• creation of induced actions; and 

• degree of existing disturbance 

The procedures of assigning impact significance are heavily reliant on expert judgment and 

technical data, analyses and knowledge (Cloquell-Ballester et al., 2007; Kirk, 2001). 

4.1.4.1 Development of impact evaluation matrix 

The earliest use of the matrices by Leopold et al. (1971), for assessing the impact significance 

led to subsequent innovation in the use and design of matrices that occured 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 for 

analyzing the cumulative effect of multiple projects. This type of matrix can differentiate additive from 

interactive processes of cumulative environmental change, and can account for multiple projects of the 

same type (e.g. hydroelectric dams). Expert opinion is used to establish three types of data: scores that 

define the level of effect of each project on selected environmental components, weighting coefficients 

that reflect the relative value of each component, and interaction coefficients that measure the effect of 

each pair of projects on each component (Smit and Spaling 1995). 

AMM. 

The matrix used in this assessment (Appendix 4.1) was adapted based on the concept of 

45

4.1.4.2 Scoring and weighting of impacts 

I. Rationale 

Systems of scoring and weighting are used frequently in ecological assessments to measure 

and adjust criteria and impacts. Scoring enables evaluation criteria to be expressed numerically and 

used more readily in decision making. Without some form of scoring, measurement endpoints cannot 

be identified. It also becomes difficult to link assessment and measurement endpoints. Systems of 

weighting are based on the premise that criteria such as species richness, habitat diversity, stability and 

naturalness have relative importance that can be quantified. Although weighting generally involves 

some element of subjectivity (Treweek, 1999), weight scoring for determining impact potential of 

projects and risks to biodiversity have been extensively used in CEIA (ICEM, 2007, SEIA 2008). 

II. Scoring/weighting methodology adopted in present study 

i) For impact sources 

Scores ranging from 1 to 5 were assigned to Impact Sources with 1 representing the lowest 

value and the 5 representing the highest value in both the criterion. The scores were given for each of 

the two criteria. The values obtained for each projects were converted into a cumulative score for the 

sub-basins, with the maximum attainable score for each sub-basin being 10. The rationale for adding 

the project-wise values for a sub-basin was in lines with the concept of CEIA which states that the 

cumulative impacts are generally additive in nature. 

After obtaining scores for sub-basins, these scores were classified as low (L), medium (M), 

high (H) and very high (VH), which take percentage value of 0-25, 26-50, 51-75 and 76-100 

respectively. Such categorization was inevitable for score and percentage data and such approach is 

practiced widely in impact studies, including CEIA. 

ii) For impact receptors 

Scores ranging from 1 to 5 were assigned to Impact Receptors with 1 representing the lowest 

value and the 5 representing the highest value in both the criterion. 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. 

As the assessment is based on a sub-basin scale, the biodiversity values were evaluated subbasin 

wise directly as opposed to project-wise. However, the raw values were obtained from data 

collected from the project ZoIs which were pooled for each sub-basin. 

The scores obtained for each criteria within a sub-basin were then added to give a total score, 

the maximum being 30 (6 criteria) for aquatic biodiversity and 15 (3 criteria) for terrestrial biodiversity. 

These scores were then converted into percentages of the maximum following which they were 

classified as low (L), medium (M), high (H) and very high (VH) using the same rationale as for impact 

sources. 

46

iii) Impact significance 

As mentioned in a previous section, determination of impact significance is the most important 

step of the impact evaluation process. The significance of an impact is widely accepted to be a function 

of the magnitude of the impact and the sensitivity of the receptor (given by biodiversity value here). 

Sub-basins identified in the two basins were assigned a score based on the biodiversity value (rated as 

Very High, High, Medium or Low) and the impact potential of Hydro Electric Projects (rated as Very 

High, High, Medium or Low).These scores determine the classification of each project into one of four 

impact significance categories, according to biodiversity values of the affected area(s) and impact 

potential of Hydro Electric Projects. 

For this study, the quantitative scores were ultimately converted into qualitative score (L,M,H, 

VH) for both impacts sources and receptors. These impact sources scores were then interacted with 

the terrestrial biodiversity scores and aquatic biodiversity scores in the form of a matrix to give the 

significance of impacts hence an impact significance statement. The key followed for arriving at 

interaction values (ICEM, 2007) is given in the table below: 

Table 4.6. Matrix showing impact significance based on interaction between biodiversity values 

and impact potential. 

Biodiversity 

values 

Impact Potential 

Very high High Moderate Low 

Very high Very high Very high High Low 

High Very high High Moderate Low 

Moderate High Moderate Moderate Low 

Low Low Low Low Low 

47

48 

Chapter 5 – Biodiversity Baseline 

An important first stage in gaining an understanding of how the system might be changed by 

the proposed Hydropwer development project is to take a “snap-shot” of the existing conditions – the 

baseline environment. The profiling of biodiversity is important in the later stages in impact assessment 

for comparing the baseline scenario with project alternative scenarios that involve changing land and 

resource use in a given ecosystem, and attempts to establish how these will impact on ecosystem 

services. 

The biodiversity baseline for this study was developed based on expert knowledge of 

professionals working on different taxa and ecosystems, national and global database, published 

species records, researched information. Information collected from all of the above sources was 

assessed for its adequacy and relevance and information gaps where observed were overcome by 

supplementing specific information through primary data collection efforts during the field visits 

undertaken during this study. 

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 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. Within the 

basin, out of a total of over 1000 species of plants (G.S. Rawat pers. comm.; 461 species were 

recorded during the survey; Appendix 5.1) found 55 are RET/endemic species (Appendix 5.2 & 5.3). 

Among mammals, out of 85 species 6 are RET species, 6 out of over 500 species of birds and 16 out of 

76 species of fishes are in the RET category. For all 18 sub-basins, fact sheets giving summary of 

biodiversity profiles were developed and are presented below, and shown in Plate 5.1.

Plate 5.1 Sub-basins within Alaknanda and Bhagirathi basins. 

49

50 

Bhagirathi I (Areas above Bhagirathi- Jadh ganga confluence) 

This sub-basin is drained by Bhagirathi River with its 

main tributary, Jadhganga, Jalandhari gad, Kakara gad 

and Siyan gad. The head waters of Bhagirathi river takes 

origin form Gangotri glaciers and the important shrine 

Gangotri is located along the bank of river. The entire 

catchment of this sub-basin forms the Gangotri National 

Park. It falls in the Greater and Trans-Himalayan regions, 

which encompasses the temperate forests, scattered 

trees and scrubs, sub-alpine oak forests, alpine scrub 

meadows, moraines and glaciers. 

Sub‐basins – Fact Sheet‐I 

Fish diversity: Considered as a ‘no fish’ zone, as no fish species were reported from this region, 

this oligotrophic basin has perennial, cooler, cleaner water with low primary producers and aquatic 

meiofauna. 

Mammals and Birds: Over 200 birds species are reported, including a critically endangered Indian 

white-backed vulture; 3 Schedule-I species of IWPA (Indian white-backed vulture, Cinereous 

vulture and Himalayan monal). This basin also has 29 species of mammal which include 5 RET 

species (Himalayan brown bear, Asiatic black bear, snow leopard, common leopard and Himalayan 

musk deer) and 8 IWPA Schedule-I species (Himalayan brown bear, Asiatic black bear, snow 

leopard, common leopard, Himalayan musk deer, Himalayan tahr, blue sheep and serow). This 

sub-basin represents a unique cold, arid ecosystem in Nilang valley which is one of the best 

habitats for snow leopard and its prey blue sheep (Paramanand et al. 2000; Uniyal & Ramesh 

2004; Rasmussen & Anderton, 2005; Chandola et al. 2008; Bhardwaj & Uniyal 2009 and Bhardwaj 

et al. 2010, Maheshwari & Sharma 2010). 

Floristic diversity: Bearing mixed conifer and Himalayan moist forests of temperate environment, 

the area is floristically diverse. 130 species of flowering plants were recorded during the study. Of 

these, 74 were herbs, 28 shrub, 16 trees and 12 climbers, 56 species of medicinal value. The 

common species of the sub-basin are Picea smithiana, Cedrus deodara, Pinus wallichiana, 

Euonymus fimbriatus, Populus ciliata, Prunus cornuta, and Acer caesium. Important species of 

medicinal value are Aconitum hetrophyllum, Allium stacheyi, Arnebia benthamii, Lilium polyphyllum, 

Ephedra gerardiana, Nardostachys jatamansi, and Picrorhiza kurrooa. 

The RET species recorded from this sub-basin are Acer caesium, Aconitum hetrophyllum, Allium 

stacheyi, Arnebia benthami, Epipogium aphyllum, Lilium polyphyllum, Nardostachys jatamansi and 

Picrorhiza kurrooa.

Bhagirathi II (From Bharongati to Asi ganga Confluence) 

The stretch of Bhagirathi from its confluence with 

Jadhganga to the location of its confluence with Asi 

Ganga has been categorised as Bhagirathi II sub-basin. 

This sub-basin falls in the middle and high Himalayan 

ranges and encompasses wildlife habitats such as 

Himalayan moist temperate forests, coniferous and moist 

mixed forests and scrub habitat, alpine scrub and 

meadows. Much of the sub-basin has been degraded due 

to development and anthropogenic pressures. 

Sub‐basins – Fact Sheet‐2 

Fish diversity: Ecologically the sub-basin is mesotrophic to oligotrophic in nature, in which 19 

species of fishes were recorded. It included 11 species of habitat specialists and 4 threatened 

species. State Fisheries Department has been maintaining a fish farm here. 

The threatened species of fishes recorded from this basin are golden mahseer (Tor putitora), snow 

trout (Schizothorax richardsonii), and stone suckers (Garra gotyla gotyla and Gara lamta). The river 

basin serves as migrated route for golden mahseer and snow trout, whose abundance has now 

become very low. This sub-basin is also infested with invasive brown trout, which appears to be 

expanding its range in this sub-basin due to barriers downstream. On account of the presence of 

existing dam across Bhagirathi River near Uttarkashi, the upward movements of mahseer and snow 

trout species have also been reduced or stopped. 

Mammals and Birds: About 320 birds species have been reported in this sub-basin, out of which 4 

are RET species (white-backed vulture, Egyptian vulture, cheer pheasant and western tragopan) 

and 5 are IWPA schedule-I (white-backed vulture, Egyptian vulture, cinereous vulture, cheer 

pheasant and western tragopan). This sub-basin encompasses 24 species of mammals, out of 

which 2 are RET species (i.e. Asiatic black bear and common leopard) and 4 are mentioned in 

IWPA schedule-I list (i.e. Asiatic black bear, common leopard, Himalayan Tahr and serow). 

(Paramanand et al. 2000; Uniyal & Ramesh 2004; Rasmussen & Anderton, 2005; Chandola et al. 

2008; Bhardwaj & Uniyal 2009 and Bhardwaj et al. 2010, Maheshwari & Sharma 2010). 

Floristic diversity: The sub-basin’s catchments have dry temperate conifer, moist deodar and 

mixed forests. 184 species were recorded during the study, of which 94 species were herbs, 41 

shrubs, 33 trees and 16 climbers. Among these, 78 species have medicinal values. Prominent 

species were Abies pindrow, Alnus nepalensis, Aesculus indica, Populus ciliata, Cedrus deodara, 

Celtis australis, Pinus wallichiana, P. roxburghii, Picea smithiana, Prunus cornuta, Pyrus malus. 

Hippophae salicifolia, Aspargus filicinus, Berberis asiatica, Centella asiatica, Prinsepia utilis, 

Juglans regia, Swertia chirayita, Viola biflora, Zanthoxylum armatum, Datisca cannabina, and Lilium 

polyphyllum are the important high value medicinal plants. 

RET species in this sub-basin are Acer caesium, Aconitum hetrophyllum, Allium stacheyi, Arnebia 

benthamii and Caragana sukiensis. 

51

52 

Fig. 5.1 View of Bhagirathi sub-basin I. 

Fig. 5.2 View of Bhagirathi sub-basin II.

Asiganga (Asiganga valley) 

The river Asiganga is one of the major tributaries of 

Bhagirathi. It originates from Dodital lake at an altitude of 

2240m and joins Bhagirathi near Uttarkashi. The sub-basin 

falls in the middle and high Himalayan ranges. The Asi 

Ganga Valley is marked by undulating and rugged terrain 

and steep slopes with highly mountainous, precipitous 

ridges interspaced by deep gorges. The valley is seemingly 

narrow and either slopes are covered with very dense 

forests falling in the category of Himalayan moist temperate 

forest, secondary scrub, alpine scrub and meadows. 


Fish diversity: Three species of fishes were recorded from this river basin, including a threatened 

species of snow trout (Schizothorax richardsonii) and an invasive brown trout (Salmo trutta fario). These 

two species migrate from downstream to upstream for breeding. This basin seems to be the major 

breeding ground of brown trout and distributed upto Dodital lake and from here this species expands its 

range to upstream of the Bhagirathi River. Ecological condition of this basin is oligotrophic to 

mesotrophic with clean and cooler water. 

Mammals and Birds: This sub-basin have about 250 birds species, including 2 RET species (Indian 

white-backed and Egyptian vulture); 4 Schedule-I species of IWPA (Indian white-backed vulture, 

Egyptian vulture, cinereous vulture, Himalayan monal). This sub-basin also provides habitat for 32 

mammal species which includes 3 RET species (Asiatic black bear, common leopard and Himalayan 

musk deer) and 4 IWPA Schedule-I species (Asiatic black bear, common leopard, Himalayan musk deer 

and serow). Upper reaches of sub-basin (>2000m) are recognized as high biodiversity area and it is a 

transition zone between Govind NP and Gangotri NP and therefore facilitates the movement of large 

mammals. (Paramanand et al. 2000; Uniyal & Ramesh 2004; Rasmussen & Anderton, 2005; Chandola 

et al. 2008; Bhardwaj & Uniyal 2009 and Bhardwaj et al. 2010, Maheshwari & Sharma 2010). 

Floristic diversity: The sub-basin encompasses subtropical pine mixed, temperate oak and conifer and 

sub alpine forests, alpine scrub and meadows. Lower stretches of riverine forests in this area are rich in 

orchids. The tract beyond Aghora village is dominated by various species of oak, rhododendron, maples 

and Carpinus viminea, and at higher altitudes temperate oak-conifer mixed forests. Other prominent 

species on way to Dodital are Pinus roxburghii, Pyrus pashia, Quercus leocotrichophora, Rhododendron 

arboreum, Toona ciliata, Juglans regia, Hippophae salicifolia, Prinsepia utilis, Prunus cerasoides, 

Prunus cornuta, Debregeasia salicifolia, Cedrus deodara and Taxus baccata. 

A total of 188 species of vascular plants were recorded from the study sites, of which, 94 are herbs, 46 

shrubs, 38 trees and 10 climbers. These also include 54 species of medicinal value. Some important 

medicinal plants recorded from the area include Anagallis arvensis, Saponaria vaccaria, Vernonia 

anthelmintica, Prinsipia utilis, Aspargus filicinus, Barleria cristata, Berberis aristata, Berberis asiatica, 

Berginia ciliata, Centella asiatica, Dactylorhiza hatagirea, Picrorhiza kurrooa, Swertia chirayata, 

Thalictrum foliolosum, and Aconitum hetrophyllum. 

RET species recorded from this basin are Acer caesium, Aconitum hetrophyllum, Allium stacheyi, 

Nardostachys jatamansi and Picrorhiza kurrooa. 

53

54 

Bhagirathi III (Uttarkashi to confluence of Bhilangana with Bhaghirathi): 

This sub-basin lies in main Bhagirathi between Uttarkashi 

and confluence of Bhilangana river, which falls in lower 

and middle Himalayan ranges. The Tehri Dam located at 

the confluence of Bhagirathi and Bhilangana and the 

reservoir extends up to 44 km upstream within this subbasin. 

The land on both the sides of the river is primarily 

agriculture land and the vegetation is mostly degraded 

scattered pine and mixed forests and xerophytic shrubs. 

Area above the submergence zone is very close to 

Uttarkashi town and most of it is human settlements. 


Fish diversity: This sub-basin has 43 species of fishes, which includes several threatened species. 

The threatened species include golden mahseer (Tor putitora), snow trout (Schizothorax 

richardsonii), stone suckers (Garra gotyla gotyla, Garra lamda) and hill stream catfish Glyptothorax 

telchitta. The isolated population of Golden mahseer T. putitora in the upstream of Tehri Dam use 

the Bhilangana river as the major breeding ground. Ecological conditon of this basin is mesotrophic 

to eutrophic with medium to rich nutrients presence. Exotic carbs such as Common carp, Silver 

carbs, Mirror carbs have been introduced in Tehri Dam and they are abundant in the reservoir and 

the downstream areas. 

Mammals and Birds: Bhagirathi-III sub-basin shows comparatively moderate faunal biodiversity 

with about 220 birds species including 2 RET species (Indian White-backed Vulture and Egyptian 

vulture) and 3 IWPA Schedule-I species (i.e. Indian white-backed vulture, Egyptian vulture and 

Cinereous vulture). This sub-basin encompasses 17 species of mammals, out of which 2 are RET 

(Asiatic black bear and common leopard) and 2 are mentioned in IWPA Schedule-I list (Asiatic 

black bear and common leopard) (Grimmet et al., 1998; Menon, 2003 and Rasmussen & Anderton, 

2005 ). 

Floristic diversity: A relatively drier and disturbed sub-basin, it reported 142 species of vascular 

plants. Of these, 68 were herbs, 43 shrubs and 31 trees. Among these, 28 species were of 

medicinal values. Some of the prominent species include Alnus nepalensis, Pinus roxburghii Acacia 

catechu, Bauhinia variegata, Celtis australis, Emblica officinalis, Ficus religiosa, Grewia 

oppositifolia, Mallotus philipinensis, Moringa oleifera, Populus ciliata, Pyrus pashia, Salix 

wallichiana, Syzium cuminii, and Toona serata. 

Medicinal species include Berberis chitria, Berberis aristata, Cassia fistula, Calotropis procera, 

Carrisa opaca, Centella asiatica, Cissampelos pareira, Diospyros montana, Hippophae salicifolia, 

Juglanse regia, Litsea chinensis, Ricinus communis, and Zanthoxylum armatum among others. The 

RET species reported form this sub-basin is Datisca cannabina.

Fig. 5.3 View of Asiganga sub-basin. 

Fig. 5.4 View of Bhagirathi sub-basin III. 

55

56 

Bhagirathi IV (From Bhagirathi-Bhilangana confluence to Devprayag): 

This sub-basin includes the area from Bhagirathi- 

Bhilangana confluence to Devprayag where Bhagirathi 

joins Alaknanda. This sub-basin falls in the lower 

Himalaya with deep escarbment and has patches of 

riverine habitats along the river. There are mixed subtropical 

forests in the middle and higher slopes, subtropical 

mixed broadleaf forests and patches of chir pine 

forests at higher reaches with secondary scrub on either 

slopes. Anthropogenic pressures and many 

developmental activities in this sub-basin are high. 


Fish diversity: Of oligotrophic nature, this sub-basin in quite rich in fish diversity, due to variety of 

habitats and confluence of another major river Alaknanda. A total of 48 species of fishes were 

reported from this sub-basin, including 29 habitat specialist and 12 threatened species. It also 

inhabits an endemic hill stream catfish, Glyptothorax alaknandi, which has a narrow distribution 

range within upper reaches of the Ganges. Exotic carps such as common carp and mirror carp have 

also been found in this sub-basin. The important threatened species reported from this region are 

golden mahseer (Tor putitora), Black mahseer (Tor chilinoides), snow trout (Schizothorax 

richardsonii), stone suckers (Garra gotyla gotyla, Garra lamda), hillstream catfish (Glyptothorax 

telchitta, Glyptothorax caviai), barbs (Chagunius chagunio), hillstream loaches (Botia dario, 

Nemacheilus multifasciatus and Pseudecheneius sulcatus). Population of migratory species is 

fragmented due to existing power projects in the area. 

Mammals and Birds: Bhagirathi-IV sub-basin also shows moderate faunal biodiversity with about 

220 birds species including 2 RET species (Indian White-backed Vulture and Egyptian vulture) and 

3 IWPA Schedule-I species (Indian white-backed vulture, Egyptian vulture and cinereous vulture). 

This sub-basin encompasses 16 species out of which 2 are RET (. Asiatic black bear and common 

leopard) and 2 are mentioned in IWPA Schedule-I list (i.e. Asiatic black bear and common leopard) 

(Grimmet et al., 1998; Menon, 2003 and Rasmussen & Anderton, 2005 ). 

Floristic diversity: This area has patches of riverine forests along the rivers and mixed sub 

tropical forests in the upper slopes. A total of 252 species of higher plants were recorded along the 

survey routes in this sub-basin. Of these 133 were herbs, 60 shrubs, 40 trees and 16 grasses. 

Notable species in the area were Acacia catechu, Aegle marmelos, Celtis australis, Delbergia 

sissoo, Emblica officinalis, Ficus religiosa, F. palmata, Grevellia robusta (planted), Grewia 

oppositifolia, Lannea coromandelica, Mallotus philippensis, Melia azedarach, Moringa oleifera, 

Pinus roxburghii, Salix acmophylla, Sapium insigne, Syzium cumini. 

As many as 129 species are of medicinal values represented by Abrus precatorius, Berberis chitria, 

Berberis asiatica, Centella asiatica, Calotropis procera, Cissampelos pareira, Litsea chinensis, 

Ricinus communis, and Zanthoxylum armatum. No RET species was recorded from this sub-basin.

Bhilangana (Bhilangana valley) 

The Bhilangana River originates from Khatling glacier 

and is joined by the Balganga River at Ghansali. This 

sub-basin falls in the middle and greater Himalayan 

regions and encompasses subtropical mixed and chir 

pine forests at the lower elevations (Ghansali), temperate 

forests and scattered tree and scrub in the middle 

elevations (Ghutu), and coniferous mixed sub alpine 

forests, alpine scrub and meadows in the higher 

elevations (below Khatling). 


Fish diversity: This sub-basin is quite rich in fish diversity, and provides habitats for 43 species of 

fishes, including 20 restricted range species and 11 threatened species. 

The important threatened species reported from this region are golden mahseer (Tor putitora), 

Black mahseer (Tor chilinoides), snow trout (Schizothorax richardsonii), stone suckers (Garra gotyla 

gotyla, Garra lamda), hillstream catfish (Glyptothorax telchitta, Glyptothorax caviai), barbs 

(Chagunius chagunio), hillstream loaches (Nemacheilus multifasciatus and Pseudecheneius 

sulcatus). Population of migratory species is fragmented due to existing power project in the area. 

Most importantly, the lower stretch of this river basin is one of the important breeding habitats for 

migratory species such as Tor putitora and Schizothroax spp. 

Mammals and Birds: Bhilangana sub-basin encompasses high avifaunal biodiversity which 

includes around 350 species, out of which 4 species are in RET (Indian white-backed vulture, 

Egyptian vulture, western tragopan and cheer pheasant) and 6 species are listed in IWPA 

Schedule-I (Indian white-backed vulture, egyptian vulture, cinereous vulture, western tragopan, 

cheer pheasant and Himalayan monal). This sub-basin encompasses 32 mammal species which 

includes 3 RET species (Asiatic black bear, common leopard and Himalayan musk deer) and 4 

Schedule-I species of IWPA (Asiatic black bear, common leopard, Himalayan musk deer and 

Himalayan tahr) (Grimmet et al., 1998; Menon, 2003 and Rasmussen & Anderton, 2005). 

Floristic diversity: 106 angiosperm species were recorded from the project sites, of which 33 are 

trees, 36 shrubs, and 37 herbs including 29 species having one or other kind of medicinal use. 

Species frequently seen in the lower parts of Bhilangana are Acacia catechu, Aegle marmelos, 

Bombax ceiba, Dalbergia sissoo, Ficus palmata, Grewia optiva, Pinus roxburghii. Medicinal plants 

recorded in the sub-basin were Aconitum heterophylllum, Picrorhiza kurrooa, Nardostachys 

grandiflora, Swertia chirayita, Angelica glauca at higher altitudes and Litsea chinensis, Berberis 

asiatica, B. aristata, Zanthoxylum armatum, Emblica officinalis, Calotropis procera, Juglans regia, 

Artemisia nilagarica, Bergenia ciliata, Rubus ellipticus, Colebrookia oppositifolia, and Adhatoda 

zeylanica at lower altitude. The RET species Anemone raui, Trachyspermum falconeri was reported 

from this sub-basin. 

57

58 

Fig. 5.5 View of Bhagirathi sub-basin IV. 

Fig. 5.6 View of Bhilanganga sub-basin.

Balganga sub-basin (Balganga valley) 

The Balganga sub-basin is drained by the Balganga 

River and its tributary Dharamganga that joins Balganga 

at Budhakedar. This sub-basin falls in the middle and 

greater Himalayan ranges and is a broad valley with 

many lakes and glaciers in the higher altitudes. Habitats 

such as temperate mixed forests, temperate scattered 

tree and scrub with open grassy slopes, pine forests are 

present in this sub-basin including patches of riverine 

forests along Balganga. 


Fish diversity: Fish faunal assemblage is more or less similar to that of Bhilangana sub-basin. A 

total of 38 species of fishes, which include 24 restricted range species and 11 threatened species 

were recorded. The following are the threatened species recorded from this basin: golden mahseer 

(Tor putitora), Black mahseer (Tor chilinoides), snow trout (Schizothorax richardsonii), stone 

suckers (Garra gotyla gotyla, Garra lamda), hillstream catfish (Glyptothorax telchitta, Glyptothorax 

caviai), barbs (Chagunius chagunio), hillstream loaches (Nemacheilus multifasciatus and 

Pseudecheneius sulcatus). This river is one of the critically important habitats for mahseers and 

snow trouts which occurs in Tehri Dam and associated rivers. Many migratory species congregate 

along the rivers for breeding especially after the monsoon. 

Mammals and Birds: The faunal diversity is similar to that of Bhilangana sub-basin and it has over 

350 species of birds, out of these 4 species are in RET (Indian white-backed vulture, Egyptian 

vulture, western tragopan and cheer pheasant) and 6 species are mentioned in IWPA schedule-I list 

(Indian white-backed vulture, Egyptian vulture, cinereous vulture, western tragopan, cheer pheasant 

and Himalayan monal). This sub-basin encompasses 32 mammal species which includes 3 RET 

species (Asiatic black bear, common leopard and Himalayan musk deer) and 4 IWPA Schedule-I 

species (Asiatic black bear, common leopard, Himalayan musk deer and Himalayan tahr) (Grimmet 

et al., 1998; Menon, 2003 and Rasmussen & Anderton, 2005 ). 

Floristic diversity: The sub-basin has trees and scrub with open grassy slopes, pine forests and 

patches of riverine forests along Balganga. 106 species were recorded from the project sites in the 

valley, of which 33 are trees, 36 shrubs, and 37 herbs. Of the total plants identified, 29 species 

were of medicinal values. Common species found at lower parts of sub-basin were Ficus palmata 

,Grewia optiva, Pinus roxburghii, Sapium insigne, while at higher elevations common temperate 

species such as oaks, Rhododendrons, maples, wild cherry, birch, fir, and a variety of understory 

shrubs were seen. Important medicinal plants of the sub-basin are Berberis aristata, Zanthoxylum 

armatum, Juglans regia, Bergenia ciliata, Rubus ellipticus, Coleus barbata, Paeonia emodi, 

Podophyllum hexandrum, Rheum austral, Angelica glauca and Aconitum heterophyllum. 

Some RET species Aconitum heterophyllum, Rheum austral, Angelica glauca, Coleus barbata, 

Podophyllum was reported from this sub-basin. 

59

60 

Alaknanda Sub-basin 1 (Devprayag to Karnaprayag) 

This sub-basin is drained mainly by Alaknanda River and 

its major tributary Mandakini that joins Alaknanda at 

Rudraprayag. This sub-basin mainly falls under lower to 

middle Himalayan range and has high ridge mountains 

and a number of side valleys in its catchment. Area has 

subtropical mixed forests, pine in the lower elevations 

and temperate forests in the higher elevations. 

Anthropogenic pressures and developmental activities 

along this stretch of Alaknanda are high as the main 

routes to Kedarnath and Badrinath is along this river. 


Fish diversity: In terms of fish diversity and aquatic habitat, this sub-basin is one of the richest 

regions due to oligotrophic condition. It supports about 49 species of fishes, including 2 endemic 

species namely Glyptothorax alaknandi and Glyptothorax garhwali. These two species occur only in 

the upper reaches of Ganga. This sub-basin also has 12 threatened species viz. golden mahseer 

(Tor putitora), Black mahseer (Tor chilinoides), snow trout (Schizothorax richardsonii), stone 

suckers (Garra gotyla gotyla, Garra lamda), hillstream catfish (Glyptothorax telchitta, Glyptothorax 

caviai), barbs (Chagunius chagunio), hillstream loaches (Botia dario, Nemacheilus multifasciatus 

and Pseudecheneius sulcatus). It also has 31 restricted range species. This sector of river is the 

major migratory route for golden mahseers and other migrants. 

Mammals and Birds: It encompasses about 250 birds species including 2 RET species (Indian 

White-backed Vulture and Egyptian vulture) and 3 IWPA Schedule-I species (Indian white-backed 

vulture, Egyptian vulture and cinereous vulture). This sub-basin encompasses 18 species of 

mammals out of which 2 are RET (Asiatic black bear and common leopard) and 2 are mentioned in 

IWPA Schedule-I list (Asiatic black bear and common leopard). Presence of otter has been reported 

from Malyasu and Papdasu based on signs (Dimri 2010). However, there are no confirmed reports 

on the presence of otters based on visual encounters or photographic records in this sub-basin 


Floristic diversity: A total of about 361 species of higher plants were recorded from the sub-basin 

during field survey. Of these, 126 were herbs, 88 shrubs, 76 trees and 35 grasses. Of these, 155 

species have medicinal values. The important high value medicinal plant of the sub-basin is Coleus 

barbatus, which can be seen around Kirtinagar in Tehri Garhwal, which is also listed as RET 

species. The dominant species among angiosperms are Anogeisus latifolia, Adina cordifolia Acacia 

catechu, Aesculus indica, Bombax ceiba, Celtis australis, Lannea coromandelica, Ficus palmata, 

Grewia optiva, Lyonia ovalifolia, Mallotus phillippensis, Pinus roxburghii, and Quercus 

leucotrichophora. Plants with medicinal uses recorded in the valley are Acacia catechu, Mallotus 

phillippensis, Syzygium cumini, Diospyros montana, Aegle marmelos, Adhatoda zeylanica, 

Asparagus adscendens, Cannabis sativa, Colebrookia oppositifolia, Murraya koenigii, Woodfordia 

fruticosa, Cassia fistula, Sapindus mukorossi, Terminalia bellirica, Terminalia alata, Terminalia 

chebula, Artemisia roxburghiana and Asparagus filicinus.

Fig. 5.7 View of Balganga sub-basin. 

Fig. 5.8 View of Alaknanda sub-basin I. 

61

62 

Mandakini sub-basin 

A collection of waters from Sone Ganga, Kali Ganga, 

Mandani Ganga, and Madh Maheshwar Ganga, the River 

Mandakini is one of the main tributaries of Alaknanda. The 

sub-basin extends from middle to the high Himalayan 

ranges and encompasses subtropical mixed and chir pine 

forests at the lower elevations (Rudraprayag), temperate 

forests with and scrub in the middle elevations, 

progressively rising to oak and coniferous mixed sub alpine 

forests, alpine scrub and meadows, moraines, glaciers and 

high altitude lakes in the higher elevations. 


Fish diversity: A rich fish area, it supports about 38 species of fishes, including 19 restricted range 

species and several threatened species. The threatened species reported from this sub-basin include 

golden mahseer (Tor putitora), Black mahseer (Tor chilinoides), snow trout (Schizothorax richardsonii), 

stone suckers (Garra gotyla gotyla, Garra lamda, Crossocheilus latius latius), hillstream catfish 

(Glyptothorax telchitta, Glyptothorax caviai, Pseudecheneius sulcatus). This sub-basin serves as a 

breeding habitat for mahseers and it is reported that during monsoons mahseers from Alaknanda 

migrate up to Mandakini river for breeding. 

Mammals and Birds: In this sub-basin more than 350 birds species are present, of which 4 species are 

RET (Indian white-backed vulture, Egyptian vulture, western tragopan and cheer pheasant) and 6 species 

are mentioned in IWPA Schedule-I list (Indian white-backed vulture, Egyptian vulture, cinereous vulture, 

western tragopan, cheer pheasant and Himalayan monal). This sub-basin has 32 mammal species which 

includes 5 RET and also listed IWPA Schedule-I species (Himalayan brown bear, Asiatic black bear, snow 

leopard, common leopard and musk deer) (Green, 1985; Sathyakumar, 1994; Grimmet et al., 1998; Menon, 

2003 and Rasmussen & Anderton, 2005 ). 

Floristic diversity: A total of 400 species of higher plants belonging to 230 genera and 89 families 

including 126 medicinal plants were found in the sub-basin, with many RET species like Aconitum 

hetrophyllum, Aconitum balfourii, Acorus calamus, Allium stacheyi, Allium humile, Cyananthus integer, 

Dactylorrhiza hatagirea, Dioscorea deltoidea, Nardostachys jatamansi, Podophyllum hexandrum, 

Picrorhiza kurrooa, and Trillidium govanianum (Semwal et al. 2007 ). 

The dominant species found in the sub-basin were Alnus nepalensis, Quercus leucotrichophora, 

Carpinus viminea, Ilex dipyrena, Litsea monopetala, Neolitsea pallens, Lyonia ovalifolia, Myrica 

esculenta, Pyrus pashia, Berberis aristata. were Aconitum heterophyllum, Aconitum violaceum, 

Anemone rivularis, Delphinium vestitum, Thalictrum foliolosum, Paeonia emodi, Berberis aristata, 

Berberis asiatica, Viola bifora, Viola canescens, Malva verticillata, Geranium nepalense, Geranium 

wallichianum, Geranium polyanthes, Oxalis corniculata, Skimmia anquetilia, Rosa sericea, Bergenia 

ciliata, Parnassia nubicola, Selinum vaginatum, Galium aparine, Rubia cordifolia, Valeriana hardwickii, 

Valeriana jatamansi, Morina longifolia, Anaphalis triplinervis, Artemisia nilagirica, Jurinea dolomiaea, 

Taraxacum officinale, Gaultheria trichophylla, Swertia ciliata, Maharanga emodi, Verbascum thapsus, 

Ajuga brachystemon, Lamium album, Micromeria biflora, Origanum vulgare, Prunella vulgaris, Salvia 

hians, Plantago himalaica, Bistorta affinis, Rumex nepalensis, Euphorbia pilosa, Sarcococca saligna, 

Carpinus viminea, Hedychium spicatum, Dioscorea deltoidea, Paris polyphylla and Arisaema 

jacquemontii.

Alaknanda Sub-basin II (Karnaprayag to Vishnuprayag): 

In this sub-basin, tributaries such as the Urgam, Birahi 

Ganga, Mandal, Nandakini and Pindar rivers drain into 

the main Alaknanda River. The sub-basin encompasses 

subtropical mixed and chir pine forests at the lower 

elevations, temperate forests and scrub in the middle 

elevations (near Vishnuprayag) and oak and coniferous 

mixed sub alpine forests, alpine scrub and meadows in 

the higher elevations (Tungnath, Rudranath regions). 

Some high altitude areas of this sub-basin fall within the 

Kedarnath Musk Deer Sanctuary. 


Fish diversity: 26 species of fishes were reported from this sub-basin. It includes 19 restricted 

range species and 5 threatened species namely, golden mahseer (Tor putitora), snow trout 

(Schizothorax richardsonii) hillstream catfish (Glyptothorax telchitta, Glyptothorax caviai), and 

Pseudecheneius sulcatus. This basin is the uppermost limit of mahseer distribution in main Ganga 

river. There are steep water-falls and narrow cascades between Pipalkoti and Vishnuprayag. These 

factors could be a major reason for absence of mahseer above Vishnuprayag. 

Mammals and Birds: Over 300 birds species including 3 RET species (Indian White-backed 

vulture, Egyptian vulture and cheer pheasant) and 4 IWPA Schedule-I species (Indian white-backed 

vulture, Egyptian vulture, cinereous vulture and cheer pheasant). The important mammals including 

RET and IWPA species that are reported in the sub-basin are snow leopard, common Leopard, 

brown bear, black bear, musk deer, Himalayan tahr and serow (Green 1985, 1986; Sathyakumar 

1994, Sathyakumar et al. 1992; Grimmet et al., 1998; Menon, 2003 and Rasmussen & Anderton, 

2005; Bhattacharya & Sathyakumar 2007). 

Floristic diversity: A total 177 species (173 Angiosperms and 4 Gymnosperms) have been 

recorded in the sub-basin. Of these, herbs, shrubs, trees and climbers represent 100, 47, 20 and 10 

species respectively (Bhatt, 2009). Some important RET species reported from the sub-basin are 

Cyananthus integer, Nardostachys jatamansi and Picrorhiza kurrooa. 

The dominant species of the basin was Aesculus indica, Celtis australis, Cinnamomum tamala, 

Cupressus torulosa, Lyonia ovalifolia, Populus ciliata, Pyrus pashia, Quercus semecarpifolia, Pinus 

roxburghii, Alnus nepalensis, Juglans regia, Mallotus philippensis, Rhus wallichii, Toona serrata, 

Rhododendron arboreum, and Myrica esculenta. 

About 82 species of medicinal plants are found in the sub-basin, notable among them were Alpuda 

mutica, Anaphalis adnata, Artemisia capillaries, Asparagus adscendens, Barleria cristata, Canabis 

sativa, Delphinium danudatum, Adhatoda zeylanica, Bergenia ciliata, Hedychium spicatum, Centella 

asiatica, Verbascum thapus, Berberis asiatica, Rumex hastatus, Swertia chirayita, and Zanthoxylum 

armatum. 

63

64 

Fig. 5.9 View of Mandakini sub-basin. 

Fig. 5.10 View of Alaknanda sub-basin II.

Pindar Sub-basin 

The River Pindar originates from the Pindari glacier in 

Bageshwar District and flows east-west to join the River 

Alaknanda at Karnaprayag in Chamoli District. The 

Pindar catchment falls within the middle and greater 

Himalayan regions and encompasses subtropical mixed 

and chir pine forests at the lower elevations 

(Karnaprayag), temperate forests and scattered tree and 

scrub in the middle elevations, and oak and coniferous 

mixed sub alpine forests, alpine scrub and meadows in 

the higher elevations (near Pindari).This sub-basin is one 

of the rich riverine habitats with good natural riparian 

forests. Much of the sub-basin is relatively well protected 

and attracts trekkers for its scenic beauty and wilderness. 


Fish diversity: It supports about 38 species of fishes, comprising 13 restricted range species and 

several threatened species including golden mahseer (Tor putitora), snow trout (Schizothorax 

richardsonii), Garra gotyla gotyla, Glyptothorax telchitta, Glyptothorax cavia, Puntius sarana and 

Pseudecheneius sulcatus. This sub-basin is one of the important migratory and breeding habitats 

for mahseers, which inhabits the lower Alaknanda basin. Invasive brown trout was also found in this 

sub-basin. The ecological condition of this basin is from oligotrophic at higher altitude to eutrophic at 

downstream. 

Mammals and Birds: More than 350 birds species are present, out of all these 3 species are RET 

(Indian white-backed vulture, Egyptian vulture and cheer pheasant) and 5 species are mentioned in 

IWPA Schedule-I list (Indian white-backed vulture, Egyptian vulture, cinereous vulture, cheer 

pheasant and Himalayan monal). It also has 34 species of mammals including RET and Schedule – 

I species of IWPA, they are: snow leopard, common Leopard, brown bear, black bear, Tibetan wolf, 

musk deer, blue sheep, Himalayan tahr, serow (ZSI 1995, Grimmet et al., 1998; Menon, 2003 and 

Rasmussen & Anderton, 2005; Bhattacharya et al. 2007, 2009, 2011; Bhattacharya & Sathyakumar 

2010; Kandpal & Sathyakumar 2010). 

Floristic diversity: Over 500 species of vascular plants were recorded in the area, of which herbs, 

shrubs, climbers, and trees represent 48, 32, 5 and 15% respectively. The common species 

recorded in the sub-basin were Pinus roxburghii, Albizia julibrissin, Alnus nepalensis, Ficus 

roxburghii, Dalbergia sericea, Juglans regia, Litsea chinensis, Lyonia ovalifolia, Quercus 

leuchotricophora, Quercus semecarpifolia, Quercus dilatata, Quercus floribunda, Quercus glauca, 

Rhus wallichii, Toona ciliata, Pyrus pashia, and Ilex dipyrena. 

Over 50 species of medicinal and aromatic plants were also seen in the area notably, Asparagus 

adscendens, Berberis asiatica, Terminalia chebula, T. bellirica, Aconitum heterophyllum, Rubia 

cordifolia, Prinsepia utilis, Cinnamomum tamala, Rosa macrophylla, Xanthoxylum armatum, 

Micromeria biflora, and Verbascum thapus. 

RET species recorded from this sub-basin are Berberis osmastonii, Onosma pyramidale, 

Cypripedium elegans and Dactylorhiza hatagirea. 

65

66 

Nandakini Sub-basin: 

Originating near the high peaks of Nandaghunti and 

Trishul, the river Nandakini, runs east-west to join the 

Alaknanda at Nandprayag. Some high altitude areas of 

this sub-basin fall within the buffer zone of Nanda Devi 

Biosphere Reserve. The major vegetation types of the 

Nandakini sub-basin are temperate chir pine forest, 

temperate broadleaf forests, moist deodar forest, oakconifer 

(mixed) forests, sub-alpine birch-rhododendron 

forests, alpine scrub and meadows. 


Fish diversity: It supports about 38 species of fishes, comprising 13 restricted range species and 

seven threatened species such as golden mahseers Tor putitora, snow trout (Schizothorax 

richardsonii), stone sucker (Garra gotyla gotyla), hillstream catfishes (Glyptothorax telchitta, 

Glyptothorax cavia), Olive barbs (Puntius sarana) and Pseudecheneius sulcatus. This sub-basin is 

one of the important migratory and breeding habitats for mahseers, which inhabits lower Alaknanda 

basin. Invasive brown trout was found in this sub-basin. The ecological condition of this basin is 

from oligotrophic at higher altitude to eutrophic at downstream. 

Mammals and Birds: Over 350 birds species are present, out of all these 3 species are listed in 

RET (Indian white-backed vulture, Egyptian vulture and cheer pheasant) and 5 species are 

mentioned in IWPA Schedule-I list (Indian white-backed vulture, Egyptian vulture, cinereous vulture, 

cheer pheasant and Himalayan monal). Pindar sub-basin encompasses 34 mammal species which 

includes 5 RET species (Himalayan brown bear, Asiatic black bear, snow leopard, common leopard 

and Himalayan musk deer) and 8 IWPA Schedule-I species (Himalayan brown bear, Asiatic black 

bear, snow leopard, common leopard, Himalayan musk deer, Himalayan tahr, blue sheep and 

serow) (ZSI 1995; Grimmet et al., 1998; Menon, 2003 and Rasmussen & Anderton, 2005). 

Floristic diversity: A total of 116 species were recorded in the proposed HEP sites grouped into 

herbs (56), shrubs (32) and trees (28). Of these, 36 species have medicinal values. 

The common species found in the project area are Pinus roxburghii, Toona ciliata, Celtis australis, 

Grewia optiva, Bombax ceiba, Delbergia sissoo, Bauhinia variegata, Sapium insigne, and Syzygium 

cumini. Important medicinal plant species include Swertia chirayita, Berginia ciliata, Berberis 

asiatica, Cinnamomum tamala, Picrorhiza kurrooa, Asparagus adscendens, Woodfordia fruticosa 

and Zanthoxylum armatum. 

The RET species of plants recorded from this sub-basin are: Acorus calamus, Allium stacheyi, 

Datisca cannabina, Berberis osmastonii.

Fig. 5.11 View of Pindar sub-basin. 

Fig. 5.12 View of Nandakini sub-basin. 

67

68 

Birahi ganga Sub-basin: 

The sub-basin consists of Trishul and Nandaghunti rivers, 

flowing east-west to form the Birahi Ganga, which finally 

joins with Alaknanda near Pipalkoti. This area 

encompasses subtropical mixed and chir pine forests at 

the lower elevations (

Rishi ganga Sub-basin: 

The River Rishi Ganga originates at the base of Nanda 

Devi west peak (7817m) and flows northwest to join 

Dhauli Ganga at Reni village. This area lies within the 

Nanda Devi NP and its buffer zone, which was inscribed 

as UNESCO World Heritage Site due to its ‘Outstanding 

Universal Values’. This region encompasses the 

temperate, subalpine, alpine habitats and many 

glaciers. This sub-basin is very rich in flora and fauna 

particularly RET species (Lamba 1987, Tak and Kumar 

1987) and many of the RET species occur in high 

densities in this NP when compared to other PAs in the 

Western Himalaya (Sathyakumar 1993, Sankaran 1993, 

Sathyakumar 2004). 


Fish diversity: It falls within ‘no fish zone’, as no fish species were reported from this region. This 

oligotrophic basin has cooler, clean water with low primary producers. Evidence for the presence of 

aquatic meiofauna have been recorded in this sub-basin. 

Mammals and Birds: Over 250 birds species are present, out of these 2 species are in RET 

species list (Indian white-backed vulture and cheer pheasant) and 4 species are listed in Schedule-I 

of IWPA (Indian white-backed vulture, cinereous vulture, cheer pheasant and Himalayan monal). It 

also has 33 mammal species which includes 4 RET species (Asiatic black bear, snow leopard, 

common leopard and Himalayan musk deer) and 8 IWPA Schedule-I species (Himalayan brown 

bear, Asiatic black bear, snow leopard, common leopard, Himalayan musk deer, Himalayan tahr, 

blue sheep and serow) (Grimmet et al., 1998; Menon, 2003 and Rasmussen & Anderton, 2005 ). 

Floristic diversity: A total of 98 species of flowering plants were recorded in Rishi Ganga subbasin. 

Of these, 64 species were herbs, 18 shrubs and 16 trees. Also, 28 species were of medicinal 

value. Common medicinal plants found in the area include Achyranthes aspera, Aconitum balfourii, 

Aconitum heterophyllum, Allium humile, Angelica glauca, Arisaema tortuosum, Berberis aristata, 

Berberis lycium, Bergenia ciliata, Carum carvi, Centella asiatica, Delphinium denudatum, Hippophae 

salicifolia Picrorhiza kurrooa, Rheum australe, Podophyllum hexandrum, and Zanthoxylum 

armatum. 

The common and dominant tree species observed in the sub-basin were Abies pindrow, Quercus 

semecarpifolica, Aesculus indica, Cedrus deodara, Juglans regia, Pinus wallichiana, Picea 

smithiana, Cupressus torulosa, Carpinus viminea. 

RET species reported from this sub- basin are Aconitum heterophyllum, Nardostachys grandiflora, 

Allium humile, Arnebia benthamii, Aconitum falconeri, Angelica glauca, Dactylorhiza hatagirea, 

Dioscorea deltoidea, Picrorhiza kurrooa, Podophyllum hexandrum, Saussurea obvallata (Hajra, 

1983) 

69

70 

Fig. 5.13 View of Bhirai ganga sub-basin. 

Fig. 5.14 View of Rishi ganga sub-basin.

Dhauli ganga Sub-basin: 

The River Dhauli Ganga originates from the high peaks 

along the eastern border of District Chamoli (also the 

international border) and runs south west to join 

Alaknanda near Joshimath. The sub-basin encompasses 

Greater and Trans-Himalayan regions and has high 

habitat diversity ranging from temperate forests, 

scattered tree and scrub in lower elevations to subalpine 

forests, alpine scrub and meadows, glacier moraines, 

trans-Himalayan scrub and grasslands in the higher 

elevations. The uniqueness of this sub-basin is the 

gradual transition from Greater Himalayan elements 

(near Joshimath) to Trans-Himalayan elements (at the 

international border). 


Fish diversity: It falls within ‘no fish zone’, as no fish species were reported from this region. This 

oligotrophic basin has cool and clean water with low primary producers. 

Mammals and Birds: Over 250 species of birds are reported, out of these 2 species are in RET 

(Indian white-backed vulture and cheer pheasant) and 4 species are listed in IWPA Schedule – I 

(Indian white-backed vulture, cinereous vulture, cheer pheasant and Himalayan monal). The 

important mammals and birds that are reported to occur in the sub-basin are snow leopard, 

common Leopard, brown bear, black bear, Tibetan wolf, musk deer, blue sheep, Himalayan tahr, 

serow, Himalayan monal and raptors (ZSI 1995). Typical Trans-Himalayan fauna that occur in this 

sub-basin include the snow leopard, Tibetan wolf, Tibetan woolly hare and Himalayan marmot. A 

Snow leopard was photo-captured at Malari during April 2011. The entire sub-basin forms the buffer 

zone of Nanda Devi BR and contains habitats and corridors for RET and other species that are of 

high conservation significance (Grimmet et al., 1998; Menon, 2003 and Rasmussen & Anderton, 

Floristic diversity: A total of 128 species were recorded in the survey localities, many of them are 

RET species. Of these, 88 species were herbs, 21 shrubs and 19 trees. Phondani (2010) has 

reported 86 species of medicinal value in this valley. 

RET species reported from this sub-basin are Acer caesium, Aconitum balfourii, Aconitum 

heterophyllum, Allium stracheyi, Arenaria curvifolia, Saussurea costus, Taxus baccata, Arenaria 

ferruginea, Berberis petioleris, Calamagrostis garhwalensis, Carex nandadeviensis, Dactylorhiza 

hatagirea, and Picrorhiza kurrooa. 

Important tree species in Dhauli Ganga Valley are Abies pindrow, Fraxinus zanthoxyloides, 

Hippophae salicifolia, Pinus wallichiana, Populus ciliata, Cedrus deodara, Rhododendron arboreum 

and Taxus baccata. Common shrubs include Berberis petiolaris, Cotoneaster acuminata, 

Cotoneaster microphyllus, Ephedra gerardiana, Prinsepia utilis, Sorbaria tomentosa, Spiraea 

arcuata, Lonicera spp., Ribes glaciale, Rosa sericea and Rubus niveus. The predominating herbs 

and grass species are Aconitum atrox, Agropyron longearistatum, Arctium lappa, Artemisia gmelinii, 

Danthonia cachymeriana, Geranium wallichianum, Hieracium umbellatum, Melica persica, 

Pedicularis hoffmeisterii, Poa spp., Potentilla cuneata, and Taraxacum officinale. 

71

72 

Bhyundar Sub-basin 

The main river of the Bhyundar sub-basin is the Bhyundar 

River that is recognized by this name from the point where 

Paspawati River originating in the Valley of Flowers NP and 

Lakshman Ganga originating in the Lokpal Lake meet and 

later flow down through the Bhyundar Valley for about 15 

km to join Alaknanda at Govindghat. This sub-basin is a 

small narrow valley with steep terrain. The World Heritage 

Site, Valley of Flowers NP and Hemkunad Saheb, a 

famous Sikh shrine are located in this sub-basin. 


Fish diversity: It falls within ‘no fish zone’, as no fish species was reported from this region. This 

oligotrophic basin has cooler, clean water with low primary producers. 

Mammals and Birds: More than 250 bird species including one RET, (Indian white-backed vulture) was 

reported and 3 species are listed in schedule-I of IWPA (Indian white-backed vulture, cinereous vulture 

and Himalayan monal). This sub-basin encompasses 33 mammal species which includes 5 RET 

species (i.e. Himalayan brown bear, Asiatic black bear, snow leopard, common leopard and Himalayan 

musk deer) and 8 IWPA Schedule-I species (Himalayan brown bear, Asiatic black bear, snow leopard, 

common leopard, Himalayan musk deer, Himalayan tahr, blue sheep and serow) (Grimmet et al., 1998; 

Menon, 2003 and Rasmussen & Anderton, 2005 ). 

Floristic diversity: The sub-basin encompasses temperate and sub alpine forests, alpine scrub, 

meadows and glaciers. 521 species of vascular plants were reported from the Valley of Flowers NP, 

including 17 RET species. 

The sub-basin has several species of threatened medicinal plants as well such as Aconitum balfourii, 

Aconitum falconeri, Angelica glauca, Arnebia benthamii, Delphinium brunonianum, Nardostachys 

grandiflora, Rheum australe, Rheum webbianum, Dactylorhiza hatagirea, Picrorhiza kurrooa, Aconitum 

violaceum, Meconopsis aculeata, Polygonatum multiflorum, Fritillaria roylei, Podophyllum hexandrum, 

Saussurea obvallata, and Taxus baccata (Kala et al., 1998; Kala, 2005). Dominant species of plants in 

the cool temperate belt are Acer caesium, Abies pindrow, Betula utilis, Rhododendron campanulatum, 

Taxus wallichiana, Syringa emodi and Sorbus lanata. Some of the common herbs are Arisaema 

jacquemontii, Boschniakia himalaica, Corydalis cashmeriana, Polemonium caeruleum, Polygonum 

polystachyum (a rampant tall weed), Impatiens sulcata, Geranium wallichianum, Helinia elliptica, Galium 

aparine, Morina longifolia, Inula grandiflora, Nomochoris oxypetala, Anemone rivularis, Pedicularis 

pectinata, P. bicornuta, Primula denticulata and Trillidium govanianum. 

The higher alpine zone (>4000m) in Bhyundar sub-basin is an area of pioneer species dispersed among 

moraines, boulders, and rocky slopes, dominated by scattered and stunted herbs, extensive shrubby 

patches of Rhododendron lepidotum, Cassiope fastigiata and Juniperus communis. The sub-basin’s 

dominant species are Kobresia royleana, Trachydium roylei and Danthonia cachemyriana. There are 

also several colourful herbs like Saussurea simpsoniana, Potentilla argyrophylla, Geum elatum, Senecio 

spp., Bistorta affinis, Bergenia stracheyi and Himalayan blue poppy (Mecanopsis aculeata).

Fig. 5.15 View of Dhauli ganga sub-basin. 

Fig. 5.16 View of Bhyundar ganga sub-basin. 

73

74 

Alaknanda Sub-basin III (Vishnuprayag to Badrinath): 

The stretch of Alaknanda from its origin up to its 

confluence with Dhauli Ganga falls in this sub-basin. The 

River Alaknanda originates from the high peaks near the 

northern boundary of District Chamoli (also international 

border), flows along Badrinath and south towards 

Joshimath. Tributaries such as Khiron Ganga and 

Bhyundar Ganga drain into Alaknanda. Major proportion 

of this sub-basin was included into the buffer zone of 

Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve and includes habitat for 

several RET and other species of high conservation 

significance. 


Fish diversity: It falls within ‘no fish zone’, as no fish species was reported from this region. The 

basin is oligotrophic with low primary producers. 

Mammals and Birds: More than 250 birds species are reported, out of these 1 species is listed in 

RET (Indian white-backed vulture) and 3 species are listed in Schedule-I of IWPA (Indian whitebacked 

vulture, cinereous vulture and Himalayan monal) and there are 33 mammal species 

including RET and scheduled species such as snow leopard, common Leopard, brown bear, black 

bear, Tibetan wolf, musk deer, blue sheep, Himalayan tahr, serow, Himalayan monal and raptors 

(ZSI 1995, Kala 1998,2004, 2005). This sub-basin connects the Kedarnath WS and Khiron Valley in 

the west to the Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve and therefore facilitates the movements of large 

mammals, particularly snow leopard and brown bear (Grimmet et al., 1998; Menon, 2003 and 

Rasmussen & Anderton, 2005 ). 

Floristic diversity: Diverse habitats ranging from temperate forests, scattered tree and scrub, 

subalpine oak-conifer forests, alpine scrub, meadows, moraines and glaciers are present in this 

sub-basin. Patches of riverine forest and scrub occur along the main river. Major proportion of this 

sub-basin forms the buffer zone of Nanda Devi BR. The major forest type of the sub-basin are Banj 

oak forest and Western mixed conifer forest. 

243 species were recorded from the Alaknanda III sub-basin. Of these 164 were herbs, 51 shrubs 

and 28 trees. Among them all species 38 species have medicinal values. The prominent species of 

plants in the sub-basin include Abies pindrow, Asculus indica, Alnus nepalensis, Celtis australis, 

Hippophae salicifolia, Lyonia ovalifolia, Populus ciliata, Pinus wallichiana, Pyrus pashia, Pyrus 

malus, Salix wallichiana, Betula alnoides, and Taxus baccata. Notable, high value medicinal plants 

in this area include Arnebia benthamii, Aconitum heterophyllum, Ajuga bracteosa, Allium humile, 

Artemesia vestita, Angelica glauca, Berberis asiatica, Bergenia ciliata,Carum carvi, Dactylorhiza 

hatagirea, Hippophae salicifolia, Prinsepia utilis, Rheum webbianum, Swertia chirayita, Thalictrum 

foliolosum, Taraxcum officinale and Zanthoxylum armatum. 

RET species in the sub-basin are Allium humile, Allium stracheyi, Aconitum heterophyllum, Carum 

carvi, Dactylorhiza hatagirea, Hedysarum microcalyx, and Picrorhiza kurrooa.

The Ganga (Devprayag to Rishikesh) 

The stretch of Ganga from Devprayag to Rishikesh falls in 

the lower Himalayan range. A major spring fed perennial 

river Nayar joins Ganga near Byasi and several small 

streams also drain between this basin. This area 

encompasses the subtropical sal and mixed forests, open 

grassy slopes and scrub, and patches of riverine forests 

along the river. This sector of river has many deep pools 

and rapids, which are most preferable habitat for large size 

fishes like mahseers and barbs. This stretch of the Ganga is 

heavily used for adventure activities such as river rafting, 

camping, rock climbing and also for religious/spiritual 

purposes. 


Fish diversity: This is the richest sector of entire Ganga river basin in terms of fish diversity and 

abundance in the State of Uttarakhand. A total of 56 species of fishes, including 30 restricted range 

fishes, 16 threatened fishes and 2 endemic fishes namely Glyptothorax alaknandi and Glyptothorax 

garhwali. These two species are endemic to the upper reaches of Ganga. 

The threatened species of this basin are: Tor putitora, Tor chelinoides, Schizothorax richardsonii, 

Bagarius bagarius, Garra gotyla gotyla, Garra lamda, Chagunius chagunio, Nemacheilus multifasciatus, 

Pseudecheneius sulcatus, Puntius arana, Puntius chola, Botia dario, Amblyceps mangois, 

Crossocheillus latius latius, Glyptothorax cavia and Glyptothorax telchitta. In the entire Ganges, this is 

the only sector with viable population of golden mahseer T. putitora. This population moves along the 

Nayar river during monsoon for breeding. Based on the present survey, the Nayar river is recognised as 

one of the critical habitat for mahseer and its associated species. 

Mammals and Birds: More than 225 birds species including 2 RET species (Indian White-backed 

Vulture and Egyptian vulture) and 4 IWPA Schedule-I species (Indian white-backed vulture, Egyptian 

vulture, cinereous vulture and Indian peafowl). This sub-basin encompasses 17 species of mammals, of 

which 2 are RET (Asiatic black bear and common leopard) and 2 species are listed in IWPA Schedule-I 

list (Asiatic black bear and common leopard). Species such as goral, sambar, barking deer are also 

present. There were no confirmed reports on the presence of otters, but potential otter habitats are 

present in some stretches along this basin. The only recent visual encounters of otters recorded by the 

WII team were near Bhimgoda Barrage, Haridwar on 18 November 2011 and on 3 December 2011 


Floristic diversity: A total of 272 species were recorded from the survey area. Of these, 140 species 

were herbs, 62 shrubs, 69 trees and 2 climbers. About 86 species of medicinal plants were recorded in 

the area, notably, Adhatoda zeylanica, Tinospora cordifolia, Aegle marmelos, Premna latifolia, 

Terminalia chebula, T. bellirica, Emplica officinalis and Woodfordia fruticosa. 

Among the RET species, one population of Catamixis baccharoides, was recorded close to Saknidhar 

near Devprayag. Prominent species in the area were Adina cordifolia, Aegle marmelos, Shorea robusta, 

Tectona grandis, Holoptelea integrifolia, Lannea coromandelica, Mallotus phillippensis, Pinus roxburghii, 

Acacia catechu, Rhus parviflora, Ficus glomerata, Lantana camara, Syzygium cumini. 

75

76 

Fig. 5.17 View of Alaknanda sub-basin III. 

Fig. 5.18 View of Ganges sub-basin (Devprayag to Rishikesh).

Table 5.1 RET species in different sub-basins of Alaknanda and Bhagirathi basins at a glance. 

Sub-basins 

No. of terrestrial RET species 

No. of aquatic 

RET species 

Mammals Birds Plants Fish 

Total RET 

species 

Bhagirathi I 5 1 8 0 14 

Bhagirathi II 3 4 10 4 21 

Asiganga 3 4 6 1 14 

Bhagirathi III 2 3 1 5 11 

Bhagirathi IV 2 3 0 12 17 

Bhilangana 3 4 2 11 20 

Balganga 3 4 5 11 23 

Alaknanda I 2 4 1 12 19 

Mandakini 5 5 10 8 28 

Alaknanda II 2 4 6 5 17 

Pindar 4 4 8 7 23 

Nandakini 4 4 1 5 14 

Birahi ganga 3 5 0 4 12 

Rishi ganga 4 5 15 0 24 

Dhauli ganga 5 5 14 0 24 

Bhyundar ganga 5 4 21 0 30 

Alaknanda III 5 1 8 0 14 

Ganga Basin 2 3 1 16 22 

5.2 Biodiversity values based on fish fauna 

A total of 76 fish species belonging to 32 genera and 13 families were recorded from the 

Alaknanda and Bhagirathi basin, of these, 66 species have been reported in the zone of influence of 

Hydro Electric Projects (Appendix 5.4). Estimates of catches at four points along the Alaknanda in the 

Garhwal Himalaya showed a range 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, an important fish breeding habitat in the region, 

produced 621 kg km-1 year-1 (Payne and Temple 1996). The cyprinidae was the major dominant family 

along with 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 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%). 

77

Although much research has focussed 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 spp.) from some tributaries in the basin, however, detailed 

ecological information is still lacking for several cold water species in the region. 

As explained in the methodology chapter, the fish biodiversity value was assessed on the basis 

of 6 criteria which include species richness value, value based on RET species, value based on 

endemic species, value based on breeding/congregation habitats, value based on migratory habitats 

and value based on habitat biodiversity value. 

As is inferred from the data on fish species from all the sub-basins (Table 5.2), the three subbasins 

namely Ganga sub-basin, Alaknanda I sub-basin and Bhagirathi IV sub-basin have "very high" 

fish biodiversity value (Fig. 5.19). The Ganga sub-basin harbours 56 fish species of the 76 species, 

including all16 threatened species and both the endemic species, recorded from the Alaknanda and 

Bhagirathi basins. The fish biodiversity value of this sub-basin is the highest among all the 18 subbasins 

in the study area. The Alaknanda I sub-basin harbours 64% of the total fish species in the study 

area. Out of the 16 threatened species in the study area, 12 species occur in this sub-basin and it is 

home to both the endemic species found in the study area. The Bhagirathi IV sub-basin harbours 63% 

of the total fish species in the study area and 12 species out of the 16 threatened species in the two 

major basins. It is also home for two endemic species such as Glyptothorax garhwali and Glyptothorax 

alaknandi. In terms of habitat diversity, the three sub-basins have representative of all the five types of 

aquatic habitats are present in the area and also contain breeding/congregational sites and migratory 

pathways for golden mahseers, black mahseers and snow trouts. 

The Bhilangana, Balganga, Mandakini, Pindar, Nandakini, Bhagirathi II, Bhagirathi III, 

Alaknanda II, Birahi ganga and Asiganga sub-basins harbour "high" fish biodiversity value largely due 

to the presence of breeding/congregational sites and migratory pathways for species such as golden 

mahseers and snow trouts which have great conservation value. 

78 

Fig. 5.19 Relative fish biodiversity values in sub-basins of Alaknanda and Bhagirathi.

Table 5.2. Criteria for assessing aquatic biodiversity values. 

S.No. Name of sub-basin 

Species 

richness 

value 

L: Low; M: Medium; H: High; VH: Very High 

Criteria for assessing aquatic biodiversity values 

Value based 

on RET 

species 

Value 

based on 

endemic 

species 

Value based on 

breeding/ 

congregation 

habitats 

Value based 

on migratory 

habitats 

Value 

based on 

habitat 

diversity 

Aquatic 

biodiversity 

value 

Relative 

ranking of 

sub-basins 

1. Bhagirathi I 1 1 1 1 1 3 8 27 M 

2. Bhagirathi II 2 2 1 5 5 3 18 60 H 

3. Asiganga 1 1 1 5 5 4 17 57 H 

4. Bhagirathi III 2 2 1 5 5 3 18 60 H 

Category 

5. Bhagirathi IV 4 4 3 5 5 5 26 87 VH 

6. Bhilangana 3 4 1 5 5 4 22 73 H 

7. Balganga 3 4 1 5 5 4 22 73 H 

8. Alaknanda I 4 4 5 5 5 5 28 93 VH 

9. Mandakini 2 3 1 5 5 5 21 70 H 

10. Alaknanda II 2 2 1 5 5 3 18 60 H 

11. Pindar 2 3 1 5 5 5 21 70 H 

12. Nandakini 2 2 1 5 5 4 19 63 H 

13. Birahi ganga 1 2 1 5 5 4 18 60 H 

14. Rishi ganga 1 1 1 1 1 3 8 27 M 

15. Dhauli ganga 1 1 1 1 1 3 8 27 M 

16. Bhyundar ganga 1 1 1 1 1 2 7 23 L 

17. Alaknanda III 1 1 1 1 1 3 8 27 M 

18. Ganga Basin 4 5 5 5 5 5 29 97 VH 

79

80 

Plate 5.2 RET fishes of Alaknanda-Bhagirathi basin, Uttarakhand.

Plate 5.3 Some common fishes of Alaknanda-Bhagirathi basin, Uttarakhand. 

81

5.3 Biodiversity value based on terrestrial flora and fauna 

The Alaknanda and Bhagirathi basins have high floral and faunal diversities and some valleys 

have unique biodiversity values and high densities of species particularly, RET species (Table 5.1 and 

5.2). Major habitats of Bhagirathi basin includes sub tropical pine mixed forests, temperate broad 

leaved and coniferous forests, subalpine forests and scrub, alpine scrub and meadows, moraines and 

perpetual snow areas. The Gangotri National Park is located in the upper catchment of Bhagirathi. 

About 15 species of mammals and 150 bird species have been documented in this NP. This includes 

some of the rare and charismatic species such as snow leopard, black bear, brown bear, musk deer, 

blue sheep or bharal, Himalayan tahr, Himalayan monal, Koklass, and Himalayan snowcock 

(Paramanand et al. 2000; Uniyal & Ramesh 2004; Chandola et al. 2008; Bhardwaj & Uniyal 2009 and 

Bhardwaj et al. 2010, Maheshwari & Sharma 2010). 

Within the Alaknanada basin, the Nanda Devi NP and Valley of Flowers NP are two areas with 

rich biodiversity values that have also been designated as UNESCO World Heritage site. These two 

NPs form the core zone of the Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve that spreads across most of the upper 

catchment of Alaknanda and the entire catchment of Dhauliganga. The upper catchments of 

Alaknanda and Mandakini also form part of the Kedarnath WLS. Over 43 mammals and 250 bird 

species have been recorded from this basin (Reed 1979; Green 1985, 1986; Lamba 1987; Tak and 

Kumar 1987; Sathyakumar 1992, 1993, 1994, 2001, 2004, 2006; ZSI 1995; Sathyakumar & Kalsi 2007; 

Sathyakumar & Kaul 2007; Sathyakumar et al. 1992 1993; Bhattacharya & Sathyakumar, 2007a, 2008, 

2010, 2011; Bhattacharya et al. 2007, 2009). There were no confirmed recent reports on the presence 

of otters in both the basins with the exception of otter signs recorded at a few places downstream of 

Alaknanda (Table 5.1 and 5.2). However, potential otter habitats occur in some parts of the Alaknanda 

basin. 

These basins have high floral and faunal diversities and some valleys have unique biodiversity 

values and high densities of species particularly, Rare, Endangered & Threatened (RET) species. The 

forest types of the Alaknanda basin range from the Himalayan subtropical scrub at lower elevations, 

temperate broad leaved forests in the middle elevations to subalpine oak and conifer forests at ‘tree 

line’ at the higher elevations (Champion & Seth, 1968). The forest types of the Bhagirathi basin range 

from the Himalayan subtropical scrub at lower elevations to subalpine birch-rhododendron forests at 

‘tree line’ (Champion & Seth, 1968). Major habitats of Bhagirathi basin includes sub tropical pine mixed 

forests, temperate broad leaved and coniferous forests, subalpine forests and scrub, alpine scrub and 

meadows, moraines and perpetual snow areas. 

5.3.1 Mammals 

The mammalian biodiversity value reflects species richness value, relative richness of RET 

species and IWPA protected species in different sub-basins. An overview of biodiversity values in the 

sub-basins is presented in Table 5.3 & Plate 5.4 & 5.5. 

According to the Table 5.3, 12 sub-basins have ‘very high’ mammalian biodiversity values 

which are attributable largely to presence of relatively high proportion of RET species richness. These 

RET species are represented by Snow leopard, Brown bear and Himalayan musk deer which are also 

82

IWPA species and are restricted to high altitude Himalayan ecosystem. Some of the sub-basins like 

Bhagirathi-I, Dhauliganga, Rishiganga, Mandakini encompass Protected Areas which are critical 

habitats for species mentioned above. 

Table 5.3 Distribution of birds & mammals in all sub-basins of Alaknanda & Bhagirathi*. 

Basins Sub-basins 

Bhagirathi 

Alaknanda 

Ganga 

Birds 

Total 

Birds 

RET 

Birds 

IWPA 

Mammals 

Total 

Mammals 

RET 

Mammals 

IWPA 

Bhagirathi I 219 1 3 29 5 8 

Bhagirathi II 320 4 5 24 3 5 

Asiganga 262 4 5 32 3 5 

Bhagirathi III 238 3 4 17 2 2 

Bhagirathi 

IV 

239 3 4 16 2 2 

Bhilangana 359 4 6 32 3 5 

Balganga 358 4 6 32 3 5 

Alaknanda 

Sub-basin I 

Mandakini 

Sub-basin 

Alaknanda 

Sub-basin 2 

Pindar Subbasin 

Nandakini 

Sub-basin 

253 4 5 18 2 2 

361 5 6 33 5 7 

318 4 5 23 2 2 

357 4 5 34 4 7 

354 4 5 34 4 7 

Birahi ganga 345 5 6 34 3 5 

Rishi ganga 270 5 6 33 4 7 

Dhauli 

ganga 

Bhyundar 

ganga 

Alaknanda 

Sub-basin 3 

Ganga 

Basin 

271 5 6 33 5 8 

270 4 5 33 5 8 

271 1 2 33 5 8 

227 3 5 17 2 2 

Total numbers of Birds in Alaknanda and Bhagirathi basins- 364 (RET = 5; IWPA= 8) 

Total numbers of Mammals in Alaknanda and Bhagirathi basins (excluding Chiropterans and small rodents) – 35 (RET = 5; 

IWPA = 8) * for detailed information refer Appendix 5.5, 5.6 & 5.7. 

83

Plate 5.4: Important mammals in the two basins. 

(a) The Snow Leopard Camera trap image taken at Malari, Dhauliganga sub-basin 

(Photo credit: WII-UNESCO Project) 

(b) Asiatic Black bear (Photo credit: WII- Khangchendzonga Project); 

(c) Common leopard (Photo credit: WII- Uttarakhand Leopard Project – Dr. S.P. Goyal); 

(d) Himalayan musk deer (Photo credit: S.Sathyakumar); 

(e) Himalayan Brown bear (Photo credit: Aishwarya Maheshear, WWF-India). 

84

Plate 5.5: Important Galliformes in the two basins. 

(a) Western Tragopan (b) Himalayan monal (C) Cheer Pheasant (D) Indian Peafowl 

Photos credit: World Pheasant Association (a; b & c) and N K Dimri (d) 

85

Of the 12 sub-basins, Bhagirathi I, Mandakini, Dhauli ganga, Bhyundar ganga, Alaknanda III 

sub-basins have relatively the highest RET mammalian biodiversity value. 

Table 5.4 Criteria for assessing mammal biodiversity values. 

S.No. Sub-basin 

86 

Criteria for assessing mammal 

biodiversity 

Species 

richness 

value 

Value 

based on 

RET 

species 

Value 

based on 

species in 

IWPA 

Mammal 

biodiversity 

value 

Relative 

ranking Category 

1. Bhagirathi I 4 5 5 14 93 VH 

2. Bhagirathi II 4 3 4 11 73 H 

3. Asiganga 5 3 4 12 80 VH 

4. Bhagirathi III 3 2 2 7 47 M 

5. Bhagirathi IV 3 2 2 7 47 M 

6. Bhilangana 5 3 4 12 80 VH 

7. Balganga 5 3 4 12 80 VH 

8. Alaknanda I 3 2 2 7 47 M 

9. Mandakini 5 5 5 15 100 VH 

10. Alaknanda II 4 2 2 8 53 H 

11. Pindar 5 4 5 14 93 VH 

12. Nandakini 5 4 5 14 93 VH 

13. Birahi ganga 5 3 4 12 80 VH 

14. Rishi ganga 5 4 5 14 93 VH 

15. Dhauli ganga 5 5 5 15 100 VH 

16. Bhyundar 

ganga 

5 5 5 15 100 VH 

17. Alaknanda III 5 5 5 15 100 VH 

18. Ganga Basin 3 2 2 7 47 M 

M: Medium; H: High; VH: Very High

5.3.2 Birds 

Fig. 5.20 Mammalian biodiversity value. 

As with mammalian biodiversity value, the bird biodiversity value reflected in Table 5.5 are 

based on considerations on species richness, relative richness of RET species and IWPA protected 

species in different sub-basins. An overview of bird biodiversity values (Fig. 5.21) in the sub-basins 

highlights that as many as 13 sub-basins out of 18 sub-basins rank "very high" in relative bird 

biodiversity values. Factors that strongly contribute in the ranking of these basins as areas supporting 

high bird biodiversity are total species richness, presence of high number of RET and IWPA protected 

species such as Cheer Pheasant.The sub-basins supporting the highest species richness including 

those of RET and IWPA species are Mandakini and Birahi ganga sub-basins. 

The Cheer pheasant is an endangered pheasant that inhabits subtropical and temperate 

habitats (1,500-3,000m) of the Greater Himalaya and is reported in Bhyundar Dhauli ganga, Rishi 

ganga, Birahi, Pindar, Bhilangana Mandakini Bhagirathi II, Asiganga, Nandakini and Balganga subbasins. 

Sub-basins with moderate ranking for bird biodiversity such as Bhagirathi I, Alaknanda III are 

however are important habitats for cheer pheasant. 

The western tragopan is a vulnerable pheasant that inhibits forested habitats of the Greater 

Himalaya and its global distribution is limited to India and Pakistan only. In India, it is distributed in a 

narrow stretch (2,500-3,500m) from western Uttarakhand to Jammu & Kashmir State. It is a rare bird 

that occurs singly or pairs in undisturbed upper temperate and sub-alpine habitats. In the Alaknanda 

and Bhagirathi basins, it is reported to be present in Bhagirathi II, Asiganga, Bhilangana, Balganga and 

Mandakini sub-basins. 

87

Table 5.5 Criteria for assessing bird biodiversity values. 


88 

Species 

richness 

value 

Criteria for assessing Bird 

biodiversity Bird 

Value based 

on RET 

species 

Value based 

on species in 

IWPA 

biodiversity 

value 

Relative 

ranking 

Category 

1. Bhagirathi I 4 1 2 7 47 M 

2. Bhagirathi II 5 4 4 13 87 VH 

3. Asiganga 4 4 4 12 80 VH 

4. Bhagirathi III 4 3 3 10 67 H 

5. Bhagirathi IV 4 3 3 10 67 H 

6. Bhilangana 5 4 4 13 87 VH 

7. Balganga 5 4 4 13 87 VH 

8. Alaknanda I 4 4 4 12 80 VH 

9. Mandakini 5 5 4 14 93 VH 

10. Alaknanda II 5 4 4 13 87 VH 

11. Pindar 5 4 4 13 87 VH 

12. Nandakini 5 4 4 13 87 VH 

13. Birahi ganga 5 5 4 14 93 VH 

14. Rishi ganga 4 5 4 13 87 VH 

15. Dhauli ganga 4 5 4 13 87 VH 

16. Bhyundar ganga 4 4 4 12 80 VH 

17. Alaknanda III 4 1 2 7 47 M 

18. Ganga Basin 4 3 4 11 73 H 

M: Medium; H: High; VH: Very High 

Fig. 5.21 Avifaunal biodiversity value.

5.3.3 Plants 

The plant biodiversity value was assessed on the basis of species richness, RET species 

richness and medicinal value (Table 5.6). The biodiversity value based on the floral components in all 

the sub-basins is not as high as the value based on the faunal components including both terrestrial 

and aquatic. Most of the sub-basins have a moderate ranking for floral values with the only exceptions 

being Alaknanda I and Bhyundar ganga sub-basins (Fig. 5.22). 

Table 5.6 Criteria for assessing plant biodiversity value. 


Criteria for assessing Plant 

biodiversity 

Species 

richness 

value 

Value 

based 

on RET 

species 

Value 

based on 

medicinal 

species 

Plant 

biodiversity 

value 

Relative 

ranking 

of subbasins 

Category 

1. Bhagirathi I 2 2 1 5 33 M 

2. Bhagirathi II 2 2 2 6 40 M 

3. Asiganga 3 1 1 5 33 M 

4. Bhagirathi III 2 1 1 4 27 M 

5. Bhagirathi IV 3 1 3 7 47 M 

6. Bhilangana 2 1 1 4 27 M 

7. Balganga 2 1 1 4 27 M 

8. Alaknanda I 4 1 3 8 53 H 

9. Mandakini 2 2 3 7 47 M 

10. Alaknanda II 2 1 2 5 33 M 

11. Pindar 2 1 1 4 27 M 

12. Nandakini 2 1 1 4 27 M 

13. Birahi ganga 2 1 1 4 27 M 

14. Rishi ganga 2 2 1 5 33 M 

15. Dhauli ganga 2 3 2 7 47 M 

16. Bhyundar 

ganga 

5 3 1 9 60 H 

17. Alaknanda III 3 2 1 6 40 M 

18. Ganga Basin 3 1 2 6 40 M 

M: Medium; H: High 

89

Although the overall floral biodiversity values in the two basins are relatively low, it is 

noteworthy that some of these sub-basins harbour Locally Endemic, near Endemic and Threatened 

plant species (Table 5.7). Many of these endemic species are restricted to a single sub-basin of 

Alaknanda or Bhagirathi basins. 

90 

Fig. 5.22 Plant biodiversity value.

Table 5.7 Distribution / location of Endemic and Near Endemic, Threatened plant species in 

Alaknanda and Bhagirathi basins. 

S.No. Name of the species Family Distribution 

1. Aconitum falconeri Stapf var. falconeri Ranunculaceae 

2. Carex nandadeviensis Ghildyal, et al. Cyperaceae 

3. Festuca nandadevica Hajra Poaceae 

4. Listera nandadeviensis Hajra Orchidaceae 

5. Saussurea sudhanshui Hajra Asteraceae 

6. Arenaria curvifolia Majumdar Caryophyllaceae 

7. Arenaria ferruginea Duthie ex F. 

Williams 

Caryophyllaceae 

8. Calamogrostis garhwalensis Asteraceae 

9. Viola kunawarensis Royle Violaceae 

10. Ranunculus uttaranchalensis Pusalkar 

& Singh 

Ranunculaceae 

11. Silene gangotriana Pusalkar et al. Caryophyllaceae 

12. Microschoenus duthiei Clarke Cyperaceae 

13. Caragana sukiensis Nakao Fabaceae 

14. Agrostis tungnathii Bhattach. & Jain Poaceae 

15. Cyananthus integer Wall. ex Benth. Campanulaceae 

16. Anemone raui Goel & Bhattach. Ranunculaceae 

17. Trachyspermum falconeri (Clarke) H. 

Wolff 

18. Dilophia purii Rawat, Dangwal & R.D. 

Gaur 

Apiaceae 

Brassicaceae 

19. Cyathea spinulosa Cyatheaceae 

20. Euphorbia sharmae U.C. Bhattach Euphorbiaceae 

21. Gentiana saginoides Burkill Gentianaceae 

22. Gentiana tetrasepala Biswas Gentianaceae 

23. Androsace garhwalicum Balodi & Singh Primulaceae 

Rishiganga 

Dhauli ganga 

Bhagirathi II 

Mandakini 

Bhilangana 

Alaknanda II 

Bhyundar ganga 

24. Berberis osmastonii Dunn Berberidaceae Pindar 

25. Catamixis baccharoides Thomson Asteraceae Ganga-Basin 

Based on the primary and secondary information, floral composition within the ZoI of the 

different Hydro Electric Projects was also assessed and is presented in Appendix–5.8 & Plate 5.6 & 

5.7. 

91

1. Acer caesium Wall. ex Brandis. 2. Aconitum heterophyllum 3. Acorus calamus L. 

92 

4. Allium stracheyi Baker 5. Allium humile kunth 

6. Arnebia benthamii (Wall. Ex 

D. Don) Johnston 

7. Berberis osmastonii Dunn. 8. Caragana sukiensis Schn. 9. Catamixis baccharoides Thoms. 


Photocredits: 1.Tabish; 2. C.S Rana; 3. 

Thingnam Girija; 4. Ishwari Dutt Rai; 5. 

Guojun Hua; 6. Ajay Maletha; 7. Ishwari 

Dutt Rai; 8. H.B. Naithani; 9. G.S. Rawat

10. Coleus barbatus (Andr.) Benth. 

13. Dioscorea deltoidea Wall. 

ex Griseb. 

11. Cyananthus integer Wall. ex Benth. 

14. Epipogium aphyllum (Schmm.) 

Swartz 

16. Nardostachys grandiflora DC. 17. Picrorhiza kurrooa Royle ex Benth., 

12. Datisca cannabina L. 

15. Lilium polyphyllum D. Don 

ex Royle 

18. Trillidium govanianum (D. Don) 

Kunth 


Photocredits: 10. Ninad Raut; 11. G.S. Rawat; 12. Ninad 

Raut; 13. Ninad Raut; 14. Skoppelo; 15. G.S. Rawat; 16. 

Ninad Raut; 17. C.S.Rana; 18. Narayan singh chauhan 

93

Presented below is a composite assessment of terrestrial biodiversity (Table 5.8) values in the 

two basins after combining the biodiversity values based on individual biodiversity components. 

94 

Table 5.8 Relative ranking of terrestrial biodiversity value. 

S.No. Sub-basin Relative ranking of 

terrestrial biodiversity 

value 

Category 

1. Bhagirathi I 53 H 

2. Bhagirathi II 62 H 

3. Asiganga 60 H 

4. Bhagirathi III 44 M 

5. Bhagirathi IV 51 H 

6. Bhilangana 62 H 

7. Balganga 62 H 

8. Alaknanda I 56 H 

9. Mandakini 76 VH 

10. Alaknanda II 56 H 

11. Pindar 67 H 

12. Nandakini 67 H 

13. Birahi ganga 64 H 

14. Rishi ganga 69 H 

15. Dhauli ganga 73 VH 

16. Bhyundar ganga 73 VH 

17. Alaknanda III 58 H 

18. Ganga Basin 51 H 

H: High; M: Medium; VH: Very High 

The three sub-basins namely Mandakini, Dhauliganga and Bhyundar ganga have "very high" 

ranking (Fig. 5.23) for terrestrial biodiversity values for the reasons explained below. 

The Bhyundar ganga sub-basin has very high (VH) terrestrial biodiversity value especially due 

to very high richness of mammalian species and plant species. It harbours all the RET mammal species 

and IWPA mammal species found in the study area. Among avifaunal species, 4 out of 5 RET species 

and 5 out of 8 IWPA species found in the area occur in this sub-basin. In addition, 53% of RET plant 

species and 15% of medicinal plants contribute to the overall high biodiversity value of this basin.

The Mandakini sub-basin has very high (VH) terrestrial biodiversity value because of very high 

mammal and bird species richness. The sub-basin harbours all of the mammal and birds RET species 

reported from the two basins. In terms of protected species the sub-basin has 7 out of the 8 mammals 

and 6 out of 8 I bird species listed under IWPA. Additionally, the sub-basin also supports 42% of the 

medicinal plants reported from the two basins. 

The very high terrestrial bioidiversity value of the Dhauli ganga sub-basin can be attributed to 

the very high species richness of mammals followed by that of bird species richness. The sub-basin is 

home to all of the (5) RET and (8) IWPA mammal species. Among avifaunal species, all of the RET 

species and 6 out of 8 IWPA species occur in the sub-basin. 

Fig. 5.23 Terrestrial bioidiversity values in Alakananda and Bhagirathi basins. 

5.4 Areas representing critically important habitats 

Based on the simplest of notions, 'critical natural habitats' are existing and officially proposed 

protected areas, as well as unprotected areas of known high importance for biodiversity conservation 

(Ledec and Quintero, 2003). Precise definitions explain “critical habitat' as a specific geographic area(s) 

that is essential for the conservation of a threatened or endangered species and that may require 

special management and protection (USFWS, 2002); habitats that are not currently occupied by the 

species but that will be needed for its recovery; areas within or outside the geographic range of a 

species (Schreiner 1976, USFWS 1988). 

95

Delineation of critically important habitats in this study has followed the rationale supported by 

most biologists (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, 2002) and has involved identifying all physical and 

biological habitat features needed for life and successful reproduction of the species. These habitat 

features essentially included the following: 

• Space for individual and population growth and for normal behaviour; 

96 

• Cover or shelter; 

• Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements; 

• Migratory routes/corridors 

• Sites for breeding and rearing offspring; and 

• Habitats protected from disturbances or are representative of historic, geographical and 

ecological distributions of a species. (modified from U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, 2002) 

Conceptually, these critically important habitats are distinguishable from high-quality habitats 

which equate to an area's ability to provide resources for population’s persistence (Hall et.al., 1997). 

Species diversity of fishes in the Alaknanda and Bhagirathi basin was observed to be 

increasing with increase in flow i.e. more diversity of fishes in the downstream than the upstreams of 

Alaknanda and Bhagirathi Rivers and their tributaries (R 2 = 0.5002, p

fishes to breed in the region. Therefore, this river has been identified as the critical fish habitat in these 

basins. 

II. Balganga River – Tehri reservoir complex 

An important tributary of Bhagirathi River with respect to fishes is Balganga River, which 

confluence with Bhilangna River and later join with Tehri Reservoir. This eutrophic Balganga River and 

Tehri Reservoir complex is reported with minimum of 40 species of fishes, highest in the Bhagirathi 

Basin. Balganga River is the only longest spring/rain fed tributary available in Bhagirathi basin. Many 

cold water fishes including snow trout and fragmented population of mahseer were observed to be 

breeding in this river. 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. 

Moreover, relatively warm water and eutrophic condition of the river is more conducive for fishes to 

breed in this river. Therefore, this river has been identified as the critical fish habitat in these basins. 

97

98 

Fig. 5.24 Nayar River, a critical fish habitat in Uttarkhand. 

Fig. 5.25 A view of Balganga River, another important breeding ground of fishes.

Fig. 5.26. Map showing the location of critically important fish habitats in Nayar River and 

Balganga and their tributaries. 

5.4.2 Terrestrial components of conservation significance 

Habitats of snow leopard, Himalayan brown bear, musk deer and cheer pheasant that fall in the 

altitude above 2500 msl are herewith considered as important biodiversity areas in the basin with 

respect to terrestrial fauna (Green, 1985; Sathyakumar, 1994, 2006; PSL, 2006; Sathyakumar and 

Sivakumar, 2007). Of these important biodiversity areas, certain part of landscape that connects 

existing wildlife protected areas in the basin are important wildlife corridors used by snow leopard and 

brown bear. Therefore, the potential corridor habitats of long ranging species such as snow leopard 

and Himalayan brown bear are considered as important biodiversity areas in the basin. Moreover, 

areas with high concentration of endemic and threatened plants were also taken into consideration 

while identifying important biodiversity areas in the basin. 

Mammals and birds 

Highly threatened species that require landscape level conservation plan such as snow leopard 

and Himalayan brown bear have been taken into consideration while identifying important biodiversity 

areas. Moreover, habitats of certain other threatened species such as musk deer and cheer pheasant 

have also been considered while finalizing the important habitats in the basin. 

99

Snow leopard and himalayan brown bear 

The Snow leopard and brown bear are distributed in the high altitudes of the Greater and Trans 

Himalayan regions of Uttarakhand State. Their major habitats fall within the Bhagirathi I, Mandakini, 

Alaknanda III, Bhyundar, Dhauli ganga, Rishi ganga, Pindar and Nandakini sub-basins of the 

Alaknanda and Bhagirathi Basins. Most importantly, the distribution of brown bear in India ends in 

Chamoli district. Both snow leopard and brown bear are solitary, elusive and shy large mammals. The 

snow leopard preys majorly on blue sheep, musk deer, tahr, serow, galliformes, rodents and domestic 

livestock whereas the brown bear depends on alpine vegetation, preys on domestic livestock and also 

occasionally scavenges dead wild animals for its food requirements. 

The snow leopards occupy habitat types such as alpine scrub, meadows, moraines and open 

rocks/cliffs and comes down to valleys in subalpine or upper temperate regions to prey on domestic 

livestock or for movement between different areas in different seasons. As a large carnivore, the snow 

leopard requires large contiguous habitats for survival which includes habitats in corridors that connect, 

larger and more integrated habitats within protected areas such as Nanda Devi and Valley of Flower 

World Heritage Sites. These corridors outside PAs are also critical habitats to help it move along or 

across elevation gradients and for long term conservation of the species restricted to specific altitudinal 

ranges. As the brown bear shares its habitat with the snow leopard, their critical habitats also overlap. 

Himalayan musk deer 

The Himalayan musk deer is a small, shy, solitary forest ruminant that is distributed in isolated 

pockets all along the southern side of the Greater Himalaya between 2,500m and 4,500m. Within the 

Alaknanda and Bhagirathi Basins, it is reported to be present in Bhagirathi I, Mandakini, Alaknanda III, 

Bhyundar, Dhauli ganga, Rishi ganga, Pindar and Nandakini Sub-basins. It inhabits upper temperate 

forests, subalpine forests, alpine scrub, and meadows. Habitats such as interspersion of alpine scrub 

and meadows (krumholtz) and the vulnerable tree line are critical habitats for musk deer. It is a 

selective feeder that feeds on a variety of plants such as leaves of trees and shrubs, grasses, herbs, 

sedges, moss and lichen. During winter, some musk deer use sub-optimal habitats as low as 2,500m, 

but not habitats lower than this elevation range. Such sub-optimal habitats are also critical for this 

species. 

Cheer pheasant 

The Cheer pheasant is an endangered pheasant that inhabits subtropical and temperate 

habitats (1,500-3,000m) of the Greater Himalaya. It is a rare bird that inhabits open habitats with low 

tree cover, moderate scrub cover and high grass and rock cover. Habitats such as scattered tree and 

scrub with open grassy slopes including those that are along the river stretches are potential cheer 

habitats. In the Alaknanda and Bhagirathi Basins, cheer pheasant is reported to be present in 

Bhagirathi I, II, Asiganga, Bhilangana, Balganga, Mandakini, Alaknanda III, Bhyundar, Dhauli ganga, 

Rishi ganga, Birahi, Nandakini and Pindar Sub-basins. It is a very sensitive species that is highly 

vulnerable to habitat loss, degradation or disturbances. Most of the cheer habitats are already under 

threat due to over exploitation of resources by local communities, livestock grazing, and disturbances 

due to large-scale pilgrimage/tourism and development. They also form important prey for mammalian 

100

carnivores and raptors. They are threatened due to poaching for meat and habitat loss or degradation 

due to developmental projects and anthropogenic pressures. Therefore, the remaining stretches of 

cheer habitats are of very high significance and are required to be protected for long-term conservation 

of this species. 

5.4.2.1 Critically important habitats for animals 

The following areas have been identified as critical habitats for species of mammals and birds 

described above: 

A) Areas of sub-basins overlapping with PAs 

The Gangotri NP which is characterized by high ridges, deep gorges and precipitous cliffs, 

rocky craggy glaciers and narrow valleys falls within the Bhagirathi-I sub-basin (Fig. 5.27). This area is 

an ideal habitat for snow leopard, brown bear and musk deer. It holds good populations of blue sheep, 

the main prey of snow leopard. The Bhagirathi I sub-basin supports large alpine grasslands with more 

than 170 species of flowering plants which provide an excellent habitat for Himalayan brown bear and 

Himalayan musk deer. 

Fig 5.27 Map showing the location of PAs within the Alaknanda and Bhagirathi basins. 

The upper reaches of the Kedarnath WLS within the Mandakini sub-basin is also recognised as 

a high biodiversity area. Area ranging between 2500-5000m within Kedarnath WLS is categorised as 

critical habitat for snow leopard, Himalayan brown bear and Himalayan musk deer. The Mandakini also 

101

constitutes the catchments of Kaliganga and Madhmeshwar rivers which form a major part of the critical 

habitat of snow leopard, Himalayan brown bear and Himalayan musk deer. 

The entire Rishiganga sub-basin falls inside the Nanda Devi NP which is inscribed as UNESCO 

World Heritage Site for its exceptional beauty and high unique biodiversity. The habitat within the subbasin 

is unique as it includes temperate and subalpine forest, alpine scrubs and steep slopes and cliffs, 

moraine, plateaus and marshes, all of which makes it a critical habitat for species like snow leopard, 

Himalayan brown bear and Himalayan musk deer. Within Nanda Devi Biosphere, also lies the Western 

Himalaya Endemic Bird Area, which include habitat of cheer pheasant. 

B) Corridors connecting PAs (between 2500-4500 m) 

Upper reaches of the Dhauliganga sub-basin mainly Mallari and Tamak form an extremely 

rugged, wind-swept and frost bitten cold desert habitat presenting a unique ecosystem. Snow leopard 1 

and Himalayan brown bear are heavily reliant on such marginal habitats making these as critical 

habitats. Additionally, the brown bear's eastern most distribution ends in this region (Fig 5.28). 

Some regions of the Alaknanda-III sub-basin also serve as corridors for snow leopard, brown 

bear and black bear, and are therefore functionally critical habitats for these species. This sub-basin 

connects the Kedarnath WS and Khiron Valley in the west to the Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve. 

Narrow strips of land within Khiron valley are critical as movement corridors for these large mammals 

between their isolated habitats. In addition, Khiron valley is also a critical habitat for musk deer. 

102 

Fig. 5.28 Map showing habitats utilised by snow leopard and brown bear for 

movement within the altitudinal ranges in Alaknanda and Bhagirathi basins.

5.4.2.2 Critically important habitats of plants 

Based on the primary and secondary information, following inferences on critical habitats (Fig. 

5.29) for floral species can be drawn: 

Bhyundarganga, Dhauliganga, Bhagirathi, Rishiganga, and Mandakini sub-basins are the most 

important areas for conservation of overall floral diversity, endemic and RET species. In some basins, 

the project zones of influence are important localities of RET and endemic species. As Catamixis 

baccharoides is endemic to Uttarakhand and has a few populations in Shivaliks, and a few individuals 

close to Kotlibhel II, the ZoI of Kotlibhel II these areas are a critical habitat for this species. Similarly, 

Berberis osmastonii is also endemic to Uttarakhand – having one of the populations in the ZoI of 

Melkhet Hydro Electric Project. Caragana sukiensis is Near Endemic with one population found area 

between ZoI of Pala maneri and Bharonghati HEPs in Bhagirathi II sub-basin. Thus, the zones of 

influence of different projects supporting habitats for all the three species are critical for long term 

conservation of these species in the two basins. 

Although, some of the RET species and their critical habitats are protected in the PAs within 

the two basins, the critical habitats for species such as Anemone raui Goel & Bhattach, 

Trachyspermum falconeri (Clarke) H. Wolff Trachyspermum falconeri (Clarke) H. Wolff, Arenaria 

curvifolia Majumdar, Arenaria ferruginea Duthie ex F. Williams, Calamogrostis garhwalensis, Viola 

kunawarensis Royle, Ranunculus uttaranchalensis Pusalkar & Singh, Silene gangotriana Pusalkar et 

al., Microschoenus duthiei Clarke and Caragana sukiensis Nakao need to be protected. These habitats 

occupy some parts of Dhauliganga, Bhilangana and Bhagirathi I sub-basins. 

Fig. 5.29 Map showing critically important habitats identified for plants within the Alaknanda and 

Bhagirathi basins. 

103

It is amply evident (Fig. 5.30) that there is a significant overlap in the spatial expanse of the 

critically important habitats of all valued components of terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity with 

locations of existing and proposed Hydro Electric Projects in Alaknanda and Bhagirathi Basins 

Fig. 5.30 Critically important habitats of valued biodiversity components significantly overlap 

with locations of Hydro Electric Projects in the Alaknanda and Bhagirathi basins. 

104

6.1 Introduction 

Chapter 6 – Impact Prediction and Evaluation 

The benefits of energy planning are often more immediate, important and obvious to society to 

satisfy many of the priority needs and reap economic benefits. The benefits of biodiversity conservation 

are often less evident and immediate, but are nonetheless important as biodiversity values continue to 

decline and threats associated with this loss to human well-being become ever-increasing. 

This section of the report is aimed at underlining the existing cumulative and potential impacts 

on biodiversity values of 70 Hydro Electric Projects that are under different stages of implementation in 

Alaknanda and Bhagirathi basins. 

This assessment takes into consideration the existing biodiversity values of the basins/subbasins, 

identifies development trends and predicts the cumulative impacts of these developments on 

the specific ecosystems and their biodiversity values. These impacts would represent the aggregate 

footprint of all existing and proposed Hydro Electric Projects spatially concentrated within 18 sub-basins 

in the two major basins. Such an evaluation should not only enable the understanding of incremental 

and interactive impacts on biodiversity values of the sub-basins but should also aid in the evaluation of 

the environmental soundness of the energy plan based on all ‘commissioned’, ‘under construction’ and 

‘proposed’ projects. 

This Cumulative Environmental Impact Assessment (CEIA) is intended to assist in defining the 

range of impact significance (very high, high, medium and low) associated with Hydro Electric Projects 

to aid in presenting the ‘acceptable trade-offs’. This is needed for selecting the optimum combination of 

projects and sites for the greater benefit with least impact and for facilitating the preparation of the 

basin level energy development strategy for the State of Uttarakhand. 

As the framework for predicting the cumulative environmental assessment involves the 

recognition of valued components of environment that are likely to be the receptors of impacts from 

different sources, this assessment takes into account the baseline information to identify the valued 

ecological/ biological components considered in this CEIA. 

6.1.1 Valued environmental/ecological components of the Alaknanda and Bhagirathi basins 

This assessment is premised on evaluation of the significance of the impacts of hydropower 

development in the two basins. The significance of the impacts has been perceived based on the 

threats/risks to valued biodiversity components (species and habitats). 

105

Table 6.1 Conservation importance of ecosystems/taxonomic groups included in the study. 

Ecosystems/ 

Taxonomic Group 

Aquatic 

Fishes 

Aquatic mammal 

(Otters) 

Terrestrial 

Mammals 

Pheasant (Cheer 

Pheasant) 

Plant species 

106 

Conservation 

importance 

√ - Yes; X – No; ? – Unknown 

RET Endemic IWPA Species 

specific 

habitats 

Breeding/ 

congregation 

sites 

Habitats 

Migratory 

sites 

Movement 

corridors 

Critical 

habitats 

Protected 

areas 

√ √ X √ √ √ √ √ X 

√ X √ ? ? X X ? X 

√ X √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 

√ X √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 

√ √ √ √ √ X X √ √ 

6.2 Perceived environmental dimensions of ‘good and bad’ projects 

All Hydro Electric Projects are not alike from the environmental standpoint (WCD,2000; Ledec 

and Quintro 2003) . These have been typified as 'good' and 'bad' projects first primarily on the basis of 

the type of a structure (impoundments, pumped storage and run of the river schemes). The qualifiers 

for bad dams include ( a ) a large reservoir surface area; (b) larger areas of natural habitats under 

flooding and consequent loss of wildlife; (c) a large river with much aquatic biodiversity damaged; (d) a 

relatively shallow reservoir (sometimes with a fairly short useful life); (e) few or no downriver tributaries; 

(f) water quality problems due to the decay of submerged forests; (g) location in the lowland tropics or 

subtropics, conducive to the spread of vector-borne diseases; and (h) serious problems with floating 

aquatic weeds. 

On the contrary, an environmentally benign dam is typified by (a) a relatively small reservoir 

surface area (often in a narrow gorge with a high head and even a tunnel); (b) little loss of natural 

habitats and wildlife; (c) a relatively small (often highland) river with little aquatic biodiversity at risk; (d) 

a deep reservoir which silts up very slowly; (e) many downriver tributaries; (f) little or no flooding of 

forests; (g) no tropical diseases (often due to high elevations or temperate latitudes); and (h) no aquatic 

weed problems (i) and low number or no oustees. Generalizing from these findings, a useful rule of 

thumb is that usually the most environmentally benign hydroelectric dam sites are on upper tributaries, 

while the most problematic ones are on the large main stems of rivers.

6.3 Ecological consequences of Hydro Electric Projects in Alaknanda and Bhagirathi basins 

Given the above backdrop of generic impacts of hydropower generation and the context of 

developments in the energy sector in Uttarakhand, it is seemingly easy to visualize both from the 

location of existing and proposed Hydro Electric Projects planned in various sub-basins of Alaknanda 

and Bhagirathi and from the technical profile of such projects, that they are likely to deliver a mixed bag 

of consequence for State’s economy and prospects of biodiversity conservation. 

An attempt is made here to first assess the significance of the potential impacts of the 

hydropower development projects on aquatic and terrestrial biodiversity at the sub-basin level in the 

two basins. 

The biodiversity values and the ratings for impact potential were combined to give a score 

reflecting the relative significance/importance of cumulative impacts on each of the sub-basins. These 

assessments of impacts were separately undertaken for aquatic and terrestrial biodiversity. 

6.3.1 Prediction of impacts on aquatic ecology and fish diversity at the sub-basin levels 

6.3.1.1 Habitat loss 

Changes in flow volume and patterns can adversely impact the structure, distribution and 

composition of fish communities in the region (Emy et al, 2003). Of the 1121 km long stretch of rivers 

that flow in the entire Alaknanda and Bhagirathi basins, a minimum of 526.8 km long river stretch is 

expected to be affected, if all proposed HEP are implemented. This is 47% of total river stretche in the 

entire basin. Therefore, significant area of the fish habitat would either be modified or lost due to 

proposed hydro projects in the basin. Out of 76 species of fish reported in the entire basin, a total of 66 

species have been reported from the areas which would potentially be affected by the hydro projects. 

That is about 87% of fish species would be affected, if all proposed hydro projects get implemented in 

the basin. 

Among 18 sub-basins in the region, the most affected sub-basins with respect to fish habitat 

modification would be Bhagirathi II, III and IV (71%*), Bhirai ganga (74%*), Alaknanda I & II (48%*), 

Mandakini (44%*), Balganga (40%*) and Nandakini (35%*). Although, fish was not found in 

Dhauliganga but 94% of stretch of this river would be affected that would have adverse impacts on the 

downstream fishes in the main Alaknanda River. Alaknanda I and Ganges sub-basins are known to be 

potential habitats of otter although there was no direct evidence found here during this study. The 

decline in fish abundance due to HEPs in these basins is likely to affect otters where they exists. 

*Data based on report by AHEC IIT Roorkee, 2011 

6.3.1.2 Barrier effect 

Dam or any construction across rivers is always a barrier for fish which move from one part of 

stream/ river to another as part of its life cycle processes. These structures are always detrimental to 

the survival of fishes especially on migrants which use different habitats for different life history 

requirements. There are a minimum of 17 species of migrant fishes (either long distance or local 

migrants) found in the Alaknanda and Bhagirathi basins, which include three species of mahseer that 

are long distance migrants. Mahseer migrate from main river to smaller streams for spawning, or 

107

downstream of river to upstream for the same. Any obstacle such as dam/barrage across river will 

break this normal migratory behaviour which would ultimately affect the breeding cycle. Therefore, there 

would be decline in population that has already been observed due to Tehri Dam, which has prevented 

migration of mahseer upstream. Based on literature and observations made in various studies, it has 

been established that there has been a decline in the populations of mahseer in the upstream of 

Bhagirathi River due to barrier effect caused by Tehri Dam (Sharma 2003). 

Fish passes are often believed to be an engineering mitigation measure for reducing impacts 

on fish, especially migrants. In general, the efficiency of fish passes is considered low and fish 

migrations are severely affected (World Commission on Dams, 2000). Even where fish passes have 

been installed successfully, migrations can be delayed by the absence of better navigational cues, such 

as strong currents etc. In the salmon (known for anadromous migration) countries the fish passes have 

been observed to be inefficient, if the dam height is more than 16 m. Compared to salmon, mahseer 

and snow trouts are poor jumpers/climbers. Based on the study is was observed that snow trout 

jumping upto 1.5 m height and mahseer upto 2.0 m height above the water surface. If larger volume of 

water flows down, these fishes may move further upstream using flowing water column as a support. 

However, the efficiency of fish pass in Himalayan Rivers would be highly doubtful if the dam height is 

more than 16 m. No comprehensive study has been carried out on the basis of which better fish passes 

for Himalayan fishes can be prescribed. It is reported that upward movement of Schizothorax has been 

successfully facilitated at Uri HEP (dam height is 43 m) through fish pass. This needs to be however 

verified by a professional tracking system. Fish lift that may work better in facilitating movements of fish 

in the Himalayan rivers needs to be designed and monitored. 

Any kind of ex-situ conservation programme (as an alternate conservation strategy) to 

artificially restock (through ranching) the fish populations of species that would be threatened due to 

dams or any other kinds of barrier construction across rivers or streams may not fully compensate the 

natural breeding phenomenon of migration. Moreover, species that are non-migratory and less 

significant to fisheries are largely ignored in the ex-situ (fish ranching) conservation programme. 

Migratory fishes in the region would be therefore affected adversely due to HEPs. As per the barrier 

effect, all sub-basins falling in the fish zone will be impacted. However, HEPs in the downstream subbasins 

would be impacted more in respect to migratory fishes. 

6.3.1.3 Changes in sedimentation flows 

Changes in the sedimentation flows due to dam/barrier construction especially in Himalayan 

rivers are expected to have an adverse impact on fish habitats. Most of the fishes in the Alaknanda and 

Bhagirathi Rivers prefer substratum that are pebble, cobble, boulders, gravel, sand and occasionally 

loamy soil. These substratums are common in most stretches. These substratums were also observed 

to be ideal grounds for foraging and spawning of snow-trouts and many more Himalayan fishes. 

However, due to dam construction there would be changes in the sedimentation flow. Sediments would 

be accumulated in the upstream of dam upto the tail end of submersible zone even though there is a 

provision of silt channel to remove the silt from the upstream of dam. 

Submersible zones of Hydro power projects of existing, under construction or proposed dams 

vary from project to project. In some cases, the submersible stretch of river is more than 5 km. Even a 

108

few centimeters of sediment layer over the natural substrata is enough to effect the foraging and 

spawning fishes negatively. In this context, it is expected that submersible zones of HEPs would be 

unsuitable for several fishes especially snow trouts and Himalayan loaches. The HEPs with longer 

stretch of submersible zone but without proper silt removal plan would be therefore detrimental to 

populations of several Himalayan fishes such as snow trouts and Himalayan loaches. 

Sub-basins such as Bhagirathi III & IV, Bhilanganga, Alaknanda I, Pindar and Mandakini would 

be affected mostly due to changes in the sedimentation flow. A minimum 162 km long fish habitat would 

be modified due to precipitation of sediments on their substratum. 

6.3.1.4 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, Sivakumar, 2008 and Sarkar et al., 

2011). A strong correlation exists between stream flow and a river’s physico-chemical characteristics 

such as water temperature and habitat diversity. Research on the distributional ecology of fishes 

suggests that fish assemblages form in response to the physio-chemical 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, which affects the river 

health. Therefore, it becomes necessary to estimate the Minimum Environmental Water Flow and 

Minimum Environmental Water Level for rivers with reference to their biodiversity and the hydrological 

regimes. 

Three kinds of adverse impacts on the aquatic biodiversity are expected because of changes in 

the natural flow due to HEPs in the Alaknanda and Bhagirathi Basin: (a) Stagnated water in the 

submersible zones of HEPs which are not conducive for torrent hill stream/river fishes such as snow 

trouts and Himalayan loaches, (b) Less or no water flow in the dry zones of HEPs which is also 

expected to adversely affect the aquatic biodiversity but it may be mitigated by maintaining minimum 

environment flow and (c) changes in the natural flow may also fail to provide the natural environmental 

cues to the aquatic biodiversity to breed or maintain annual life histories, but this can again be mitigated 

by following minimum environmental flows even though it would help partially to maintain the current 

status of aquatic ecosystem and its biodiversity (see Chapter 7). 

Of the 1121 km long stretch of river that flows in the entire Alaknanda-Bhagirathi basin, a 

minimum of 526.8 km long river stretch is expected to be affected due to changes in the flows, if all 

HEP projects are implemented. This is 47% of total rivers stretches of the entire basin. Therefore, 

significant area of the fish habitat would either be modified or lost due to proposed hydro projects in the 

basin. A total of 364 km long stretch of river in the basin (32% of total river stretch) would get dry, if 

minimum flows are not recommended. 

Among 18 sub-basins in the region, the most affected sub-basins with respect to flow 

modification would be Dhauliganga, Asiganga, Balganga, Birahi ganga, Mandakini, Alaknanda. As far 

Otter is concerned, sub-basin Alaknanda I and Ganges are potential habitat of Otter, although their 

109

presence was not reported during this study. Changes in the flow may not directly affect the habitat of 

Otter but it would affect their prey abundance. 

6.3.1.5 Changes in nutrient flow 

Although majority of proposed HEPs are run-of-river projects 15 HEPs, which would have dam, 

would stop the nutrient flow either for longer or for a shorter period depending upon presence of dam or 

barrage. As per the IIT-Roorkee report, minimum 162.6 km long river stretch in the entire basin would 

be submerged due to various HEPs. These submerged rivers would act as nutrient traps. Changes in 

the nutrient flow would adversely affect the downstream fishes and other aquatic biodiversity. 

Moreover, few species may get benefitted due to reservoir water, which would again affect the fish 

composition in the region. Nutrient availability is the major environment factor that determine the fish 

species composition in Himalayan rivers (Sivakumar 2008). Therefore, any changes in the nutrient flow 

would affect the overall composition of the fish community. 

Sub-basins such as Bhagirathi III & IV, Bhilanganga, Alaknanda I, Pindar and Mandakini would 

be affected most due to changes in the nutrient flow. A reservoir like situation would be created in these 

sub-basins due to HEPs. Although these habitats may be useful for promoting fisheries but they would 

be detrimental to the native fish diversity in the region. 

Dams are environmentally less objectionable if they affect rivers with a naturally low diversity 

and endemism of native fish species. River segments with threatened fish species and critical habitats 

found nowhere else in the basin should be protected from dams or other potentially damaging civil 

works. 

6.3.2 Prediction of impacts on terrestrial fauna and flora at the sub-basin levels 

6.3.2.1 Habitat loss 

Habitat loss to terrestrial wildlife species are largely due to developmental projects where in 

original habitats are completely replaced with land unlike the original. In case of HEPs, the habitat loss 

is in the form of forest land take for the project infrastructure and areas submerged under water in the 

reservoir. Of the 70 HEPs, 17 are commissioned projects which have resulted in the total loss of about 

7126.46 ha of land that includes 2705.04 ha as forest land take and 4421.42 ha under submergence. 

Similarly, the 14 HEPs that are under construction have resulted in the total loss of about 539.59 ha of 

land that includes 442.36 ha as forest land take and 97.23 ha under submergence. The remaining 39 

HEPs that have been proposed would result in an additional loss of about 1828.64 ha of land that 

includes 467.86 ha as forest land take and 1360.78 ha under submergence. 

Of the 39 HEPs that have been proposed, 16 would lead to loss of forest land either for land 

intake or will be under submergence. Of the 16 HEPs, seven are located in areas that are >2.500m 

which are wildlife habitats for many RET species and also includes critically important areas for these 

species. These seven HEPs that have been proposed would result in a loss of about 172.48 ha of land 

that includes 146.34 ha as forest land take and 26.14 ha under submergence. These habitats are 

extremely important for RET species such as the snow leopard, common leopard, brown bear, black 

bear, musk deer, cheer and Himalayan monal. The remaining nine HEPs are located in areas that are 

6.3.2.2 Habitat degradation and disturbances due to HEPs 

Pilang valley and Dayara bhugyal in Bhagirathi II sub-basin have been identified as the key 

sites for long-term conservation of Galliformes, including a number of RET species. Therefore, 

proposed development projects (Pilangad II and Siyangad) on the side streams would severely impair 

the biodiversity values of these areas. 

The ZoI of the proposed Rambara and that of projects already under advanced stages of 

construction (Madmaheswar, Kali ganga I and Kali ganga II) fall in the critically important habitats of 

snow leopard, brown bear, black bear and musk deer. These HEPs would directly as well as indirectly 

impact upon the remnant wildlife habitats and consequently the species, particularly the snow leopard, 

brown bear and musk deer. 

The Dhauli ganga sub-basin encompasses critical habitats and corridors for large mammals 

such as snow leopard, brown bear and Tibetan wolf. ZoI of the proposed HEPs (Tamak-Lata, Malari- 

Jelam, and Jelam-Tamak) fall in these critically important habitats. Considering that snow leopard and 

brown bear are very rare with a restricted distribution in Uttarakhand State and the eastern most 

distribution limits of brown bear ends in this region, hydropower development in these basins will 

significantly alter the habitats of these species of very high conservation importance. 

Bhilangana and Balganga sub-basins form the eastern most distribution limits for western 

tragopan in India, which is a species with restricted distribution. The ZoI of proposed HEPs (Bhilangana 

II, A, B & C) in Bhilangana basin and the proposed HEPs (Balganga-II and Jhala koti) in Balganga subbasin 

and their associated activities would impact the western tragopan by reducing its distribution 

range. There are two existing projects in this Bhilangana sub-basin which together with several 

proposed projects will cumulatively impact upon the western tragopan habitat within the sub-basin. 

Similarly, Cheer pheasant, which has already become confined to isolated pockets in this region would 

further become restricted due to likely habitat losses associated with HEPs in this basin. 

In the Alaknanda-II sub-basin, the ZoI of the proposed Bowla Nandprayag, and Nandprayag 

Langasun HEPs and that of Vishnugad-Pipalkoti HEP which is under-construction fall within the 

distribution range of Cheer pheasant that has restricted distribution in the State and overlaps with the 

habitats of leopard, black bear and tahr which are species that command high conservation priority 

globally. The proposed HEP Urgam-II would severely impair the biodiversity values of the Urgam 

valley, which is one of the key sites for long-term conservation of ungulates species. 

Although much of the Pindar sub-basin is relatively well protected and attracts trekkers for its 

scenic beauty and wilderness areas, the Devsari proposed project may have an important bearing on 

the distribution range of common leopard and black bear falling within the ZoI of Devasari project. 

The two proposed HEPs i.e., Rishi ganga I and Rishi ganga II are both located in the areas with 

high biodiversity including critically important wildlife habitats for RET species. These areas are also 

recognised for theirinside ‘Outstanding Universal Values’ by UNESCO and hence listed as “World 

Heritage Site’ (Appendix 6.1). 

111

The ZoI of the proposed HEPs (Alaknanda and Khirao ganga ) in Alaknanda -III Sub-basin 

would fall within the critically important habitats of large mammals such as snow leopard, brown bear 

and black bear. These proposed HEPs and their associated disturbances is likely to impact the 

movement of snow leopard, brown bear, black bear and also the critically important habitats of musk 

deer, Himalayan tahr and monal pheasant. This sub-basin connects the Kedarnath Wildlife Sanctuary 

and Khirao Valley in the west to the Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve Hydropower developments in this 

sub-basin would have irreversible impacts on biodiversity values of this basin. 

The proposed HEPs (Jadganaga and Karmoli) in Bhagirathi sub-basin and their associated 

disturbances are likely to cause severe degradation of habitats for snow leopard and Himalayan brown 

bear and may also adversely impact the movement of snow leopard, brown bear and black bear. 

Bhyundar sub-basin contains the most important and significant natural habitats for in situ 

conservation of biological diversity. Any developmental project in this sub-basin would adversely impact 

the critical habitats, and may also impact the ‘Outstanding Universal Value’ of this sub-basin (Refer 

Appendix 6.1) 

6.4 Scenario assessment 

In view of the various impacts on many of the candidate biodiversity receptors commanding 

high conservation priority, many Hydro Electric Projects should be reviewed, as developing them would 

cause unacceptably high environmental damage, whereas in other situations, assessment of thresholds 

of development are needed for arriving at permissible limits of developments based on exclusion 

approach applied to proposed projects. 

An important tradeoff between conservation benefits and economic objectives in hydropower 

planning in the two basins can emerge by either choosing to allow (i) projects come in areas with 

relatively low biodiversity values or (ii) projects that have low impact potential. Selecting both the 

options would be perfect for achieving a winning ground from biodiversity conservation standpoint but 

this may be unacceptable from the perspectives of economic progress and societal benefits. 

An approach is required to provide the decision maker with choices to consider the option of 

exclusion or inclusion of specific projects, based on assessment of values that may be jeopardized in 

the event of proceeding with different scenarios of hydropower generation. The development of 

scenarios that investigate the impacts of the proposed developments, with and without various 

combinations of Hydro Electric Projects with different potentials of impacts can be a useful planning 

approach to arrive at thresholds for sustainable energy development options. 

Scenario planning is becoming increasingly useful in studies of environmental change, natural 

resource management and development to understand dynamic vulnerabilities and explore alternative, 

long-term, policy responses (Gallopin et al. 1997, Wollenberg et al. 2000, Peterson et al. 2003, Swart et 

al. 2004, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005). Recent literature (Greig et al., 2004; Duinker and 

Greig, 2007) suggests that scenario-based approaches are most appropriate in cumulative effects 

assessments (CEAs) as they are 'futuring' approaches to improve the information and advice they can 

bring to decision-makers. 

112

Although scenarios may refer to informal imaginative exercise, a visioning game or conjectures 

about what might happen in the future (Cornish 2004), they provide a variety of approaches to deliver 

well-grounded options for future by reviewing alternative possibilities and can be an important tool for 

planning and policy. 

In the cumulative effects context of hydropower development in Alaknanda and Bhagirathi 

basins, the scenario exercise has focused on exploring various trajectories of change that may lead to 

a broadening range of plausible alternatives for securing and safeguarding priority biodiversity values. 

The steps included: 

I. Evaluating the cumulative impact significance of all projects including those that are 

commissioned, are under different stages of construction and those are proposed through 

projected change in the overall biodiversity value of the two basins. 

II. Presenting the exclusive impacts of commissioned projects influencing the true baseline 

biodiversity value of the basins. This provides a starting point for reviewing impacts of projects 

under different stages. This scenario essentially conveys the message that the decline in 

biodiversity value has already occurred in some sub-basins on account of the commissioned 

projects as is reflected in the relatively lower overall biodiversity ranking of those sub-basins. 

III. Assessing the combined impacts of all commissioned projects and those under construction on 

biodiversity values. 

IV. Presenting a scenario for projecting the alternatives to lower at the sub-basin levels for aquatic 

and terrestrial receptors by applying exclusion approach targeting only the proposed projects. 

V. Presenting alternative scenario to address the significant impacts on aquatic and terrestrial 

biodiversity species and their critically important habitats by exclusion approach. 

113

Table 6.2 Interaction matrix for Scenario Ia. 

Name of sub-basin Impact potential based on project profile* Aquatic biodiversity value Impacts significance 

Bhagirathi I M M M 

Bhagirathi II M H M 

Asiganga M H M 

Bhagirathi III VH H VH 

Bhagirathi IV H VH VH 

Bhilangana M H M 

Balganga M H M 

Alaknanda I M VH H 

Mandakini M H M 

Alaknanda II M H M 

Pindar M H M 

Nandakini M H M 

Birahi ganga H H H 

Rishi ganga M M M 

Dhauli ganga H M M 

Bhyundar ganga L L L 

Alaknanda III M M M 

Ganga Basin H VH VH 

*Refer to Appendix 6.2 for detailed information on impact potential 

6.4.1 Scenario assessment for aquatic biodiversity 

Scenario Ia- Cumulative impacts of all projects 

114 

Fig. 6.1 Predicted significance of impacts of all projects on aquatic biodiversity values.

This scenario indicates relative ranking of impact significance on biodiversity in the two basins 

taking into consideration the biodiversity values of the sub-basins and the impact potential of all 

projects planned in the basins. The scenario clearly outlines that most of the areas in the sub-basin will 

be affected with varying levels of impacts if the current hydropower plan is implemented. In the two 

basins, 5 sub-basins will be adversely impacted by Hydro Electric Projects. Among these sub-basins, 

Bhagirathi III, Bhagirathi IV and Ganga sub-basin will be the most impacted as represented by the red 

shade in Fig. 6.2. The aquatic biodiversity values of Bhagirathi III sub-basin have already been 

compromised due to the construction and operation of two projects namely Tehri HEP and Maneri Bhali 

II HEP. Tehri HEP, being a reservoir based project which has a huge area under submergence has 

impacted the biodiversity values both in terms of quality of habitat and the spatial loss. 

The aquatic biodiversity values of Bhagirathi IV sub-basin are being negatively influenced by 

the existing Koteshwar HEP and would be further compounded in the event of the operation of Kotlibhel 

IA HEP. 

The proposed Kotlibhel II HEP in the Ganga sub-basin would cause irreversible damage to the 

aquatic species and its habitats including Nayar River, which is the only available undisturbed habitat 

for several threatened fishes, especially mahseer and snow trout in the Garhwal Himalaya 

High significance of impact indicated in Alaknanda I sub-basin is predicted considering that the 

migration of species such as mahaseer and snow trout would be impaired by the Kotlibhel IB proposed 

project. Similarly, the Birahi ganga sub-basin would receive significant impacts from four projects that 

includes one commissioned (Birahi ganga) and 3 proposed (Birahi ganga I, Birahi ganga II and Gohana 

Tal) projects. 

115

Table 6.3 Interaction matrix for Scenario 2a. 


Bhagirathi I L M L 

Bhagirathi II L H L 

Asiganga L H L 


Bhagirathi IV M VH H 

Bhilangana L H L 

Balganga L H L 

Alaknanda I L VH L 

Mandakini L H L 

Alaknanda II L H L 

Pindar L H L 


Birahi ganga L H L 

Rishi ganga L M L 

Dhauli ganga L M L 



Ganga Basin L VH L 


116 

Scenario 2a – Exclusive impacts of commissioned projects 

Fig. 6.2 Predicted significance of impacts of commissioned projects on aquatic values.

This scenario portrays the impacts of all the 17 commissioned projects on the aquatic 

biodiversity values of the two basins. It becomes evident that the impacts of already commissioned 

projects are spatially concentrated in the two sub-basins as a result of which very high and high 

significance of impacts (shown in shades of red and orange) are received by Bhagirathi II and 

Bhagirathi IV sub-basins. These impacts are largely significant owing to large footprints of Tehri HEP 

and Koteshwar HEP respectively. Careful review of scenarios 1 and 2 clearly demonstrate that all 

projects under progress and those proposed and widely spread across all sub-basins would have 

greater impact of reducing biodiversity values as can be seen from the transformation (refer green 

areas in scenario 2 and yellow areas in scenario 1). 

117



Bhagirathi I L M L 










Pindar L H L 



Rishi ganga L M L 

Dhauli ganga M M M 





Scenario 3a – Combined impacts of all commissioned projects and projects under-construction 

Fig. 6.3 Predicted significance of impacts of commissioned projects and those under construction on aquatic 

values. 

118

A comparative review of the scenario 1a (which include all projects) with this scenario (which 

includes only commissioned and projects under-construction) allows visualizing the contribution of all 

proposed projects in altering the aquatic biodiversity values of the two basins. This scenario provide a 

useful insight by visioning the future of hydropower development to ensure reduction in impacst by 

exercising choices of regulated develoments. It allows a starting point for forward thinking on planning 

actions to promote the projects that are least impacting and to contain the development proposals that 

are most impacting on aquatic biodiversity values of the sub-basins. 

In this present scenario, exclusion of proposed projects in Bhagirathi I, Bal ganga, Bhilangana, 

Ganga, Alaknanda I, Alaknanda II, Bhyundar ganga, Birahi ganga, Rishi ganga and Pindar sub-basin 

would be effective in lowering the intensity of impacts on aquatic biodiversity values as compared to the 

rest of the sub-basins within the two basins. 

119













Pindar M H M 


Birahi ganga M H M 







Scenario 4a – Alternatives for lowering the overall impacts on aquatic biodiversity in the subbasins 

Fig. 6.4 Predicted impact significance on aquatic biodiversity based on inclusion of projects with low 


120

In this scenario, an attempt has been made to secure the twin benefits of conservation and 

economic objectives of harnessing hydropower in the two basins by choosing projects that have low 

impact potential and excluding those with a higher potential only in sub-basins which could have been a 

recipient of impacts of very high and high significance. 

Table 6.6 List of proposed projects with high impact potential considered for exclusion in 

Scenario 4a. 

S.No. Sub-basin Projects excluded 

1. Alaknanda I Kotlibhel IB 

2. Birahi ganga Birahi ganga I 

Gohana Tal 

3. Bhagirathi IV Kotlibhel IA 

4. Ganga Kotlibhel II 

TOTAL 5 

121













Pindar M H M 









Scenario 5a – Alternatives to reduce significant impacts on critically important habitats for 

aquatic biodiversity 


important aquatic habitats. 

122

This is a resultant scenario based on exclusion of all such projects that have contributed to the 

decline of biodiversity values of the aquatic species in specific sub-basins and biodiversity value of the 

habitats (Table 6.8). This is a compounding exercise to exclude some additional projects that remained 

in the inclusion list in earlier scenario to further reduce impacts. 

Table 6.8 List of proposed Hydro Electric Projects to be excluded exclusively for safeguarding 

aquatic biodiversity. 

S.No. Sub-basin Projects excluded Reason for exclusion 

1. Alaknanda I Kotlibhel IB 

2. Birahi ganga 

Birahi ganga I 

Gohana Tal 


4. 

Bal ganga 

Bal ganga II 

Jhala koti 


High impact potential 

TOTAL 7 

Within critically important habitat 

High impact potential and within critically important 

habitat 

Section 5.4.1 in - chapter 5, has highlighted Nayar River in the Ganga sub-basin and River 

Balganga in the Bal ganga sub-basin as critically important habitats for cold water fishes including 

mahseer and snow trouts. The Balganga river is additionally an important habitat for fragmented 

populations of mahseer, which is a IUCN listed RET species. 

The proposed projects Bal Ganga II and Jhala koti in the Bal ganga sub-basin have been 

additionally incorporated in the list of excluded projects for scenario 4a. Kotlibhel II falling within the 

Ganga sub-basin which would affect the Nayar river was included in the exclusion list even in 

Scenarion 4a due to its high impact potential. 

123

Table 6.9 Interaction matrix for Scenario 1b. 

Name of sub-basin Impact potential based on project profile* Terrestrial biodiversity value Impacts significance 

Bhagirathi I M H M 



Bhagirathi III VH M H 

Bhagirathi IV H H H 



Alaknanda I M H M 

Mandakini M VH H 


Pindar M H M 


Birahi ganga H H H 

Rishi ganga M H M 

Dhauli ganga H VH VH 

Bhyundar ganga L VH L 

Alaknanda III M H M 

Ganga Basin H H H 


6.4.2 Scenario assessment for Terrestrial Biodiversity 

Scenario Ib – Cumulative impacts of all projects 

124 

Fig. 6.6 Predicted significance of impacts of all projects on terrestrial biodiversity values.

This scenario indicates relative ranking of impact significance on biodiversity in the two basins 

taking into consideration the biodiversity values of the sub-basins and the impact potential of all 

projects planned in the two basins. Most of the terrestrial biodiversity areas in the sub-basins will be 

affected with varying levels of impacts if the current hydropower plan is implemented with total 

disregard to the need for ensuring ecological viability of energy projects. 

In the two basins, 6 sub-basins will be significantly impacted by Hydro Electric Projects (refer to 

red and orange areas in Fig. 6.7). Amongst these sub-basins, Dhauliganga sub-basin would be most 

affected in the event of all six projects becoming operational. Of these the two projects,Tapovan 

Vishnugad is under advanced stages of construction and Jummagad HEPs is an already commissioned 

project. Dhauliganga sub-basin has very high richness of RET species and also holds suitable habitats 

for supporting species such as snow leopard and Himalayan brown bear. 

High significance of impact is predicted in Mandakini sub-basin on account of four projects 

already being in advanced stages of construction. Considering that this sub-basin harbours high 

proportion of RET species of mammals, birds and plants, impacts of such high significance are likely to 

jeopardize the habitats of these species and the long term conservation of RET species in this subbasin. 

The impacts of high significance in Bhagirathi IV, Birahi ganga and Ganga sub-basins (Table 

6.9) can be attributed to the fact that these areas contain high terrestrial biodiversity values and the 

projects with high potential to impact these values are also located here. 

The terrestrial biodiversity value of Bhagirathi II sub-basin has already been compromised on 

account of the existing Tehri HEP and in the futuristic scenario this basin would continue to be 

subjected to incremental impacts on remnant terrestrial biodiversity over a period of time. 

125



Bhagirathi I L H L 

Bhagirathi II L H L 

Asiganga L H L 


Bhagirathi IV M H M 



Alaknanda I L H L 

Mandakini L VH L 

Alaknanda II L H L 

Pindar L H L 



Rishi ganga L H L 

Dhauli ganga L VH L 



Ganga Basin L H L 


Scenario 2b – Exclusive impacts of commissioned projects 

Fig. 6.7 Predicted significance of impacts of commissioned projects on terrestrial biodiversity values. 

126

This scenario portrays the impacts of all the 17 commissioned projects on the terrestrial 

biodiversity values of the two basins. It becomes evident that the impacts of already commissioned 

projects are spatially concentrated in only one sub-basin as a result of which high significance of 

impacts (shown in shades of orange) are received by Bhagirathi III sub-basin (Table 6.10). These 

impacts are largely significant owing to large footprints of Tehri HEP. Scenarios 1b and 2b clearly 

demonstrate that all projects under construction and all proposed projects that are widely spread across 

all sub-basins would have greater impact influence in increasing significance of impacts on biodiversity 

values. This transformation in impact significance category can be visualized at the sub-basin level 

where increasing areas under green shade portray the scenario in which incremental impacts on the 

terrestrial biodiversity would not be significant in the two basins in future. 

127










Alaknanda I L H L 



Pindar L H L 




Dhauli ganga M VH H 





Scenario 3b – Combined impacts of all commissioned projects and projects under-construction 

Fig. 6.8 Predicted significance of impacts of commissioned projects and those under different stages of 

construction on terrestrial biodiversity values. 

128

A comparative review of the scenario 1 (which includes all projects) with this scenario (which 

includes only commissioned and projects under-construction) allows visualizing the contribution of all 

proposed projects in altering the terrestrial biodiversity values of the two basins especially in sub-basins 

seen in green (Fig. 6.8). This scenario provides a reference point to gain a useful insight for futuristic 

planning of hydropower development which to some extent can integrate the biodiversity conservation 

concerns specific to sub-basins and larger landscape unit in the two basins. 

This scenario however fails to reduce the impacts of developments on Dhauliganga basin to an 

acceptable level despite this sub-basin being a cradle for many RET species. It only allows moderation 

of impacts to reduce them to the next lower level (refer to the change from red to orange in this 

scenario). 

129



Bhagirathi I M H M 










Pindar M H M 



Rishi ganga M H M 






Scenario 4b – Alternatives for lowering the overall impacts on terrestrial biodiversity in the subbasins 

Fig. 6.9 Predicted impact significance on terrestrial biodiversity based on inclusion of projects with low 


130

This scenario presents an alternative to secure the twin benefits of conservation and economic 

objectives of harnessing hydropower in the two basins by choosing 7 projects that have low impact 

potential and excluding those with a higher potential only in sub-basins which could have been a 

recipient of impacts of very high and high significance. 

Table 6.13 List of proposed projects with high impact potential 

considered for exclusion in Scenario 4b. 

S.No. Sub-basin Projects to be excluded 

1. Dhauliganga Tamak Lata 

Lata Tapovan 

Malari Jhelam 

Jhelam Tamak 

2. Birahi ganga Birahi ganga I 

Gohana Tal 

3. Mandakini Rambara 

Bhagirathi IV Kotlibhel IA 


TOTAL 9 

131













Pindar M H M 









Scenario 5b – Alternatives to reduce significant impacts on critically important habitats for 

terrestrial biodiversity 


important habitats for terrestrial biodiversity. 

132

This is a resultant scenario based on exclusion of all such projects that can contribute to the 

decline of biodiversity values of the terrestrial species in specific sub-basins and biodiversity value of 

the critically important habitats (Table 6.14). This is a compounding exercise after including additional 

projects in the exclusion list used in Scenario 4b. 

The scenario has been developed to ensure that biodiversity values of critically important 

habitats both within and outside PAs are not compromised as a consequence of hydropower 

development. This exclusion exercise is intended to reappraise projects whose zones of influence 

overlap with critically important habitats for all terrestrial components including mammals, birds and 

plants. 

The benefits of applying this exclusion approach may only yield limited benefits of reducing 

significant impacts of proposed developments on critically important habitats within PAs and those 

providing connectivity between PAs (Table 6.15). 

Table 6.15 List of proposed Hydro Electric Projects to be excluded exclusively for safeguarding 

terrestrial biodiversity. 

S.No. Sub-basin Projects to be excluded Reason for exclusion 

Bharon ghati ZoI overlapping with the boundary of Gangotri NP 

1. Bhagirathi II 

Jalandrigad 

Siyangad 

Kakoragad 

ZoIs falling within important habitats connecting PAs 

2. Bhagirathi I 

Karmoli 

Jadhganga 

ZoI falling within Gangotri NP 

3. Mandakini Rambara 

ZoI falling within Kedarnath WLS 

and High impact potential 

4. Alaknanda III 

Alaknanda 

Khirao ganga 

ZoI is overlapping with the buffer zone of Valley of 

Flowers NP 

5. Alaknanda II Urgam II 

Lata tapovan 

ZoI falling within important habitats connecting PAs 

6. Dhauliganga 

Malari jhelam 

Jhelam tamak 

Tamak lata 

ZoIs falling within important habitats connecting PAs 


ZoI falling within critically important habitat (buffer 

7. Bhyundar ganga Bhyundar ganga 

zone of Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve) 

8. 

Rishi ganga I ZoIs falling within important habitats connecting PAs 

9. 

Rishi ganga 

Rishi ganga 


10. 

11. 

Birahi ganga 

Birahi ganga I 

Gohana Tal 



High impact potential 

TOTAL 21 

High impact potential and ZoI overalapping with 

important habitat for plants species (Catamixis 

baccharoides) 

133

It becomes apparent that with the situation of many projects already in stages of operation and 

construction, the reversibility of impacts from significant to moderate is not possible in sub-basins 

(Dhauliganga, Mandakini and Bhagirathi III) that are supporting many species of high conservation 

values. 

It is further highlighted the zone of influence of Melkhet HEP located in Pindar basin overlaps 

with the area that commands high conservation priority for long term security of the habitat for highly 

endangered species of plant (refer appendix of plants RET profile). 

6.4.3 Final analysis 

These five scenarios can be used to improve upfront the process of decision making and 

forward planning of the hydropower sector. These scenarios distinctly present options to decision 

makers in respect of approval or relocation of Hydroelectric project(s) based on potential risk to 

biodiversity values and reflection, if required. 

The scenarios also provide adequate basis to make decisions with respect to applying 

‘exclusion approach’ across the two basins for securing key biodiversity values in key biodiversity sites, 

critically important habitats and designated protected areas (Refer Fig 6.11). 

For acceptable outcomes from hydropower development for biodiversity conservation and 

societal well-being, Table 6.17 provides a list of proposed projects that may be reviewed for combined 

benefits of reducing impacts on both, aquatic and terrestrial biodiversity. 

Fig. 6.11 Critically important habitats of valued biodiversity components significantly overlap 

with locations of hydropower projects in the Alaknanda and Bhagirathi basins. 

134

Table 6.16 List of proposed Hydro Electric Projects to be excluded for safeguarding aquatic and 

terrestrial biodiversity. 

Sub-basin 

Bal ganga 

Bhagirathi II 

Projects to be 

excluded 

River Capacity 

(MW) 

Bal ganga II Bal ganga 7.00 √ 

Jhala koti Bal ganga 12.50 √ 

Aquatic Terrestrial 

Bharon ghati Bhagirathi 381.00 √ 

Jalandrigad Jalandharigad 24.00 √ 

Siyangad Siyangad 11.50 √ 

Kakoragad Kakoragad 12.50 √ 

Bhagirathi IV Kotlibhel IA Bhagirathi 195.00 √ √ 

Bhagirathi I 

Karmoli Jadhganga 140.00 √ 

Jadhganga Jadhganga 50.00 √ 

Mandakini Rambara Mandakini 24.00 √ 

Alaknanda I Kotlibhel IB Alaknanda 320.00 √ 

Alaknanda III 

Alaknanda Alaknanda 30.00 √ 

Khirao ganga Khirao ganga 4.00 √ 

Alaknanda II Urgam II Kalpganga 3.80 √ 

Dhauliganga 

Bhyundar 

ganga 

Rishi ganga 

Birahi ganga 

Lata tapovan Dhauli ganga 170.00 √ 

Malari jhelam Dhauli ganga 114.00 √ 

Jhelam tamak Dhauli ganga 126.00 √ 

Tamak lata Dhauli ganga 250.00 √ 

Bhyundar ganga Bhyundar ganga 24.30 √ 

Rishi ganga I Rishi ganga 70.00 √ 

Rishi ganga II Rishi ganga 35.00 √ 

Birahi ganga I Birahi ganga 24.00 √ √ 

Gohana Tal Birahi ganga 50.00 √ √ 

Ganga Kotlibhel II Ganga 530.00 √ √ 

135

7.1 Introduction 

136 

Chapter 7 – Environmental Flow 

Environmental flows are flows that are essential to maintain the normal ecological services of a 

river. Their purpose could be as general as maintenance of a ‘healthy’ riverine ecosystem, or as 

specific as enhancing the survival chances of a threatened species and other associated fauna 

(Smakhtin, et al, 2007). The flow regime is one of the important components of the river ecosystem, 

which can reflect its health and geography, and also influence the socio-economic status of the region. 

Ecosystem components such as channel morphology and patterns; water chemistry and temperature; 

and the biota of channel, bank and associated wetlands reflect the nature of the flow patterns of the 

river. In this study, the environmental flow has been defined in the context of maintaining the health of 

river stretches in the dry zones of the Hydro Electric Projects in the Alaknanda and Bhagirathi basins. 

7.2 Methods 

A global review of the present status of environmental flow methodologies revealed the 

existence of more than 200 individual methodologies, recorded from 44 countries covering all realms of 

the world (Tharme, 1996; Stalnaker and Arnette, 1976; Wesche and Rechard, 1980; Morhardt, 1986; 

Estes and Orsborn, 1986; Stewardson and Gippel, 1997)). These methods could be categorized into 

hydrological, hydraulic rating, habitat simulation and holistic methodologies. 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 and 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 environmental flow 

(Tharme, 1996). In Asia, environmental flow assessment appears to be less advanced in the field, with 

little published literature that deals specifically with environmental flows. This suggests that many 

countries in Asia have not yet recognized the importance of Environmental Flow Assessments in the 

long-term maintenance and sustainability of freshwater systems (Tharme, 1996). 

There are also a number of hybrid approaches which comprise elements of one or more of 

these main types of methodology to assess the Environmental Flows. They are: Flow Stressor- 

Response (FSR) approach, Downstream Response to imposed Flow transformations (DRIFT) 

approach and Instream Flow Incremental Methodology (IFIM) approach. However, there is no single 

method for flow assessment that can be used at universal level without any modification(s). This is 

largely due to variations in the topography, climate and other environmental settings across the globe. 

Moreover, requirement of flow varies with different needs of the region. 

Environmental Flows should also provide the required environmental cues for the various life 

history traits of a species such as breeding, growth, metamorphosis and migration which are dependent 

on the seasonal variations in natural flows pattern. Moreover, the flow requirements for the life history 

stages of many fishes are dependent on the seasonal flow. Taking this into account, the environmental

flow required for different sector of the river was calculated from Mean Seasonal Flow (MSF) during this 

study. 

In the recent past, most of the environmental flow estimators have used the hydrological 

indices for hydrological impact assessment due to water associated developments. However, in the 

building block and holistic method like DRIFT, habitat rating curve is generally used for the ecological 

flow estimation since water abstraction from the Bhagirathi/Alakananda rivers for agriculture, drinking, 

pollution assimilation, etc. is very less as compared to the other rivers of Ganges basin. Ecological flow 

is a major concern in Alaknanda/Bhagirathi river systems and for these rivers the ecological flow has 

been considered equivalent to the environmental flow. In the present study, a combination of modified 

Building Block (King et al., 2000), Habitat Rating (Loar et al., 1986; Dunbar, 1998), and DRIFT (Brown 

et al., 2000) methods has been used. Moreover, suggested alternate flows based on Environmental 

Management Class of the Alaknanda and Bhagirathi basins (Smakhtin, et al, 2007) have also been 

suggested. 

7.3.1 Minimum Environmental Flows based on ecological status of River (EMC) 

In rivers where natural river flow pattern has been altered by humans, all of ecological 

components are likely to change compared to their historical conditions. The degree to which this 

happens reflects the severity of the flow manipulation. As far as fishes are concerned, water flow is 

one of the important limiting factors for their distribution and abundance. Most of the riverine fishes are 

attracted towards flow for two important reasons, i) to get more dissolved oxygen and ii) flowing water 

carries lot of nutrients from upstream, which provides food for many fishes. Natural flow during different 

seasons stimulates the reproductive system of aquatic organisms and facilitates spawning related 

activities. A modified flow pattern in stream and river brings about 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 that exists in any river ecosystem. The major aquatic components of 

Alaknanda-Bhagirathi basin up to Rishikesh are periphyton, phytoplankton, macrophytes, zooplankton, 

benthic macroinvertebrates, fish, and birds. The only aquatic mammal reported in the basin was the 

otter but its current distribution needs further validation. 

Several studies have been conducted on the water quality and aquatic biodiversity of 

Bhagirathi (Sharma, 1983; 1984; 1985; 1986), Bhilangana (Sharma et al. 1990, Sarkar et al. 2011), 

Alaknanda (Singh and Sharma, 1998), Dahuliganga (Sharma et al., 2004), Tons (Sharma et al., 2008) 

and Asan (Sharma and Rawat, 2009, Sarkar et al. 2011). There is no information available on the 

precise hydrological requirements of the organisms living in the upper Ganga. 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. Fig. 7.1 shows the 

flows estimated for the entire Ganga basins and its tributaries. 

137

Fig. 7.1. Line diagram of Ganga and its major tributaries (Numbers are average flows in MCM-million 

cubic meters (Source: IIT-Roorkee, 2011). 

Smakhtin and Anputhas (2006) defined six EMCs corresponding to the default levels of 

environmental flows (Table 7.1). A river which falls into classes C to F would normally be present in 

densely populated areas with multiple human induced impacts. Poor ecosystem conditions (Class E 

and F) are sometimes not considered or acceptable from the management perspective and the 

management intention is always to ‘move’ such rivers up to the least acceptable class D through 

rehabilitation measures. It can be noted that the ecosystems in class F are likely to be those which 

have been modified beyond rehabilitation to anything resembling a natural condition. 

Table 7.1 Environnemental Management Classes (EMCs) (modified from Smakhtin, et al., 2007). 

EMC Status Ecological description Management perspective Default FDC shift limit 

A Natural Pristine condition or minor 

modification of in-stream and 

riparian habitat 

B Slightly 

modified 

138 

Largely intact biodiversity and 

habitats despite water resources 

development and/or basin 

modifications 

C Moderately The habitat and dynamics of the 

biota have been disturbed, but 

• Protected river and 

basins 

• Reserves and 

national parks 

• No new water 

projects (dam, 

diversions, etc.) 

allowed 

Water supply schemes or 

irrigation development 

present and/or allowed 

Multiple disturbances 

associated with the need 

Lateral shift of 

reference FDC one 

percentage point to the 

left along the time axis 

from the original FDC 

position 



percentage point to the 

left along the time axis 

from the position of the 

FDC for A class 


reference FDC one

EMC Status Ecological description Management perspective Default FDC shift limit 

modified basic ecosystem functions are still 

intact. Some sensitive species are 

lost and/or reduced in extent. Alien 

species present. 

D Largely 

modified 

E Seriously 

modified 

F Critically 

modified 

• Large changes in natural 

habitat, biota and basic 

ecosystem functions have 

occurred. 

• A clearly lower than expected 

species richness. 

• Much lowered presence of 

intolerant species. 

• Alien species prevail 

• Habitat diversity and 

availability have declined. 

• A strikingly lower than 

expected species richness. 

• Only tolerant species remain. 

• Indigenous species can no 

longer breed. 

• Alien species. 

• Modifications have reached a 

critical level and ecosystem 

has been completely modified 

with almost total loss of 

natural habitat and biota. 

• In the worst case, the basic 

ecosystem functions have 

been destroyed and the 

changes are irreversible. 

for socio-economic 

development, e.g., dams, 

diversion, habitat 

modification and reduced 

water supply 

Significant and clearly 

visible disturbances 

associated with basin and 

water resources 

development, including 

dams, diversions, 

transfers, habitat 

modification and water 

quality degradation 

High human population 

density and extensive 

water resources 

exploitation 

This status is not 

acceptable from the 

management perspective. 

Management interventions 

are necessary to restore 

flow pattern, river habitats, 

etc. (if still 

possible/feasible) – to 

‘move’ a river to a higher 

management category. 

7.3.2 Assessment of ecological status of Alaknanda and Bhagirathi basin 

more percentage point 

to the left along the 

time axis from the 

position of the FDC for 

B class 







C class 







D class 







E class 

Normally, the ecological status of a river is assessed based on the Environmental Management 

Class of that river. The definition of 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 globally 

because of a need to make decisions regardless of the limited hydro-ecological knowledge available 

(Smakhtin et al., 2007). In these conditions of uncertainty with regard to which EMC is required for a 

139

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 (Smakhtin et al., 2007) to assess the environmental management class of the 

Alaknanda and Bhagirathi Rivers basins (Table 7.2). 

Table 7.2 Ecological status of Alaknanda and Bhagirathi basins using fish as major taxa. 

Indicator Value Alaknanda Bhagirathi 

Rare and 

endangered 

aquatic biota 

Unique aquatic 

biota 

Diversity of 

Aquatic Habitats 

Presence of 

protected or 

pristine areas 

140 

Moderate 

High 

Moderate 

to High 

Entire 

Study 

Area 

3 3 3 

4 4 4 

3 3 4 

Moderate 2 2 2 

Remarks 

There are at least 16 threatened 

fish species in the reach which 

form about 20% of total fish 

diversity of the reach. Moreover, 

this is 13% of total threatened 

species of fish in the country 

(NBFGR, 1999). However, among 

Himalayan species, moderate 

numbers of threatened species 

occur in this reach. Presence of 

otter in the reach was reported 

earlier but there was no authentic 

report of their sighting in the recent 

past. 

Although this reach has at least 2 

endemic species, but many 

species are Himalayan element 

and have adapted to live in 

torrential river that too in cold 

water. 

Presence of sandy banks, slow and 

fast flowing reaches, rafts, lagoons, 

confluences of different rivers, 

streams, diversity of substratum, 

formation of islands during summer 

and winter offers relatively diverse 

habitats for fish and other wildlife. 

Although small portions of reaches 

are inside the Protected Areas, 

majority of reaches are outside and 

are relatively disturbed due to 

Hydro Electric Projects such as 

Tehri Dam, Vishnuprayag project

Sensitivity of 

aquatic 

ecosystems to flow 

reduction 

Percentage of 

watershed 

remaining under 

natural vegetation 

Percentage of 

floodplains 

remaining 

Degree of flow 

regulation 

Percentage of 

watershed closed 

to movement of 

aquatic biota by 

structures 

or degree of flow 

fragmentation 

Percentage of 

aquatic biota that 

are exotic 

High 

4 4 4 

High 4 4 4 

>75 % 4 4 4 

High 

(reverse 

value) 

Moderate 

(reverse 

value) 

Moderate 

(reverse 

value) 

2 4 3 

2 4 3 

2 4 3 

etc., Nayar and Balganga rivers 

are identified as important fish 

habitats, where several threatened 

species congregate to breed. 

There are at least 37 species 

largely restricted to Himalaya that 

occur in this reach which have 

evolved to live in fast flowing water. 

Moreover, at least 17 species that 

occur here are migrants in nature. 

Therefore, any change in the flow 

reduction will be detrimental to the 

populations of several Himalayan 

species. 

Larger portion of catchment of 

Alaknanda and Bhagirathi are 

relatively undisturbed and with 

natural vegetation 

There is not much reduction in the 

floodplains area within study area, 

but degradation of floodplains was 

observed. 

Because of presence of Tehri Dam 

and several other Hydro Electric 

Projects the reach has already 

been fragmented and water flow is 

highly regulated at least in summer 

and winter. 

Movement of Tor spp.and other 

migrants have already been 

blocked by Tehri Dam. There is no 

provision of successful fish paths in 

the existing Hydro Electric Projects 

which has drastically reduced the 

populations of migrants in upper 

reaches (e.g. mahseer) 

At least 3 exotic species are 

present in the reach. One of 100 

worst invasive species of world 

‘brown trout’ occurs in the upper 

reaches and seems to be 

expanding its range at a faster rate. 

Exotic carps have been introduced 

in the Tehri Dam which are posing 

141

Aquatic species’ 

relative richness 

Human population 

density as % of 

that in the main 

floodplains 

Overall water 

quality 

Sum of Indicator 

Scores 

Maximum Possible 

Sum of Scores 

Maximum Possible 

Sum of Scores 

Probable 

Environment 

Management 

Class 

142 

Very High 4 5 5 

Moderate 2 2 2 

Very High 

5 5 5 

43 48 46 

65 65 65 

63 74 71 

C C C 

threat to several native species. 

Compared to availability of area, 76 

species of fish is very high species 

richness. Of the available species, 

about 50% are Himalayan species. 

Compared to other parts of 

Ganges, this stretch has moderate 

population. 

The quality of water is still very 

high. 

The habitats and dynamics of the 

biota of these rivers have been 

disturbed, but basic ecosystem 

functions are still intact. Some 

sensitive species are lost and/or 

reduced in extent. Alien species 

present. ( as per Smakhtin et al., 

2007) 

7.3.3 Environmental Water Requirement as per EMC 

The mountainous lotic aquatic environment of the Alaknanda and Bhagirathi Basins constitute 

the major river system of the Ganges. Alaknanda and Bhagirathi Basins exhibit many limnological 

extremes. Tributaries of these basins have low water temperatures, highly turbulent water current and 

low primary and secondary producers. These tributaries are also exposed to frequent flash floods, 

heavy soil erosion and sedimentation, high turbidity during heavy precipitation, and many 

anthropogenic disturbances such as Hydro Electric Projects (Tehri, Vishnuprayag, Srinagar, etc.) and 

the removal of boulders, stones, pebbles and sand from the river bed. These manifestations of 

environmental degradation are responsible for the destruction of natural feeding and spawning grounds 

of the fish inhabiting different rivers of the basin. In general, the habitats and dynamics of the biota of 

rivers in this basin have been observed as disturbed, but basic ecosystem functions are apparently 

intact. Some sensitive species are lost and/or reduced in the extent and some alien species are

present. Therefore, the Environmental Management Category (EMC) of the Alaknanda and Bhagirathi 

Basins was assessed as ‘C’ Class (as per Smakhtin et al., 2007). 

Smakhtin and Anputhas (2006) suggested that 28.9% of Mean Annual Runoff (MAR) as 

Environmental Water Required (EWR) for Ganga River to retain the similar status of the EMC of stretch 

if it is assessed as ‘C’ Class. However, Smakhtin and Anputhas (2006) have proposed this EWR for 

Ganges based on analysis downstream of Ganges that starts from Rishkesh. This downstream stretch 

of Ganges is considered to have more than 140 species of fishes, of which about 19 species are in 

threatened categories (Sarkar et al. 2011). Moreover, in the same stretch, two species of crocodile 

Crocodylus palustris and the Gavialis gangeticus are found. Both are considered endangered (IUCN, 

1994). The Common Indian Otter (Lutra lutra), and Smooth Indian Otter (Lutra perspicillata), have also 

been sighted in this stretch of the river. In addition, endangered Gangetic dolphin, 12 species of 

freshwater turtles have also been reported in this stretch apart from hundreds of species of aquatic 

insects. Several thousands of people are also directly dependent on the fisheries resources on this 

stretch of Ganges. It is not prudent to recommend the same EWR i.e. 28.9% of MAR as suggested by 

Smakhtin and Anputhas (2006) to Alaknanda and Bhagirathi Basins. Alaknanda and Bhagirathi basins 

are observed to be having less than half of the aquatic biodiversity when compared to other parts of 

Ganges. In the absence of larger animals such as dolphin, crocodiles, etc and with 76 species of fishes 

(in comparison to 143 species reported in the entire Ganges), it has been estimated that 14.5% to 

21.8% of MAR may be the Minimum EWR for the aquatic biodiversity of Alaknanda and Bhagirathi 

basins as a conservative estimate during the lean season. 

Moreover, calculation of Minimum Environmental Flow (MEF) should also recognize that these 

releases are ensured specifically for environmental purposes especially to meet te requirements of 

different life history events of the aquatic biota. They should not include flows necessary for 

downstream commercial activities or for water supply purposes (Acreman and Dunbar, 2004; Petts, 

1996).Therefore, this study has calculated that Minimum EWR for a river stretch that falls in the 

Mahseer zone and Snow-trout zone should be 21.8% of Mean Seasonal Runoff (MSR). The stretch 

that falls in the ‘No fish zone’ may be equal to 14.5 % of MSR as this stretch is devoid of fishes but has 

other aquatic biota. 

143

Table 7.3 Mean Monthly Flows (MMF) for various sites in Alaknanda and Bhagirathi Basins (Monthly flow in Cumec/day) observed during past few 

decades (Source : IIT-R Report, 2011). 

MAF 

(cumec/ 

HEP Site day) Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec 

A Bhagirathi River 

1 Asiganga-III 5.29 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.7 3.3 8.5 17.1 19.1 10 1.9 0.6 0.4 

2 Agunda thati 5.48 4.2 4.3 4.2 3.7 4.2 5.4 8.1 10.6 8.1 5.1 3.8 4.3 

3 Bhilangana-III 13.74 5.6 5.7 5.7 5.5 9.3 17.8 32.7 38.4 23 8.8 5.5 5.9 

4 Bhilangana 52.01 39.6 40.6 40.2 35 39.4 51.3 77 100.8 76.5 48 36.5 41.1 

5 Lohari Nagpala 92.27 5.9 4.9 5.9 12.2 57.5 148.5 299 332.9 174.5 33.5 9.8 7 

6 Maneri bhali I 114.22 7.3 6.1 7.3 15.1 71.2 183.8 370.1 412.1 216 41.5 12.2 8.7 

7 Maneri bhali II 122.87 7.9 6.6 7.9 16.3 76.5 197.7 398.2 443.3 232.4 44.6 13.1 9.3 

8 Tehri stage-I 243.41 99.7 100.6 101 97.6 163.8 315.5 579.2 679.3 408.2 156 97.3 104.1 

9 Koteshwar 259.73 106.3 107.4 107.7 104.2 174.8 336.6 618 724.8 435.5 166.4 103.8 111.1 

10 Kotlibhel I A 266.34 109 110.1 110.5 106.8 179.3 345.2 633.8 743.3 446.6 170.7 106.4 113.9 

B Alaknanda River 

1 Badrinath 39.69 7.6 6.6 8.1 14.2 35.2 70.5 106 95.8 64.8 34.7 21.7 14.8 

2 Birahi ganga II 8.18 2.4 2.2 2.5 3 4.1 6.8 16.8 23.6 19.3 8.9 4.7 3.5 

3 Bhyunder ganga 9.41 1.8 1.6 1.9 3.4 8.3 16.7 25.1 22.7 15.4 8.2 5.1 3.5 

4 Phata Byung 16.82 5.5 6.1 6.6 6.8 9 15.8 39.7 53 31.8 12.8 7.5 8 

5 Rajwakti 19.82 5.8 5.4 6 7.2 10 16.4 40.6 57.2 46.8 21.5 11.3 8.5 

6 Rishiganga-II 24.51 4.7 4.1 5 8.8 21.7 43.6 65.5 59.1 40 21.5 13.4 9.1 

7 Singoli Bhatwari 53.57 13.1 13.9 17.1 22.1 29.9 48 125.2 176.7 108.8 41.7 23 19.2 

8 Alaknanda 41.33 8 6.9 8.4 14.8 36.7 73.4 110.4 99.7 67.5 36.2 22.6 15.4 

9 Devsari 19.71 5.8 5.5 6 7.2 9.9 17.5 42.2 57.7 45.5 19.7 10.7 7.5 

10 Vishnuprayag 46.24 13.2 11.4 14 24.6 60.9 122 183.4 165.7 112.1 60.1 37.5 25.6 

11 Tapovan Vishnugad 126.85 24.4 21.1 25.8 45.4 112.5 225.4 338.9 306 207.2 111 69.3 47.3 

12 Vishnugad Pipalkoti 191.18 36.8 31.8 38.9 68.4 169.5 339.7 510.7 461.2 312.2 167.3 104.4 71.3 

13 Nandaprayag Langrasu 255.06 49.1 42.4 52 91.3 226.2 453.2 681.3 615.4 416.6 223.3 139.3 95.1 

144

Four main seasons occur annually in this region. These are: (a) Season I: It is considered as 

high flow season influenced by monsoon. It covers the months from May to September. (b) Season 

II: This season is considered as average flow period, covers the month of October. (c) Season III: This 

season is considered as low or lean or dry flow season which covers the months from November to 

March. (d) Season IV: This season is considered as average flow period and is same as that of 

season II, it covers the month of April. Based on this classification of seasons, Mean Seasonal Flow 

(MSF) was estimated to be 21.8% of MSF for a stretch that falls in the Mahseer and Trout zones. 

Similarly, 14.5% of MSF is suggested for the stretch that falls in the ‘No fish zone’. Final Minimum 

Environmental Flow based on EMC of stretch and seasonal cues was then calculated and is presented 

in Tables 7.4 & 7.5. 

Table 7.4 Observed Mean Seasonal Flows (MSF) of various sites in Alaknanda and Bhagirathi 

basins (Seasonal flow in Cumec/day) during past few decades (Data Source IIT-R Report, 2011). 

Season I 

(High Flow) 

Season II 

(Average Flow) 

Season III 

(Low Flow) 

Season IV 



1 Asiganga-III 11.6 1.9 0.38 0.7 

2 Agunda thati 7.28 5.1 4.16 3.7 

3 Bhilangana-III 24.24 8.8 5.68 5.5 

4 Bhilangana 69 48 39.6 35 

5 Lohari Nagpala 202.48 33.5 6.7 12.2 

6 Maneri bhali I 250.64 41.5 8.32 15.1 

7 Maneri bhali II 269.62 44.6 8.96 16.3 

8 Tehri stage-I 429.2 156 100.54 97.6 

9 Koteshwar 457.94 166.4 107.26 104.2 

10 Kotlibhel I A 469.64 170.7 109.98 106.8 


2 Birahi ganga II 14.12 8.9 3.06 3 

3 Bhyunder ganga 17.64 8.2 2.78 3.4 

4 Phata Byung 29.86 12.8 6.74 6.8 

5 Rajwakti 34.2 21.5 7.4 7.2 

7 Singoli Bhatwari 97.72 41.7 17.26 22.1 

8 Alaknanda 77.54 36.2 12.26 14.8 

9 Devsari 34.56 19.7 7.1 7.2 

10 Vishnuprayag 128.82 60.1 20.34 24.6 

12 Vishnugad Pipalkoti 358.66 167.3 56.64 68.4 

13 Nandaprayag Langrasu 478.54 223.3 75.58 91.3 

145

Table 7.5 Suggested Minimum Environmental Flow (MEF) required based on EMC of River, for 

various sites in the Mahseer and Trouts zones of the Alaknanda and Bhagirathi Basins (Mean 

Seasonal Flow in Cumec/Day). MEFs only for the dry zones of the HEPs. 

146 

Season I 

(High Flow) 

Season II 


Season III 

(Low Flow) 

Season IV 



1. Asiganga-III 2.53 0.41 0.08 0.15 

2. Agunda thati 1.59 1.11 0.91 0.81 

3. Bhilangana-III 5.28 1.92 1.24 1.20 

4. Bhilangana 15.04 10.46 8.63 7.63 

5. Lohari Nagpala 44.14 7.30 1.46 2.66 

6. Maneri bhali I 54.64 9.05 1.81 3.29 

7. Maneri bhali II 58.78 9.72 1.95 3.55 

8. Tehri stage-I 93.57 34.01 21.92 21.28 

9. Koteshwar 99.83 36.28 23.38 22.72 

10. Kotlibhel I A 102.38 37.21 23.98 23.28 


1 Birahi ganga II 3.08 1.94 0.67 0.65 


3 Phata Byung 6.51 2.79 1.47 1.48 

4 Rajwakti 7.46 4.69 1.61 1.57 


6 Alaknanda 16.90 7.89 2.67 3.23 

7 Devsari 7.53 4.29 1.55 1.57 

8 Vishnuprayag 28.08 13.10 4.43 5.36 


10 

Nandaprayag 

Langrasu 

104.32 48.68 16.48 19.90 

7.4 Environmental Water Requirement as per ecological requirement of fishes 

The objective of Environmental Flow Assessment for the Alaknanda and Bhagirathi Basin of 

this study was to sustain the aquatic biodiversity and provide minimum flow in the dry zones of Hydro 

Electric Projects. In this connection, we largely used the habitat requirements of certain fishes that 

have been observed in this study and literature survey (Badola, 2001; Atkore et al 2011; Sivakumar, 

2008; Nautiyal and Lal, 1984; Nautiyal and Lal, 1985; Sharma 2003). 

The ecological structure of fish communities largely depends on the kind of aquatic habitat and 

environment in which they move around and survive. In Alaknanda and Bhagirathi Basins, two distinct 

fish communities occur such as golden mahseer (Tor putitora) and its associated species, and snow-

trout (Schizothorax richardsonii) and its associated species. The Schizothorax richardsonii is the most 

dominant species in the basin and it lives with and without mahseer species. Therefore, we classified 

the entire basin into three categories such as mahseer zone, snow trout zone and ‘no-fish zone’. Nofish 

zone are in the higher altitudes i.e. 1600 MSL and above. No fish was found during this study in 

this zone and moreover, there was no report of fish occurring in this zone in literature. Below the ‘nofish 

zone’, is the snow trout zone where water temperature is always low but in the mahseer zone, 

which falls in the lower altitude rivers and streams, water is relatively warm. 

Since fish occur in most of the basin area and occupy all kind of trophic levels, this study 

considered the fish as flagship fauna to estimate the Minimum Environmental Water Flow required in 

the different stretches of Alaknanda and Bhagirathi Basins for maintanance of fish diversity in particular 

and well being of entire ecosystem in general. Studying the habitat requirement of all fish species in a 

short duration is a difficult task and therefore threatened species of the basins have been studied to 

assess their habitat requirements, based on primary as well as secondary data. Minimum 

Environmental Flow required for different stretches of rivers and streams in the basin was then 

calculated based on the habiat requirement as well as availability of water. There are 16 threatened fish 

species that occur in the two basins and their habitat requirements are follows; 

1. Golden Mahseer (Tor putitora) – IUCN status: Endangered. 

This species is considered as one of the mighty game fishes in India. It is a migratory species that 

attains a total length of 2.7 m (Talwar and Jhingran, 1991) and is well known for its utility in angling 

sports. It inhabits the montane and sub-montane regions, in streams and rivers. This species is native 

to Himalayan river system and is distributed in mid-hill stretches of Himalayan region. It occurs in rapid 

streams with rocky bottom and riverine pools. It neither inhabits in the warm ‘Terai’ climate nor streams 

of very cold climate; but in natural conditions it inhabits moderately cold and tropical highlands. The fish 

is a column feeder in freshwater found in subtropical condition 13°C - 30°C. It is omnivorous in nature 

during their adult stage it feeds on periphytic algae and on diatoms in juvenile stage (IUCN, 2011). It 

migrates from the foot hills to upper reaches of the river and tributaries for breeding and needs suitable 

habitats such as clean, stable, well-oxygenated, gravel habitats to spawn (Sharma, 1984). 

The feeding and breeding habitats have been almost lost throughout their distributional 

range. The population is fast depleting and at present are chiefly localised to certain major river 

systems and is fast approaching extinction in the streams and lakes of northern India. Large fishes are 

only found in some of the perennial pools. This species is declining in its natural habitat due to 

urbanization, illegal encroachment, over fishing and chemical and physical alterations of their natural 

habitats. Annual productivity of the species has declined from 0.198 gm 2 per year to 0.054 gm 2 per year 

(about 73% decline/ year) in the Tehri Dam in the Garhwal Himalaya, India (Sharma et.al., 2004). The 

stress on the population is not only due to its over exploitation, but also due to the rise in developmental 

activities, especially the growing number of hydroelectric and irrigation projects which have fragmented 

and deteriorated its natural habitat (IUCN, 2011). 

147

Table 7.6 Summary of the biology and flow-related ecological requirements of Golden Mahseer 

(Tor putitora) in Alaknanda and Bhagirathi river basins. 

Observed 

Requirements 

Depth 

Velocity 

Habitat 

Substratum 

148 

Adults Juveniles Spawning 

Deep (>1 m) 

Medium to high 

(0.5 - 1.5 m/s) 

Riffles, pools, 

glides 

Bed rock, 

Boulders, 

Cobbles, gravel to 

sandy bottom 

Shallow (

food and sport and declines have been reported from several parts of its range. Sharma (2004) 

reported that the environmental degradation, brought about by intensified road construction activities at 

Tehri, and other construction activities along the Bhagirathi and Bhilangana river has adversely 

obstructed the movement of Tor tor from the foot hills to upper reaches of the river and tributaries for 

breeding purposes. 

Table 7.7 Summary of the biology and flow-related ecological requirements of Silver Mahseer 

(Tor tor) in Alaknanda and Bhagirathi river basin. 

Observed 

requirements 

Depth 

Velocity 

Habitat 

Substratum 

Deep (>1 m) 


Medium to high 

(0.5 - 1.5 m/s) 


glides 

Bed rock, boulders, 

cobbles, gravel to 

sandy bottom 

Shallow (

3. Snow Trout (Schizothorax richardsonii) – IUCN status: Vulnerable 

This native species commonly occurs in the western Himalayas and Trans-Himalayan region especially 

upstream of Indus, Ganges and Bhramaputra rivers (Talwar and Jhingran, 1991) and it is rare in 

Ladakh (Sivakumar, 2008). Schizothorax richardsonii gains weight up to 1 kg and attains a length up to 

40 cm in length. The female fishes spawn in natural as well as in artificial environment in two seasons 

viz. April to September. Sexually matured S. richardsonii (when they reach 18-24 cm length) spawn 

naturally in clear water on gravelly / stony ground or on fine pebbles at 10-30 cm depth. Water current 

of 0.5-1.5 m/sec, pH 7.5, dissolved oxygen concentration of 8-12 mg/L and gravel size of 50-60 mm are 

the optimum conditions for spawning. Adults feed on periphytic algae, diadems, detritus and rarely 

feed on aquatic insects. Juveniles feed on peripytons and diatoms. Although Schizothorax richardsonii 

is widely distributed along the Himalayan foothills and previous studies have indicated that it is 

abundant and commonly found, recent observations over the last 5 to 10 years indicate drastic declines 

in many areas of its range due to introduction of exotics (especially brown trout), damming and 

overfishing. In some areas, declines are more than 90% (IUCN, 2011). 

Table 7.8 Summary of the biology and flow-related ecological requirements of snow trout 

(Schizothorax richardsonii) in Alaknanda and Bhagirathi river basins. 

Depth 

Velocity 

Habitat 

Substratum 

150 

>0.5 m 


Low to high 

(0.5-1.5 m/s) 


glides, 

Boulders, Cobbles, 

Pebbles, 

Gravel 

Incubation and 

larval 

development 

0.1 - 1 m 0.5 - 1.00 m 0.1 - 1.00 m 

Low to medium 

(0.5-1.0 m/s) 

Riffles, glides, closer to 

the banks 

Cobbles, boulders, 

pebbles, gravel 

Low to medium 

(0.5 -1.0 m/s) 

Low gradient riffle 

Glides 

Cobbles, pebbles, 

gravel 

Low 

(0.1-0.5 m/s) 

Back water pools 

and bank 

undercuts 

Cobbles, gravel 

Temperature 4-20 °C 4-20 °C

3. Chaguni carp (Chagunius chagunio) IUCN status: Endangered. 

Chagunius chagunio is a minor carb, distributed in the Ganga and Brahmaputra drainages of northern 

and northeastern India, Nepal and Bangladesh. C. chagunio is generally found in large rivers 

characterised by rocky bottom, clear and fast flowing water, with little or no vegetation and temperature 

ranges between 22°C and 27°C (Edds, 2007). Adults are found in habitats with swift flowing water and 

juveniles prefer moderate flow. It is a bottom feeder and attains a total length of 45 cm (Menon, 1999). 

Omnivorous in feeding habits, its diet largely consists of aquatic insects, crustaceans and detritus. It is 

a migratory species, migrates upstream for spawning during April to June (Shrestha, 1999). Habitat of 

this species is being degraded in its native ranges due to deforestation and illegal fishing techniques, 

dams, sand quarry and mining (IUCN, 2011). 

Table 7.9 Summary of the biology and flow-related ecological requirements of chaguni carp 

(Chagunius chagunio) in Alaknanda and Bhagirathi river basins. 


Incubation 

and larval 

development 

Depth >1.0 m 0.5 - 1 m 0.4 - 1.00 m 0.4 - 1.00 m 

Velocity 

Medium 

(0.1-0.5 m/s) 

Habitat Pools, riffles 

Substratum 

Boulders, cobbles, 

pebbles, 

gravel, 

sand 

Low to medium 

(0.05-0.2 m/s) 

Pools, closer to the 

banks 


pebbles, gravel, 

sand, leaf litter 

Low to medium 

(0.05-0.2 m/s) 


and bank undercuts 

Boulders undercut, 

cobbles, pebbles 

Low 

(0.05- 0.1 m/s) 

Back water 

pools and bank 

undercuts 

Boulders 

undercut, 

cobbles, 

pebbles 

Temperature 22 - 27 °C 22 - 27 °C < 20 °C < 20 °C 

Dissolved O2 8-10 mg/l 

Large portion of 

8-10 mg/l 8-12 mg/l 8-12 mg/l 

Food 

benthic 

invertebrates, 

crustaceans, 

detritus 

benthic invertebrates, 

Not applicable 

detritus 

Diatoms 

Breeding period April to June 

Passage 

This species is a migrant species, moves from river to upstreams and adjoin 

requirement streams for spawning. 

Migration timings April to June 

Migration cues 

Other flow- 

Movement is believed to be triggered by the variation in water temperature and 

flow. 

related 

needs 

Flow may be a crucial factor for the migration of this species. 

151

4. Indian torrent cat fish (Amblyceps mangois) – IUCN status: Endangered. 

Amblyceps mangois is a small cat fish belonging to the family Amblyceipitidae. It was described from 

the Kosi River, a tributary of the Ganges river (Hamilton, 1822). This species was previously thought to 

be very widespread and variable in form, ranging from the Indus river eastwards to the northern part of 

the Malayan Peninsula (Hora, 1933). However, Ng and Kottelat (2000) restrict A. mangois to the 

northern part of the Indian subcontinent. A. mangois is generally found in fast flowing upland streams 

with rocky bottom, clear and fast flowing water. It is a bottom dwelling cat fish, feeds largely on aquatic 

insects and attains a total length of 12.5 cm (Talwar and Jhingran, 1991). The major threats to this 

species are habitat modification via the removal of river bed materials substrate (for construction) and 

over fishing as incidental bycatch (Prasad et al. 1997; IUCN, 2011). 

Table 7.10 Summary of the biology and flow-related ecological requirements of Indian torrent 

cat fish (Amblyceps mangois) in Alaknanda and Bhagirathi river basins. 

152 



larval 

development 

Depth 0.5 - 1.5 m 0.2 – 1.0 m >0.5 m 0.2 – 0.10 m 

Velocity 

Habitat 

Substratum 

Medium 

(0.1-1.0 m/s) 

Run, Pools, 

backwater pools 

Cobbles, 

pebbles, gravels 

Low 

(0.05 - 0.1 m/s) 

Pools, backwater 

pools 


gravels, sand 

Medium 

(0.1-1.0 m/s) 

Run, backwater 

pools 

Cobbles, 

pebbles, gravels 

Low 

(0.05 - 0.1 m/s) 

Run, backwater 

pools 

Cobbles, 

pebbles, 

gravels, sand 


5. Sucker throat cat fish (Pseudecheneis sulcatus) - IUCN status: Vulnerable. 

Pseudecheneis sulcatus is distributed in the Himalayan foothills of the Ganges and Brahmaputra River 

drainage in India. This species is found in swift hillstream, typically with torrential areas and riffles and a 

substrate of coarse gravel and fine sand. It is a carnivore and predates mostly on benthic aquatic 

insects. This species attains a total length of 20 cm (Menon, 1999). Construction of dams, shifting 

cultivation and destructive fishing are the major threats to this species. 

Table 7.11 Summary of the biology and flow-related ecological requirements of Sucker throat 

cat fish (Pseudecheneis sulcatus) in Alaknanda and Bhagirathi river basins. 


Incubation 

and larval 

development 

Depth 0.5 – 1.5 m 0.5 – 1.0 m 0.5 – 1.0 m 0.5 – 1.0 m 

Velocity 

Habitat 

Substratum 

low to high 

(0.1-1.5 m/s) 

Riffles, cascades, 

glides 


gravely 

beds 

Low to medium 

(0.1-1.0 m/s) 


glides 


gravely 

beds 

Low to medium 

(0.1 -1 m/s) 

Riffles, run Run 

Pebbles and 

gravels 

Low to medium 

(>0.1 m/s) 

Pebbles and 

gravels 


survey report indicates that this species is suffering declines in parts of its range. A considerable 

decline in the population in southern West Bengal of 29.2% over four decades from 1960 to 2000 has 

been reported (Mishra et al. 2009). 

Table 7.12 Summary of the biology and flow-related ecological requirements of Goonch 

(Bagarius bagarius) in Alaknanda and Bhagirathi river basin. 

Depth 

Velocity 

Habitat 

Substratum 

154 



larval 

development 

> 1.0 m 

1.0 – 1.5 m 0.25 – 0.5 m 0.25 – 0.5 m 

low to high 

(0.1-1.5 m/s) 

Low to medium 

(0.1-1 m/s) 

Low to medium 

(0.1 -1 m/s) 

Low to medium 

(0.1-1 m/s) 

Riffles, pools Riffles, pools, glides pools, riffle Pools and bank 

undercuts 

Cobbles, 

boulders, 

pebbles, also 

stony to gravely 

beds 


pebbles, also stony 

to gravely 

beds 

Fine gravel Cobbles, 

boulders, 

pebbles, also 


beds 

fine gravel 

Temperature 18°C - 25°C 18°C - 25°C 18 - 20 °C 18 - 20 °C 

Dissolved O2 6-10 mg/l 6-10 mg/l 8-12 mg/l 8-12 mg/l 

Benthic insects, Benthic invertebrate Not applicable Not known 

Food 

fishes, frog, larvae, worms, fish 

crustaceans fry 

Breeding period July to August 

Passage 

requirement 

Migratory fish, requires very strong current and turbid water. 

Migration timings Upstream migration begins close to the peak of flood 

Migration cues Monsoon flow 

Other flow- They are specialized in torrential flow; it may be a crucial factor for spawning of 

related 

needs 

this species. 

7. Hillstream cat fish (Glyptothorax cavia) – IUCN status: Endangered. 

This catfish inhabits montane regions under stones and rocks. It is distributed in the headwaters of 

Himalaya. It is a specialized hillstream cat fish and prefers riffles and cascade habitats with torrential 

flows. It is carnivorous and predates mostly on benthic aquatic insects. It attains a total length of 16.5 

cm (Menon, 1999). Main threats to this species are siltation, boulders and gravel extraction, sand 

mining etc.

Table 7.13 Summary of the biology and flow-related ecological requirements of hillstream cat 

fish (Glyptothorax cavia) in Alaknanda and Bhagirathi river basins. 


Incubation 

and larval 

development 

Depth 0.2 - 0.5 m 0.2 – 0.5 m 0.2 – 0.5 m 0.1 – 0.20 m 

Velocity 

Habitat 

Substratum 

low to high 

(0.1-1.5 m/s) 

Riffles, 

cascades, glides 

Cobbles, 

pebbles, gravely 

beds 

Low to medium 

(0.1-1.0 m/s) 


glides 


gravely 

beds 

Low to medium 

(0.1 -1 m/s) 

Riffles, Run Run 

Low to 

medium 

(>0.1 m/s) 

Pebbles and gravels Pebbles and 

gravels 


Table 7.14 Summary of the biology and flow-related ecological requirements of hillstream cat 

fish (Glyptothorax telchitta) in Alaknanda and Bhagirathi river basins. 

156 


Incubation 

and larval 

development 

Depth 0.2 - 0.5 m 0.2 – 0.5 m 0.2 – 0.5 m 0.1 – 0.20 m 

Velocity 

Habitat 

Substratum 

low to high 

(0.1-1.5 m/s) 


glides 

Cobbles, 

pebbles, gravely 

beds 

Low to medium 

(0.1-1.0 m/s) 


glides 


gravely 

beds 

Low to medium 

(0.1 -1 m/s) 

Riffles, Run Run 

Pebbles and gravels 

Low to medium 

(>0.1 m/s) 

Pebbles and 

gravels 


Table 7.15 Summary of the biology and flow-related ecological requirements of Chola barb 

(Puntius chola) in Alaknanda and Bhagirathi river basins. 

Depth 

Velocity 

Habitat 

Substratum 


0.5 - 1.0 m 

Low to medium 

(0.05-0.2 m/s) 

0.5 – 1.0 m 0.5 - 1.0 m >0.5 m 

Low to medium 

(0.05-0.2 m/s) 

pools, Runs, Pools, closer to the 

banks 

Cobbles, 

Pebbles, 

Gravel, 

Sand 




Low to medium 




Cobbles, pebbles 

Incubation 

and larval 

development 

Low 

>0.05 m/s) 

Back water 

pools and 

bank 

undercuts 

Boulders 

undercut, 

Cobbles, 

pebbles 


Dissolved O2 6-8 mg/l 6-8 mg/l 8 mg/l 8 mg/l 

Food 


benthic 

invertebrates and 

detritus 

Breeding period Not known 

Passage 

requirement 

Migration 

timings 

Non migrant 

benthic 


detritus 

Migration cues - 

Other flowrelated 

needs 

- 

- 

Not applicable Diatoms 

10. Olive barb (Puntius sarana) – IUCN status: Vulnerable. 

This barb is distributed in all northern and northeast Indian rivers and tanks. It attains a length of 31 cm. 

It breeds during monsoon in running waters amongst submerged boulders and vegetation (Talwar and 

Jhingran, 1991). Spawning occurs in two stages once between May to mid September but prominent in 

June and the second spawning time is the months of August and September (Chakraborty et al., 2007). 

It forms schools in groups of four or five to several dozens (Pethiyagoda, 1991). P. sarana feeds on 

aquatic insects, fish, algae and shrimps. It spawns in running waters among submerged boulders and 

157

vegetation and spawns in running waters among submerged boulders and vegetation (Talwar and 

Jhingran, 1991). 

Table 7.16 Summary of the biology and flow-related ecological requirements of Olive barb 

(Puntius sarana) in Alaknanda and Bhagirathi river basin. 

158 


Incubation 

and larval 

development 

Depth >1.0 m 0.5 - 1 m 0.4 - 1.00 m 0.4 - 1.00 m 

Velocity 

Habitat 

Substratum 

Medium 

(0.1-0.5 m/s) 

Low to medium 

(0.05-0.2 m/s) 

pools, Riffles, Pools, closer to the 

banks 

Boulders, 

Cobbles, 

Pebbles, 

Gravel, 

Sand 




Low to medium 

(0.05-0.2 m/s) 




Cobbles, pebbles 

Low 

(0.05- 0.1 

m/s) 

Back water 

pools and 

bank 

undercuts 

Boulders 

undercut, 

Cobbles, 

pebbles 



Food 


benthic 


crustaceans, 

detritus, plant 

matters 

benthic 


detritus 

Breeding period May to June; August - September 

Passage 

requirement 

Migration 

timings 

Non migrant 



needs 

- 

- 

Not applicable Diatoms

11. Gotyla garra (Garra gotyla gotyla) – IUCN status: Vulnerable. 

Garra gotyla gotyla is a small sucker fish and it has a wide distribution all along the Himalaya, Chota- 

Nagpur plateau and the Vindhaya-Satpura mountains of the Indian Peninsula, Uttarakhand (Dehra Dun, 

Tehri, Pauri, Uttarkashi, Chamoli, Nainital, Almora, Pithoragarh), Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, 

Chattisgarh and Jharkand (Talwar and Jhingran, 1991). This species attains a length of 14 cm. This 

species inhabits swift flowing streams with bedrock and boulders and they are substrate specialist. It is 

herbivorous, bottom feeder and feeds largely on algae and detritus (Sharma, 1990). Though it is wildly 

distributed, removal of boulders, sand mining, siltation and damming are the major threat to this 

species. 

Table 7.17 Summary of the biology and flow-related ecological requirements of Gotyla garra 

(Garra gotyla gotyla) in Alaknanda and Bhagirathi river basins. 


Incubation 

and larval 

development 

Depth 0.5 - 1.0 m 0.5 - 1 m 0.4 - 1.00 m 0.4 - 1.00 m 

Velocity 

Habitat 

Substratum 

Low to high 

(0.5-1.5 m/s) 


glides, 

Boulders, 

Cobbles, 

Pebbles, 

Gravel 

Low to medium 

(0.5-1.0 m/s) 

Riffles, glides, closer 

to the banks 



Low to medium 

(0.5 -1.0 m/s) 


Glides 


gravel 

Low 

(0.1-0.5 m/s) 

Back water 


undercuts 


Temperature 18 - 24 °C 18 - 24 °C 18- 20 °C 18- 20 °Cs 


Food 


periphytic algae 

and diatoms. 

Breeding period April to September 

Passage 

requirement 

Migration 

timings 



needs 

Non migrant 

- 

Periphytic algae and 

diatoms. 


They require torrential flows; it may be a crucial factor for survival of this species. 

159

11. Lamta Garra (Garra lamta) – IUCN status: Vulnerable. 

Garra lamta is a small sucker fish and it has a restricted distribution in northern and north eastern 

Himalaya and is reported from Assam, Bihar, Darjeeling, Kumaon Himalaya (IUCN, 2011). This species 

attains a total length of 13.4 cm. Like Gotyla stone sucker, this species is also a habitat specialist and 

inhabits swift flowing streams with bedrock and boulders. It is found in tropical temperature (24°C - 

27°C). It is herbivorous and feeds largely on algae and detritus. Removal of boulders, sand mining, 

siltation and damming are the major threats to this species. 

Table 7.18 Summary of the biology and flow-related ecological requirements of Lamta garra 

(Garra lamta) in Alaknanda and Bhagirathi river basins. 

160 


Incubation 

and larval 

development 

Depth 0.5 - 1.0 m 0.5 - 1 m 0.4 - 1.00 m 0.4 - 1.00 m 

Velocity 

Habitat 

Substratum 

Low to high 

(0.5-1.5 m/s) 


glides, 

Boulders, 

Cobbles, 

Pebbles, 

Gravel 

Low to medium 

(0.5-1.0 m/s) 


to the banks 



Low to medium 

(0.5 -1.0 m/s) 


Glides 


gravel 

Low 

(0.1-0.5 m/s) 

Back water 

pools and 

bank 

undercuts 

Cobbles, 

gravel 

Temperature 24 - 27 °C 24 - 27 °C 20 - 24 °C 20 - 24 °C 


Food 



and diatoms. 


Passage 

requirement 

Non migrant 

Periphytic algae and 

diatoms. 

Migration timings - 



needs 


They require torrential flows; it may be a crucial factor for survival of this species.

12. Gangetic latia (Crossocheilus latius) – IUCN status: Vulnerable. 

In India, Crossochilus latius is reported from drainages of the Ganga and Brahmaputra in northern 

India; Mahanadi River drainage, Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur, Mizoram, Meghalaya, Tripura, India. It is 

a bottom dowelling small cyprinids, mostly found in flowing streams with gravel bed. They are 

herbivorous and largely feed on periphytic algae and diatoms. This species attains a total length of 12.5 

cm and it is highly sought after aquarium trade. They are found in tropical temperature (22°C - 27°C). 

Removal of boulders, sand mining, siltation and damming are the major threats to this species. 

Table 7.19 Summary of the biology and flow-related ecological requirements of Gangetic latia 

(Crossocheilus latius) in Alaknanda and Bhagirathi river basins. 



larval 

development 

Depth 0.5 - 1.0 m 0.5 - 1 m 0.4 - 1.00 m 0.4 - 1.00 m 

Velocity Low to high 

(0.5-1.5 m/s) 

Habitat Riffles, pools, 

glides, 

Substratum Boulders, 

Cobbles, 

Pebbles, 

Gravel 

Low to medium 

(0.5-1.0 m/s) 


to the banks 



Low to medium 

(0.5 -1.0 m/s) 


Glides 


gravel 

Low 

(0.1-0.5 m/s) 

Back water 


undercuts 


Temperature 22 - 27 °C 22 - 27 °C 18- 22 °C 18- 22 °Cs 


Food Large portion of Periphytic algae and Not applicable Diatoms 


and diatoms. 

diatoms. 


Passage 

requirement 

Non migrant 



Other flow- They are specialized in torrential flow; it may be a crucial factor for survival of this 

related 

needs 

species. 

13. Necktie loach (Botia dario) – IUCN status: Vulnerable. 

Botia dario is a popular aquarium in the ornamental trade. The body is marked with seven to eight 

attractive oblique vertical bands, descending from back to abdomen. It is distributed in the Ganga and 

Brahmaputra drainages in India. It is a bottom dowelling species, mostly found in clear mountain 

streams with gravel bed. It is omnivorous in feeding habits and it feeds on aquatic insects larvae, 

161

worms, detritus etc. This species attains a total length of 9 cm and prefer temperature 23°C - 26°C. 

Major threats to this species are overexploitation for international ornamental fish trade, habitat 

modifications due to sand mining and gravel extractions. 

Table 7.20 Summary of the biology and flow-related ecological requirements of Necktie loach 

(Botia dario) in Alaknanda and Bhagirathi river basins. 

162 



larval 

development 

Depth 0.5 – 1.0 m 0.25 – 0.5 m 0.25 – 0.5 m 0.25 – 0.5 m 

Velocity low to high 

(0.1-1.5 m/s) 


glides 

Substratum Cobbles, 

boulders, 

pebbles, also 


beds 

Low to medium 

(0.1-1 m/s) 


glides 



to gravely 

beds 

Low to medium 

(0.1 -1 m/s) 

Low to medium 

(0.1-1 m/s) 

pools, glides Pools and bank 

undercuts 

Fine gravel Cobbles, boulders, 


to gravely 

beds 

fine gravel 

Temperature 23- 26 °C 23- 26 °C 18 - 20 °C 18 - 20 °C 


Food Benthic 

invertebrate 

larvea, worms, 

algae etc. 

Benthic 

invertebrate larvae, 

worms 

Not applicable Not known 

Breeding period Probably May to September. Gravid females were found during July and August 

Passage 

requirement 

Migration 

timings 

Non migrant species. 



needs 

- 

They require torrential flows; it may be a crucial factor for survival of this 

species.

14. Multi-banded loach (Schistura multifasciatus) – IUCN status: Vulnerable. 

Schistura multifasciata is disturbed in the Himalayan foothills of the Ganges River drainage in India and 

Nepal. Found in shallow, gently flowing clear streams/creeks and riffles, over gravel or pebbles. It is a 

bottom dweller and feeds mostly on worms and detritus. It is threatened by ornamental fish trade and 

from declining habitat quality. This species attains a total length of 12 cm and prefers temperature 18°C 

- 25°C. Major threats to this species are overexploitation for international ornamental fish trade, habitat 

modification due to sand mining and gravel extractions. 

Table 7.21 Summary of the biology and flow-related ecological requirements of multibanded 

loach (Schistura multifasciata) in Alaknanda and Bhagirathi river basins. 



larval 

development 

Depth 0.5 – 1.0 m 0.25 – 0.5 m 0.25 – 0.5 m 0.25 – 0.5 m 

Velocity low to high 

(0.1-1.5 m/s) 


glides 

Substratum Cobbles, boulders, 


to gravely 

beds 

Low to medium 

(0.1-1 m/s) 

Low to medium 

(0.1 -1 m/s) 

Low to medium 

(0.1-1 m/s) 

Riffles, pools, glides Pools, glides Pools and bank 

undercuts 


pebbles, also stony to 

gravely 

beds 

Fine gravel Cobbles, 

boulders, 

pebbles, also 


beds 

fine gravel 

Temperature 18°C - 25°C 18°C - 25°C 18 - 20 °C 18 - 20 °C 


Food Benthic 

Benthic invertebrate Not applicable Not known 

invertebrate larvea, 

worms, algae etc. 

larvae, worms 

Breeding period Gravid females were found during July and August 

Passage 

requirement 

Non migrant species. 



Other flow-related 

needs 

They require torrential flows; it may be a crucial factor for survival of this species. 

7.4.1. Estimation of Minimum Environment Flow based on requirements of aquatic biodiversity 

especially fishes 

A total of 66 species have been reported from the habitat of golden mahseer (Tor putitora) in 

the Alaknanda and Bhagirathi Basins. Environmental water requirement of golden mahseer was 

observed to be greater than any other fish species that occurs in the mahseer zone. Moreover, 

maximum 11 species were found at a sampling point in the mahseer zone with an average of seven 

species per sampling station. 

163

There are 28 Hydro Electric Projects that either exist or are under construction or proposed in 

the exclusive mahseer zone of the Alaknanda and Bhagirathi basins. The mahseer zone is already 

fragmented and is likely to fragment further due to proposed or under construction HEPs. 

Table 7.22 Details of Hydro Electric Projects existing/under construction/proposed in the 

exclusive Mahseer Zone. 

164 

S.No. Projects site Name River/Stream/Tributary Name 

1. Bhilangana Bhilangana 

2. Dewal Kail ganga 

3. Maneri bhali I Bhagirathi 

4. Maneri bhali II Bhagirathi 

5. Rajwakti Nandakini 

6. Tehri stage-I Bhagirathi 

7. Vanala Nandakini 

8. Bhilangana-III Bhilangana 

9. Kail ganga Kail ganga 

10. Koteshwar Alaknanda 

11. Lohari Nagpala Bhagirathi 

12. Singoli Bhatwari Mandakini 

13. Srinagar Alaknanda 

14. Balganga-II Balganga 

15. Bhilangana-IIA Bhilangana 

16. Bhilangana-IIB Bhilangana 

17. Bhilangana-IIC Bhilangana 

18. Bowla Nandprayag Alaknanda 

19. Devsari Pinder 

20. Devali Nandakini 

21. Kotbudhakedar Balganga 

22. Kotlibhel IA(Bhagirathi) Bhagirathi 

23. Kotlibhel IB (Alaknanda) Alaknanda 

24. Kotlibhel II Ganga 

25. Melkhet Pinder 

26. Nandprayag Langasu Alaknanda 

27. Tehri stage-II Bhagirathi 

28. Vishnugad Pipalkoti Alaknanda

A total of 27 species have been reported from the exclusive habitat of snow trout (Schizothorax 

richardsonii) in the Alaknanda and Bhagirathi basins. Environmental water requirement of snow trout 

was observed to be either equal or greater than any other fish species that occurs in the exclusive 

snow trout zone. Moreover, maximum 6 species were found at a sampling point in the exclusive snow 

trout zone with an average of four species per sampling station. There are 18 Hydro Electric Projects 

that either exist or under construction or proposed in the exclusive snow trout zone of the Alaknanda 

and Bhagirathi basins. Some of the snow trout habitats in the basin have already been fragmented by 

HEPs. Invasive brown trout was also found to be expanding its range in the exclusive snow trout zone, 

possibly due to climate change or changes in the environmental flow or barrier effect caused by existing 

HEPs. 

Table 7.23 Details of Hydro Electric Projects existing / under construction / proposed in the 

exclusive snow trout zone. 

Sl.No Projects site Name River/Stream/Tributary Name 

1 Agunda thati Dharam ganga 

2 Pilangad Pilangad 

3 Birahi ganga Birahi ganga 

4 Asiganga-I Asiganga 

5 Asiganga-II Asiganga 

6 Asiganga-III Asiganga 

7 Bharon Ghati(I,II) including Harsil Bhagirathi 

8 Birahi ganga-I Birahi ganga 

9 Birahi ganga-II Birahi ganga 

10 Gohana Tal Birahi ganga 

11 Jalandharigad Jalandhari 

12 Jhala koti Balganga 

13 Pala Maneri Bhagirathi 

14 Pilangad-II Pilangad 

15 Suwarigad Suwarigad 

16 Urgam-II Kalpganga 

17 Kaliganga-II Kaliganga 

18 Madhmesheshwar Madhmesheshwar 

Minimum environmental flow required in the dry zones of the various Hydro Electric Projects of 

the Alaknanda and Bhagirathi Basin was calculated after fulfilling the observed habitat requirements of 

certain fishes mentioned above in this report. The habitat rating method has been combined with 

165

Building Block Method for estimating the minimum ecological flow for the river. In habitat rating method, 

the final outputs, usually in the form of habitat-discharge curves for the target biota, have been used to 

predict optimum discharges as environmental flow recommendations. The suggested minimum 

environmental flow have been given Table 7.24 & 7.25. As expected, there is a strong correlation 

between the flow and species richness (Fig. 7.2, R 2 =0.5007, p

Table 7.24 Minimum flow required to sustain riverine ecology with special reference to fishes in 

the dry zones of HEPs in the Alaknanda and Bhagirathi basins. 

Month Percentage of Mean Seasonal 

Flow suggested (%) (Cumec/day) 

June 30 

July 30 

August 30 

September 30 

October 25 

November 20 

December 20 

January 20 

February 20 

March 20 

April 25 

May 30 

Daily requirements of minimum environmental flow (MEF) has been calculated using Mean 

Annual Flow (Fig. 7.3) and also using mean monthly flows (Fig. 7.4) at Kotli Bhel IA. Both these flows 

were checked to determine whether the calculated flows provided the similar environmental and 

seasonal cues (Fig. 7.5) to fishes to maintain their normal breeding and migratory behavior or not. 

Similar analysis were also carried out for all sites of HEPs in the basin. It was found that calculated 

flows with respect to Mean Monthly Flows are better than flows calculated using Mean Annual Flows. 

Therefore, flows calculated with reference to Mean Monthly Flow have been suggested as the Minimum 

Environmental Flows required to fulfill the ecological requirements of dry zones. 

Fig. 7.3 Calculated Minimum Environmental Flow (MEF) with reference to Mean Annual Flow (i.e. 

20% of MAF) at Kotlibhel IA. 

Calculated MEF (Cumec/day) 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec 

167

Fig. 7.4 Calculated Minimum Environmental Flow (MEF) with reference to Mean Monthly Flow 

(i.e. 20%, 25% and 30% of MMF depending upon season) at Kotlibhel IA. 

Fig. 7.5 Observed Mean Monthly Flows during past few years at Kotibhel IA (IIT-R Report, 2011). 

168 

Suggested Minimum Environmental 

Flow (Cumec/day) 

Observed Flow (cumec/day) 

800 

700 

600 

500 

400 

300 

200 

100 

250.00 

200.00 

150.00 

100.00 

0 

50.00 

0.00 

Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec 

Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

Table 7.25 Suggested Environmental Minimum Flow required to sustain riverine ecology with 

special reference to fishes in the dry zones of HEPs in the Alaknanda and Bhagirathi Basin 

(cumec/day, Data source: IIT-R Report, 2011). 



1 Asiganga-III 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.18 0.99 2.55 5.13 5.73 3.00 0.48 0.12 0.08 

2 Agunda thati 0.84 0.86 0.84 0.93 1.26 1.62 2.43 3.18 2.43 1.28 0.76 0.86 

3 Bhilangana-III 1.12 1.14 1.14 1.38 2.79 5.34 9.81 11.52 6.90 2.20 1.10 1.18 

4 Bhilangana 7.92 8.12 8.04 8.75 11.82 15.39 23.10 30.24 22.95 12.00 7.30 8.22 

5 Lohari Nagpala 1.18 0.98 1.18 3.05 17.25 44.55 89.70 99.87 52.35 8.38 1.96 1.40 

6 Maneri bhali I 1.46 1.22 1.46 3.78 21.36 55.14 111.03 123.63 64.80 10.38 2.44 1.74 

7 Maneri bhali II 1.58 1.32 1.58 4.08 22.95 59.31 119.46 132.99 69.72 11.15 2.62 1.86 

8 Tehri stage-I 19.94 20.12 20.20 24.40 49.14 94.65 173.76 203.79 122.46 39.00 19.46 20.82 

9 Koteshwar 21.26 21.48 21.54 26.05 52.44 100.98 185.40 217.44 130.65 41.60 20.76 22.22 

10 Kotlibhel I A 21.80 22.02 22.10 26.70 53.79 103.56 190.14 222.99 133.98 42.68 21.28 22.78 


2 Birahi ganga II 0.48 0.44 0.50 0.75 1.23 2.04 5.04 7.08 5.79 2.23 0.94 0.70 

3 Bhyunder ganga 0.36 0.32 0.38 0.85 2.49 5.01 7.53 6.81 4.62 2.05 1.02 0.70 

4 Phata Byung 1.10 1.22 1.32 1.70 2.70 4.74 11.91 15.90 9.54 3.20 1.50 1.60 

5 Rajwakti 1.16 1.08 1.20 1.80 3.00 4.92 12.18 17.16 14.04 5.38 2.26 1.70 

7 Singoli Bhatwari 2.62 2.78 3.42 5.53 8.97 14.40 37.56 53.01 32.64 10.43 4.60 3.84 

8 Alaknanda 1.60 1.38 1.68 3.70 11.01 22.02 33.12 29.91 20.25 9.05 4.52 3.08 

9 Devsari 1.16 1.10 1.20 1.80 2.97 5.25 12.66 17.31 13.65 4.93 2.14 1.50 

10 Vishnuprayag 2.64 2.28 2.80 6.15 18.27 36.60 55.02 49.71 33.63 15.03 7.50 5.12 

12 Vishnugad Pipalkoti 7.36 6.36 7.78 17.10 50.85 101.91 153.21 138.36 93.66 41.83 20.88 14.26 

13 

Nandaprayag 

Langrasu 

9.82 8.48 10.40 22.83 67.86 135.96 204.39 184.62 124.98 55.83 27.86 19.02 

169

7.5 Major findings 

170 

1. Minimum Environmental Flow Required (cumec/day) based on EMC of Rivers, for various 

sites in the Mahseer and Snow Trout zones of the Alaknanda and Bhagirathi Basins based 

on Environmental Management Class of the basins is given below. 


Season I 

(High Flow) 

Season II 


Season III 

(Low Flow) 

Season IV 


1 Asiganga-III 2.53 0.41 0.08 0.15 

2 Agunda thati 1.59 1.11 0.91 0.81 

3 Bhilangana-III 5.28 1.92 1.24 1.20 

4 Bhilangana 15.04 10.46 8.63 7.63 

5 Lohari Nagpala 44.14 7.30 1.46 2.66 

6 Maneri bhali I 54.64 9.05 1.81 3.29 

7 Maneri bhali II 58.78 9.72 1.95 3.55 

8 Tehri stage-I 93.57 34.01 21.92 21.28 

9 Koteshwar 99.83 36.28 23.38 22.72 

10 Kotlibhel I A 102.38 37.21 23.98 23.28 


2 Birahi ganga II 3.08 1.94 0.67 0.65 


4 Phata Byung 6.51 2.79 1.47 1.48 

5 Rajwakti 7.46 4.69 1.61 1.57 


8 Alaknanda 16.90 7.89 2.67 3.23 

9 Devsari 7.53 4.29 1.55 1.57 

10 Vishnuprayag 28.08 13.10 4.43 5.36 


13 

Nandaprayag 

Langrasu 

104.32 48.68 16.48 19.90

2. Minimum Environmental Flow Required (MEFR) to sustain riverine ecology with special 

reference to fishes in the dry zones of HEPs in the Alaknanda and Bhagirathi Basin 

(cumec/day) based on ecological requirements of fishes. 



1 Asiganga-III 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.18 0.99 2.55 5.13 5.73 3.00 0.48 0.12 0.08 

2 Agunda thati 0.84 0.86 0.84 0.93 1.26 1.62 2.43 3.18 2.43 1.28 0.76 0.86 

3 Bhilangana-III 1.12 1.14 1.14 1.38 2.79 5.34 9.81 11.52 6.90 2.20 1.10 1.18 

4 Bhilangana 7.92 8.12 8.04 8.75 11.82 15.39 23.10 30.24 22.95 12.00 7.30 8.22 

5 Lohari Nagpala 1.18 0.98 1.18 3.05 17.25 44.55 89.70 99.87 52.35 8.38 1.96 1.40 

6 Maneri bhali I 1.46 1.22 1.46 3.78 21.36 55.14 111.03 123.63 64.80 10.38 2.44 1.74 

7 Maneri bhali II 1.58 1.32 1.58 4.08 22.95 59.31 119.46 132.99 69.72 11.15 2.62 1.86 

8 Tehri stage-I 19.94 20.12 20.20 24.40 49.14 94.65 173.76 203.79 122.46 39.00 19.46 20.82 

9 Koteshwar 21.26 21.48 21.54 26.05 52.44 100.98 185.40 217.44 130.65 41.60 20.76 22.22 

10 Kotlibhel I A 21.80 22.02 22.10 26.70 53.79 103.56 190.14 222.99 133.98 42.68 21.28 22.78 


2 Birahi ganga II 0.48 0.44 0.50 0.75 1.23 2.04 5.04 7.08 5.79 2.23 0.94 0.70 

3 Bhyunder ganga 0.36 0.32 0.38 0.85 2.49 5.01 7.53 6.81 4.62 2.05 1.02 0.70 

4 Phata Byung 1.10 1.22 1.32 1.70 2.70 4.74 11.91 15.90 9.54 3.20 1.50 1.60 

5 Rajwakti 1.16 1.08 1.20 1.80 3.00 4.92 12.18 17.16 14.04 5.38 2.26 1.70 

7 Singoli Bhatwari 2.62 2.78 3.42 5.53 8.97 14.40 37.56 53.01 32.64 10.43 4.60 3.84 

8 Alaknanda 1.60 1.38 1.68 3.70 11.01 22.02 33.12 29.91 20.25 9.05 4.52 3.08 

9 Devsari 1.16 1.10 1.20 1.80 2.97 5.25 12.66 17.31 13.65 4.93 2.14 1.50 

10 Vishnuprayag 2.64 2.28 2.80 6.15 18.27 36.60 55.02 49.71 33.63 15.03 7.50 5.12 

12 Vishnugad Pipalkoti 7.36 6.36 7.78 17.10 50.85 101.91 153.21 138.36 93.66 41.83 20.88 14.26 

13 

Nandaprayag 

Langrasu 

9.82 8.48 10.40 22.83 67.86 135.96 204.39 184.62 124.98 55.83 27.86 19.02 

171

172 

3. It is suggested to use the flows, whichever is maximum from the above suggested flows (Point 

No. 1 & 2). 

4. Minimum Environmental Flow Required (MEFR) at the dry zones of HEPs were calculated only 

for those river stretches where flow data was available. However, the same flow is suggested 

for all other river stretches which are having similar flow/biodiversity values or else follow the 

methodological approach similar to Point No.1. In that case, MEFR should be 21.5% of Mean 

Seasonal Flow of river if it falls in the mahseer or trout zones. MEFR should be 14.5% of Mean 

Seasonal Flow if the river stretch falls in the ‘no fish zone’. 

5. The suggested minimum environmental flows in the Point No.1 & 2, would provide the 

necessary environmental cues to trigger the breeding and migration behavior of Himalayan 

fishes. Most importantly, the suggested Minimum Environmental Flows are only for the dry 

zones of the HEPs and not for the entire stretch of the rivers. 

6. Minimum environmental flows suggested above need to be reviewed periodically in relation to 

changes in the population status of fishes that occur in the stretch. Periodic review may be 

carried out once in every five years with inputs from professional institutions such as National 

Institute of Hydrology, IIT-Roorkee, National Bureau of Fish Genetic Resources, Directorate of 

Cold Water Fisheries Research, Local Universities etc.

Chapter 8 – Conclusions and Recommendations 

This report is an outcome of the study conducted in response to the directives of the Ministry of 

Environment and Forests (MoEF) vide letter no. F 8/9/2008-FC dated 23 rd July 2010 (Annexure---) on 

cumulative impacts of Hydro Electric Projects in Alaknanda and Bhagirathi river basins in Uttarakhand. 

Aims and methodology 

• The focus of the study included assessment of the baseline status of rare, endangered and 

threatened (RET) species of flora and fauna; identification of the critically important habitats for 

RET species in the two basins; delineation of river stretches critical for conservation of RET 

aquatic species; and assessment of the minimum flows for ecological sustainability of the two 

rivers. 

• The study adapted the globally applied cumulative environmental impact assessment (CEIA) 

approach for assessing impacts of existing and proposed Hydro Electric Projects within 

Alaknanda and Bhagirathi basins on aquatic and terrestrial biodiversity values. This 

assessment has led to the evaluation of the cumulative impacts of Hydro Electric Projects at 

the landscape level using the sub-basin as a smallest landscape unit. 

• The entire Alaknanda and Bhagirathi basins have been categorised into 18 sub-basins based 

on drainage profile of rivers. There are 10 sub-basins within the Alaknanda basin, seven within 

Bhagirathi basin and one in Ganga basin. 

• This assessment takes into account the cumulative impact of 70 Hydro Electric Projects of 

which 17 are existing, 14 are under-construction and 39 are proposed. 

8.1 Aquatic component 

8.1.1 Aquatic biodiversity profile 

a) Of the 76 fish species found in the Alaknanda-Bhagirathi basins, a total of 66 species of 

fishes have been reported from the study area based on the data collected from the zones 

of influence of 70 Hydro Electric Projects. Sixteen species are globally threatened and 17 

species are either long distance or local migrants. 

b) The Cyprinidae is the major dominant family along with presence of other families like, 

Balitoridae and Sisoridae. Overall, the community structure in the basin is characterized by 

a few specialized cyprinid types, specifically the snow trouts (Schizothorax spp.), the 

mahseers (Tor spp.) the lesser barils (Barilius spp.), the hillstream loaches (Nemacheilus 

spp.) and the sisorid torrent cat fishes (Glyptothorax spp.). 

c) The three sub-basins viz. Ganga, Alaknanda I and Bhagirathi IV sub-basin have "very high" 

fish biodiversity values (Fig. 5.1). The Ganga sub-basin harbours 56 fish species of the 76 

species, including all16 threatened species and the two endemic species, recorded from 

the Alaknanda and Bhagirathi basins. The fish biodiversity value of this sub-basin is the 

highest among all the 18 sub-basins in the study area. 

173

174 

d) The Alaknanda I sub-basin harbours 64% of the total fish species in the study area. Out of 

the 16 threatened species in the study area, 12 species occur in this sub-basin and it is 

home to both the endemic species found in the study area. The Bhagirathi IV sub-basin 

harbours 63% of the total fish species in the study area and 12 species out of the 16 

threatened species in the two major basins. 

e) The Bhilangana, Balganga, Mandakini, Pindar, Nandakini, Bhagirathi II, Bhagirathi III, 

Alaknanda II, Birahi ganga and Asiganga sub-basins harbour "high" fish biodiversity values 

largely due to the presence of breeding/congregational sites and migratory pathways for 

species such as golden mahseers and snow trouts. 

f) At least four exotic fish species have been found in the two basins. There is no record of 

fish presence above 2400 masl elevation. 

g) Diverse habitats conducive for breeding and nursery grounds of mahseer, snow trouts etc 

were observed within the Balganga and the Ganga (Nayar) sub-basins. 

h) High diversity of fishes was reported in the Mahseer zone. Sixty-six species were recorded 

in this zone including exotic carps (common, silver and mirror carps), mahseer (golden and 

silver mahseers) snow trouts (Schizothorax sp), Indian barils (Barilius spp.) and hill stream 

loaches (Nemacheilus spp.). 

i) Twenty-seven species were reported from the exclusive trout zone including an exotic 

invasive species, the brown trout. 

j) No fishes were reported from the zone of influence of 24 HEPs located within the high 

altitude ranges. 

k) There was no observation on the presence of otters in the Alaknanda and Bhagirathi 

basins during this study. However, potential otter habitats occur in sub-basin Alaknanda I 

and Ganges. 

8.1.2 Critically important fish habitats 

a. Species diversity of fishes in the Alaknanda and Bhagirathi basin was observed to be 

increasing with increase in flow. It was found that there are two important rivers which are 

rain fed and relatively less disturbed such as Balganga (tributary of Bhagirathi) and Nayar 

(tributary of Ganga). These are important breeding grounds of mahseer and snow trout. 

Both these rivers are rain fed. As the temperature of their water is always relatively warmer 

than of other rivers in the basin, this may be conducive for mahseer and snow trout to 

spawn and rear. Based on this study these two small rivers are recognised as Important 

Aquatic Habitats in the basin, that should not be disturbed by any kinds of developmental 

activity including HEP. These identified critical fish habitats may be considered for 

declaring as ‘Conservation Reserve’. The conservation value of the two critically important 

habitats is reiterated here. 

b. Nayar – Ganges complex: Among all tributaries in the basin, the Nayar River was 

reported to have the highest number of 57 species. The Nayar river is the spring/rain fed 

tributary of the main Ganges adjoining the Alaknanda basin. Many cold water fishes

including mahseer and snow trout were observed breeding in this river at least twice in a 

year especially during 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, eutrophic condition, etc make this river 

more conducive for fishes to breed in the region. Therefore, this river has been identified as 

the critical fish habitat in these basins. 

c. Balganga river – Tehri reservoir complex: An important tributary of Bhagirathi River with 

respect to fishes is Balganga River, which confluence with Bhilangna River and later join 

Tehri Reservoir. This eutrophic Balganga River and Tehri Reservoir complex is reported 

with minimum of 40 species of fishes, highest in the Bhagirathi Basin. Balganga River is 

the only longest spring/rain fed tributary available in Bhagirathi basin. Many cold water 

fishes including snow trout and fragmented population of mahseer were observed to be 

breeding in this river. Heterogeneity in the habitats, relatively warm water and eutrophic 

condition of this river is more conducive for fishes to breed in this river. Therefore, this river 

has also been identified as the critical fish habitat in these basins. 

8.1.3 Impacts on aquatic biodiversity and their habitats 

8.1.3.1 Habitat modification/loss: 

a) Of the 1121 km long stretch of rivers that flow in the entire Alaknanda-Bhagirathi basins, a 

minimum of 526.8 km long river stretch is expected to be affected, if all proposed HEP are 

implemented. This is 47% of total rivers stretch in the entire basin. Therefore, significant 

area of the fish habitat would either be modified or lost due to proposed Hydro Electric 

Projects in the basin. Out of 76 species of fish reported in the entire basin, a total of 66 

species have been reported in the influence zones of HEP. This means that about 87% of 

fish species would be affected, if all proposed Hydro Electric Projects get implemented in 

the basin. 

b) Among 18 sub-basins in the region, the most affected sub-basins with respect to fish 

habitat modification/loss would be Bhagirathi III and IV (71%), Birahi ganga (74%), 

Alaknanda I & II (48%), Mandakini (44%), Balganga (40%) and Nandakini (35%). Although, 

fish was not found in Dhauliganga, nearly 94% of stretch of this river would be affected 

which in turn would adversely impact the downstream fishes in the main Alaknanda River. 

8.1.3.2 Barrier effect 

a) Dam or any construction across rivers is always detrimental to the survival of fishes 

especially of migrants, which use different habitats for completing life history requirements. 

There are a minimum of 17 species of migrant fishes found in the Alaknanda and 

Bhagirathi basins, which include three species of mahseer that are long distance migrants. 

Any obstacle such as dam/barrage across river will hamper normal migratory behaviour of 

these fishes and consequently affect their breeding cycle. Their migration has already been 

obstructed by Tehri dam. Based on literature and observations made in various studies it is 

confirmed that there has been a general decline in the populations of mahseer in the 

upstream of Bhagirathi River due to barrier effect caused by Tehri Dam. 

175

176 

b) Fish passes are often believed to be an appropriate mitigation measure for reducing 

impacts on fish (WCD, 2000), especially migrants. In general, the efficiency of fish passes 

is considered low and fish migrations are severely affected (WCD, 2000). Even when fish 

passes have been installed successfully, migrations can be delayed by the absence of 

better navigational cues, such as strong currents etc. Moreover, the efficiency of fish pass 

in Himalayan Rivers would be highly doubtful if the dam height is more than 16 m. 

8.1.3.3 Changes in sedimentation flows 

a) Changes in the sedimentation flows due to dam/barrier construction especially in 

Himalayan rivers are expected to have an adverse impact on fish habitats. 

b) Most of the fishes in the Alaknanda and Bhagirathi Rivers prefer substratum that are 

pebble, cobble, boulders, gravel, sand and occasionally loamy soil. These substrata are 

common in most stretches. These substrata were also observed to be ideal grounds for 

foraging and spawning of snow trout and many more Himalayan fishes. However, due to 

dam construction there would be changes in the sedimentation flow. Sediments would be 

accumulated in the upstream of dam up to the tail end of submersible zone even though 

there is a provision of silt channel to remove the silt from the upstream of dam. 

c) Submersible zones of Hydro Electric Projects of existing, under construction or proposed 

dams vary from project to project. In some cases, the submersible stretch of river is more 

than 5 km. Just few centimetres of sediment over the natural substratum is more than 

enough to negatively influence the foraging and spawning fishes. It is expected that 

submersible zones of HEPs would be unsuitable for several fishes especially snow trout 

and Himalayan loaches. Therefore, the HEPs with longer stretch of submersible zone but 

without proper silt removal plan would be detrimental to populations of several Himalayan 

fishes such as snow trout and Himalayan loaches. 

d) Sub-basins such as Bhagirathi III & IV, Bhilanganga, Alaknanda I, Pindar and Mandakini 

would be affected mostly due to changes in the sedimentation flow. A minimum 162 km 

long river stretch of fish habitat would be modified due to precipitation of sediments on their 

substratum. 

8.1.3.4 Changes in environmental flows 

a) It is increasingly recognized that the distribution and abundance of riverine species are 

limited by the effects of flow regulation. Three kinds of adverse impacts on the aquatic 

biodiversity are expected because of changes in the natural flow due to HEPs in the 

Alaknanda and Bhagirathi Basin: (i) Stagnated water in the submersible zones of HEPs 

which are not conducive for torrent hill stream/river fishes such as snow trout and 

Himalayan loaches, (ii) Less or no water flow in the dry zones of HEPs which is also 

expected to adversely affect the aquatic biodiversity although it may be mitigated by 

maintaining minimum environment flow and (iii) Changes in the natural flow may also fail to 

provide the natural environmental cues to the aquatic biodiversity to breed or maintain 

annual life histories, but this can again be mitigated by following minimum environmental

flows even though it would help partially to maintain the current status of aquatic 

ecosystem and its biodiversity. 

b) Of the 1121 km long stretch of rivers that flows in the entire Alaknanda-Bhagirathi basin, a 

minimum of 526.8 km long river stretch is expected to be affected due to changes in the 

flows, if all HEP projects are implemented. This is 47% of total river stretches of the entire 

basin. A total of 364 km long stretch of river in the basin (32% of total river stretch) would 

get dry, if minimum flows are not implemented. 

c) Among 18 sub-basins in the region, the most affected sub-basins with respect to flow 

modification would be Dhauliganga, Asiganga, Alaknanda, Balganga, Birahi ganga and 

Mandakini. As far as the otter is concerned, sub-basin Alaknanda I and Ganges are 

potential habitats of otter, although their presence was not reported during this study. 

Changes in the flow may not directly affect the habitat of otter but it would affect their prey 

abundance. 

8.1.3.5 Changes in nutrient flow 

a) Although majority of proposed HEPs are run-of-river projects but 15 HEPs, which would 

have dam, would stop the nutrient flow either for longer period or for a shorter depending 

upon presence of dam or barrage. As per the IIT-Roorkee report (2011), minimum 162.6 

km long stretch of river in the entire basin would be submerged due to various HEPs. 

These submerged rivers would act as nutrient traps. 

b) Nutrient availability is the major environment factor that determines the fish species 

composition in Himalayan rivers. Changes in the nutrient flow would adversely affect the 

downstream fishes and other aquatic biodiversity. Although few species may get 

benefitted due to reservoir water but overall the fish composition in the region would be 

affected. Therefore, changes in the nutrient flow due to HEP would affect the overall 

composition of the fish community in the Alaknanda and Bhagirathi basins. 

8.2 Terrestrial component 

8.2.1 Biodiversity profile and critical habitats 

a) Over 35 mammals, 350 birds and 1000 plants have been reported in these sub-basins. Of 

these, five each of mammals and birds, and 55 plant species are rare, endangered or 

threatened. 

b) Bhagirathi-I, Mandakini, Alaknanda-III, Dhauli ganga, Rishi and Bhyundar ganga subbasins 

have very high terrestrial biodiversity values, particularly due to the presence of 

RET species. Substantial portions of these sub-basins are critically important habitats and 

most of these are encompassed by Protected Areas. RET species such as snow leopard, 

brown bear, musk deer, cheer pheasant and three species of vultures occur in these subbasins. 

c) Snow leopard is extremely rare and occurs only in Bhagirathi-I, Mandakini, Alaknanda –III, 

Bhyundar, Dhauliganga, Rishi ganga, Pindar,and Nandakini sub-basins . Similarly, the 

177

178 

brown bear also occurs in these sub-basins and the eastern most distribution range of 

brown bear in India ends in Alaknanda basin. 

d) The forest types of the Alaknanda basin range from the Himalayan subtropical scrub at 

lower elevations, temperate broad leaved forests in the middle elevations to Subalpine oak 

and conifer forests at ‘tree line’ at the higher elevations whereas that of Bhagirathi basin 

ranges from the Himalayan subtropical scrub at lower elevations to subalpine birchrhododendron 

forests at ‘tree line’. 

e) Bhyundar ganga, Dhauliganga and Rishi ganga sub-basins have the maximum number of 

plant RET species as compared to the rest of sub-basins. 

f) The two basins support over 300 medicinal plants within which highest number (over 150) 

occur in Alaknanda I sub-basin. 

g) Protected Areas such as Gangotri NP, Nanda Devi NP, Valley of Flowers NP, Kedarnath 

WLS and buffer zones of Nanda Devi BR are located in one or more sub-basins and serve 

as critically important habitats for floral and faunal RET species. Sub-basins such as Rishi 

ganga and Bhyundar encompass the Nanda Devi NP and Valley of Flowers NP 

respectively that are globally recognized for their Outstanding Universal Values and hence 

listed as UNESCO World Heritage Sites. These two NPs are well recognised for their 

exceptional natural beauty and for encompassing critically important habitats that maintain 

ecological processes (Appendix 8). Nanda Devi NP is the only PA in India to hold the 

single wild population of Saussurea costus – a Red listed plant species. 

h) Habitats found within the elevation range of 2500-4500 m which connect these PAs are 

also identified as critically important habitats for species such as snow leopard, brown 

bear, musk deer, Asiatic black bear, Himalayan tahr, serow, common leopard, blue sheep, 

as they serve as movement corridors between two important habitats. 

i) The Alaknanda and Bhagirathi sub-basins also harbour certain plant species which are 

endemic to Uttarakhand. Out of the two populations of Catamixis baccharoides found in 

Uttarakhand, one is found within the zone of influence of Kotlibhel II. One of the 

populations of Berberis osmastonii, another endemic species, is found in the ZoI of Melkhet 

Hydro Electric Projects. Caragana sukiensis is Near Endemic with one population found 

area between ZoI of Pala maneri and Bharonghati HEPs in Bhagirathi II sub-basin. These 

areas are critical for the long term conservation of the species mentioned above in the two 

basins. 

8.2.2 Impacts on terrestrial biodiversity and habitats 

a) Of the 70 HEPs, 17 are commissioned projects which have resulted in the total loss of 

about 7126.46 ha of land that includes 2705.04 ha as forest land take and 4421.42 ha 

under submergence. Similarly, the 14 HEPs that are under construction have resulted in 

the total loss of about 539.59 ha of land that includes 442.36 ha as forest land take and 

97.23 ha under submergence. The remaining 39 HEPs that have been proposed would 

result in an additional loss of about 1828.64 ha of land that includes 467.86 ha as forest 

land take and 1360.78 ha under submergence.

) Of the 39 HEPs that have been proposed, 16 would lead to loss of forest land either for 

land intake or will be under submergence. Of the 16 HEPs, seven are located in areas 

that are >2.500m which are wildlife habitats for many RET species and also includes 

critically important areas for these species. These seven HEPs that have been 

proposed would result in a loss of about 172.48 ha of land that includes 146.34 ha as 

forest land take and 26.14 ha under submergence. 

c) Pilang valley and Dayara bhugyal in Bhagirathi II sub-basin have been identified as the 

key sites for long-term conservation of Galliformes, including a number of RET 

species. Therefore, proposed development projects (Pilangad II and Siyangad) on the 

side streams would severely impair the biodiversity values of these areas. 

d) The ZoI of the proposed Rambara and that of projects already under advanced stages 

of construction (Madmaheswar, Kali ganga I and Kali ganga II) fall in the critically 

important habitats of snow leopard, brown bear, black bear and musk deer and would 

impact the remnant wildlife habitats of these species. 

e) The Dhauli ganga sub-basin encompasses critical habitats and corridors for large 

mammals such as snow leopard, brown bear and Tibetan wolf. ZoI of the proposed 

HEPs (Tamak-Lata, Malari-Jelam, and Jelam-Tamak) fall in these critically important 

habitats. Considering that snow leopard and brown bear are very rare with a restricted 

distribution in Uttarakhand State and the eastern most distribution limits of brown bear 

ends in this region, hydropower development in these basins will significantly alter the 

habitats of these species of very high conservation importance. 

f) Bhilangana and Balganga sub-basins form the eastern most distribution limits for 

western tragopan in India, which is a species with restricted distribution. The ZoI of 

proposed HEPs (Bhilangana II, A, B & C) in Bhilangana basin and the proposed HEPs 

(Balganga-II and Jhala koti) in Balganga sub-basin and their associated activities 

would impact the western tragopan by reducing its distribution range. There are two 

existing projects in this Bhilangana sub-basin which together with several proposed 

projects will cumulatively impact upon the western tragopan habitat within the subbasin. 

g) Cheer pheasant, which has already become confined to isolated pockets in this region 

would further become restricted due to likely habitat losses associated with HEPs in 

this basin. 

h) In the Alaknanda-II sub-basin, the ZoI of the proposed Bowla Nandprayag, and 

Nandprayag Langasun HEPs and that of Vishnugad-Pipalkoti HEP which is underconstruction 

fall within the distribution range of Cheer pheasant that has restricted 

distribution in the State and overlaps with the habitats of leopard, black bear and tahr, 

which are species that command high conservation priority globally. The proposed 

HEP Urgam-II would severely impair the biodiversity values of the Urgam valley, which 

is one of the key sites for long-term conservation of ungulates species. 

179

180 

i) The two proposed HEPs i.e., Rishi ganga I and Rishi ganga II are both located inside 

the Nanda Devi NP. HEP developmental project in this sub-basin would adversely 

impact the ‘Outstanding Universal Values’ of the Nanda Devi World Heritage Site. 

j) The ZoI of the proposed HEPs (Alaknanda and Khirao ganga ) in Alaknanda -III Subbasin 

would fall within the critically important habitats of large mammals such as snow 

leopard, brown bear and black bear. These proposed HEPs and their associated 

disturbances is likely to impact the movement of snow leopard, brown bear, black bear 

and also the critically important habitats of musk deer, Himalayan tahr and monal 

pheasant. This sub-basin connects the Kedarnath Wildlife Sanctuary and Khirao 

Valley in the west to the Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve. Hydropower developments in 

this sub-basin would have adverse impacts on biodiversity values of this basin. 

k) The ZoI of the proposed HEPs (Jadganaga and Karmoli) in Bhagirathi sub-basin fall 

within the Gangotri NP and therefore these projects are likely to adversely impact the 

habitats of snow leopard and Himalayan brown bear. 

l) Bhyundar sub-basin contains the most important and significant natural habitats for in 

situ conservation of biological diversity. Any developmental project in this sub-basin 

would adversely impact the critical habitats, and may also impact the ‘Outstanding 

Universal Value’ of this sub-basin. 

8.3 Recommendations 

8.3.1 Environmental flows 

a) Minimum Environmental Flows required in the Alaknanda and Bhagirathi basins only for 

the dry zone of HEP has been estimated based on (i) Environmental Management Class of 

the rivers and (ii) Ecological requirement of fishes. 

b) Environmental Management Class (EMC) of the Alaknanda and Bhagirathi basins was 

assessed as ‘C’ Class. Minimum Environmental Water Requirement for a river stretch that 

falls in the Mahseer and Snow trout zones of study area should be 21.8% of Mean 

Seasonal Runoff (MSR) and for river stretches that falls in the ‘No fish zone’ should be 14.5 

% of MSR (Table 7.5). 

c) Minimum Environmental Flow Required (MEFR) (cumec/day) to sustain riverine ecology 

with special reference to fishes in the dry zones of HEPs in the Alaknanda and Bhagirathi 

basins based on ecological requirements of fishes was calculated as 20% of monthly 

average of flow during dry season (November to March), 25% of monthly average of flow 

from October and April, and 30% of monthly average of high flow season from May to 

September (Table 7.5). 

d) Minimum Environmental Flow Required (MEFR) in the dry zones of HEPs was calculated 

only for those river stretches where flow data was available (section 7.4). 

e) The suggested minimum environmental flows would provide the necessary environmental 

cues to trigger the breeding and migration behavior of Himalayan fishes.

f) Minimum environmental flows that have been suggested need to be reviewed periodically 

in relation with changes in the population status of fishes. This review may be carried out 

once in every five years with inputs from professional institutions such as National Institute 

of Hydrology, IIT-Roorkee, National Bureau of Fish Genetic Resources, Directorate of Cold 

Water Fisheries Research, Local Universities etc. 

8.3.2 Present and future scenario 

The scenario building for assessing impacts on biodiversity values portrays very distinctively 

the present and futuristic trends of the impact significance of hydropower developments in all the subbasins 

in the larger landscape represented by the Alaknanda and Bhagirathi basins. 

It becomes apparent that because of the fact that many of the projects are already in stages 

of operation and construction, the reversibility in significance of impacts on terrestrial biodiversity is not 

possible in sub-basins - Dhauliganga, Mandakini and Bhagirathi III which harbour many species of high 

conservation values. 

The implementation of the current hydropower power plan which envisages the operation of 70 

Hydro Electric Projects is likely to significantly impact the aquatic biodiversity of Bhagirathi IV and 

Ganga sub-basins. Decline in biodiversity values of Bhagirathi III sub-basin have significantly been 

compounded by Tehri dam. 

The scenarios provide adequate understanding to make decisions with respect to applying 

exclusion approach across the two basins for securing key biodiversity sites (such as critically important 

habitats) and prevent adverse impacts on designated protected areas. 

Based on five different scenarios that have been presented the most acceptable option 

suggests that the decision with respect to 24 proposed Hydro Electric Projects may be reviewed. 

8.3.3 Conservation reserve 

It is proposed that (a) Nayar River and the Ganges stretch between Devprayag and Rishikesh, and 

(b) Balganga – Tehri Reservoir complex may be declared as Fish Conservation Reserve as these two 

stretches are comparatively less disturbed and have critically important habitats for long term survival of 

Himalayan fishes (Refer Appendix 8.1) basin. 

8.3.4 Strategic options for regulating impacts of Hydro Electric Projects 

At the global level there is an increasing consensus on the need to manage water, waterrelated 

processes and biodiversity in a sustainable manner. However, at the local level, water related 

developments are still taken for granted often without due regards to biodiversity conservation. A key 

challenge for decision makers is how to balance energy and human demands with conservation 

imperatives. Broad guidelines on reducing the impact of development projects (e.g. dams) on wetlands 

(Box 8.1) can guide the regulatory principles in the context of water resource planning in Uttarakhand 

State, depending on the stages in which the development of hydropower project has progressed. 

181

Box 8.1 Ramsar convention: Guidelines for contracting parties relating to reducing the impact of water 

development projects on wetlands. 

182 

I. Ensure that proposals for water development projects are carefully reviewed at their initial 

stages to determine whether non-structural alternatives may be feasible 

II. Take all necessary actions in order to minimise the impact of water development projects on 

biodiversity and socio-economic benefits during the construction phase and longer term 

operation 

III. Ensure that project design/planning processes includes a step by step process to integrate 

environmental issues, especially initial biodiversity/resource surveys, and post project 

evaluation and monitoring. 

IV. Incorporate long-term social benefit and cost considerations into the process from the very 

initial stages of project preparation. 

Source: IUCN 2001 

The Energy Plan of Uttarakhand State encompasses projects in three stages of development 

(i) that are in operation, (ii) under construction and (iii) proposed. A range of corrective, restorative or 

preventive actions can be taken to regulate hydropower developments. A suite of options that are 

specific to each category of projects based on the stages of their development are given below: 

Category I Projects: Already commissioned – As a consequence of commissioned projects in 

Alaknanda and Bhagirathi basins, biodiversity values have been greatly compromised both on account 

of direct and indirect impacts induced by these projects on size and quality of terrestrial wildlife habitats. 

The altered land use regimes and disturbance factors have further compounded the impacts. The 

changes in stream quality and ecological flows subsequent to the development of hydropower 

project(s) that together alter the river ecology cause significant impacts on the aquatic biodiversity 

values. 

Regulating options 

• Options to compensate or mitigate direct impacts and indirect impacts discussed above become 

almost impossible or greatly limited when development projects have progressed past the stage of 

construction and have become fully operational and are delivering the economic benefits from 

power generation. The aggregated footprint of the project associated infrastructure in a basin could 

be a function of many projects with relatively similar impact potentials or could be a result of a 

single project that is a major contributor to the degradation of biodiversity values of the specific 

landscape. In this category, the cumulative impact assessment of 17 projects (9 in Bhagirathi basin 

and 8 in Alaknanda basin) has highlighted varying levels of detrimental changes in biodiversity 

values in the different sub-basins. The specifics step that can be taken for regulating the impacts 

are: 

i. Ensure revised environmental flows are implemented as indicated in section 8.3.1; 

ii. Monitoring for compliance of clearance conditions and conducting environmental audits to 

identify areas of negligence in environmental management so that regulatory frameworks can 

be better tailored for ensuring the reduction in the combined footprint of all projects operating 

in the sub-basins;

iii. Identifying biodiversity offsets and compensatory opportunities for areas of high biodiversity 

values. The nearest parallel of such an offset scheme is the proposal to set up two 

Conservation Reserves (refer section 8.3.3); 

iv. Review the sustainability of livelihoods that are dependent on bio-resources and promote 

alternatives to protect remnant biodiversity in areas of use; 

v. Treatment of released water (to ensure a natural range of salinity, turbidity, temperature, 

oxygenation, etc) and restoration of river bed substratum for making them suitable habitats of 

fishes; 

vi. Controls on access, and low impact siting of resettlement areas, workforce camps, sites and 

stockyards. 

Category-II: Projects under-construction- In this category, 14 projects that are in various stages of 

construction have to be regulated. 


• In case of projects where the work on site has advanced to a stage of accepting the project as 

'nearly complete', all of the measures proposed for Category I projects must apply. In addition, 

conditions for site specific measures must be additionally stipulated at all project sites to ensure 

that the zone of project influence is substantially reduced. Measures that must be essentially 

incorporated in regulatory framework for individual projects are: 

i. Ensure revised environmental flows are implemented as indicated in section 8.3.1 

ii. Material and waste management to reduce impacts on natural habitats of animals and 

plants in the sub-basins(s). 

iii. Location of temporary and permanent structures (muck disposal sites, resettlement areas, 

workforce camps, workshops and stockyards) to reduce the zone of project influence to 

avoid their impacts on wildlife areas. 

iv. Prevention of physical disturbances along river courses, to maintain unhindered flow and 

stream quality during construction. 

v. Appropriately plan operation of the dam/barrage to maintain continuous natural flow in post 

construction and inundation stages; 

vi. Rescheduling construction activities where necessary to avoid prolonging the duration of 

impacts linked to construction phase. This would specially apply to activities causing 

physical disturbance at sites that can affect habitat utilisation, impair movement of animals 

and destruction of sites that harbour important plant species. 

• In case of projects where preparatory work on site and construction has been initiated, all of the 

strategic and project specific regulatory measures indicated above must apply. Assuming that 

there is still time for modifications, design specification(s) must be reviewed to ensure (i) continuous 

natural flow during construction and inundation stages; (ii) reduce impacts on riverine habitats for 

183

184 

aquatic species, reduce flooding of riparian habitats and (iii) prevent requirements of land take from 

forest areas. 

Category-III: Proposed projects 


Out of the total of 39 proposed projects considered in the CEIA, 24 projects have been found to 

be significantly impacting the biodiversity values in the two sub-basins. The relevant details of these 24 

projects is given in Table 8.1. 

Table 8.1. List of Hydro Electric Projects to be re-appraised. 

Sub-basin Name of the 

project 

Bal ganga 

Bhagirathi II 

River River length 

Affected (m) 

Forest 

Area 

Loss 

(ha) 

Power 

generation 

Capacity 

(MW) 

Aquatic 

Biodiversity 

Values 

Terrestrial 

Biodiversity 

Values 

Bal ganga II Bal ganga 3250 NA 7.00 

- 

VH 

Jhala koti Bal ganga 4750 NA 12.50 - 

Bharon ghati Bhagirathi 18500 381.00 - 

Jalandrigad Jalandharigad 3500 12.11 24.00 - 

Siyangad Siyangad 4500 4.96 11.50 - 

Kakoragad Kakoragad 3500 4.98 12.50 - 

Bhagirathi IV Kotlibhel IA Bhagirathi 18400 258.04 195.00 VH H 

Bhagirathi I 

Karmoli Jadhganga 11300 9.94 140.00 - 

Jadhganga Jadhganga 2900 8.35 50.00 - 

Mandakini Rambara Mandakini 8000 NA 24.00 - VH 

Alaknanda I Kotlibhel IB Alaknanda 27500 599.75 320.00 VH - 

Alaknanda III 

Alaknanda Alaknanda 7000 49.648 30.00 - 

Khirao ganga Khirao ganga 2750 NA 4.00 - 

Alaknanda II Urgam II Kalpganga 1750 NA 3.80 - H 

Dhauliganga 

Bhyundar 

ganga 

Rishi ganga 

Lata tapovan Dhauli ganga 8500 NA 170.00 - 

Malari jhelam Dhauli ganga 6500 NA 114.00 - 

Jelam tamak Dhauli ganga 8500 70 126.00 - 

Tamak lata Dhauli ganga 10500 24 250.00 - 

Bhyundar 

ganga 

Bhyundar 

ganga 

H 

H 

H 

VH 

3250 NA 24.30 - VH 

Rishi ganga I Rishi ganga 6525 8.06 70.00 - 

Rishi ganga II Rishi ganga 5497 2.48 35.00 - 

H

Sub-basin Name of the 

project 

Birahi ganga 

River River length 

Affected (m) 

Forest 

Area 

Loss 

(ha) 

Power 

generation 

Capacity 

(MW) 

Birahi ganga I Birahi ganga 6500 NA 24.00 

Gohana Tal Birahi ganga 12000 NA 50.00 

Aquatic 

Biodiversity 

Values 

Terrestrial 

Biodiversity 

Values 

H H 

Ganga Kotlibhel II Ganga 59200 647.45 530.00 VH H 

TOTAL 24 244572 1699.77 2608.6 - - 

H: High; VH: Very High 

The rationale for recommending these 24 projects for re-appraisal has been amply elaborated 

in chapter 6 where the scenario 5A and B distinctly capture the potential of these proposed projects to 

significantly and cumulatively reduce the aquatic and terrestrial biodiversity values of the sub-basins. 

In the final analysis, the combined footprint of all 24 projects have been considered for their 

potential to impact areas with biodiversity values (both aquatic and terrestrial), critically important 

habitats for RET and IWPA protected species in different sub-basins in the two larger landscape units, 

the Alaknanda and Bhagirathi basins. Some of these sub-basins harbour areas of Outstanding 

Universal Values. Ecological prudence therefore requires that securing long term biodiversity 

conservation should get precedence over economic considerations visualized in commissioning these 

24 projects. 

As may be seen from the figures given in Table 8.1 above, these 24 hydroelectric projects 

would cumulatively adversely affect a river length of 244572 m. The total river length affected by all 70 

projects is 655512 m. This means that the overall river length that would be affected will get reduced 

from 655512 m to 410940 m, which is 37.31% reduction, in event of these 24 projects not being 

commissioned. This would be of significant value for conservation of aquatic biodiversity. 

The total requirement of forest area for 70 hydropower projects is 9494.68 ha. These 24 

hydropower project require 1699.77 ha of forest land. Thus the total requirement of forest land would 

decrease from 9494.68 ha to 7794.91 ha, which is 21.71% reduction, in event of these 24 projects not 

being commissioned. This would be a positive gain for forest biodiversity conservation. 

The current power generation visualized from commissioning of all 70 projects is 9563 MW, of 

which these 24 projects contribute 2608.6 MW. Thus there would be a reduction in power generation 

capacity of 27%. In this context it is stated that India has one of the world’s highest power transmission 

losses of about 30-40% against global average of 15% (OECD/IEA, http://www.iea.org/stats/index.asp 

and http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/india/electric-power-transmission-and-distribution-losses). Better 

and effective power transmission management system can to a large extent offset this loss in power 

generation. 

185

186 

References 

Acreman, M. & Dunbar, M.J. (2004) Defining environmental flow requirements- 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 . 

ADB. (1997) Chapter 4-Approaches to Impact Prediction.EIA for Developing Countries. Downloaded 

from http://www.adb.org/documents/books/environment_impact/chap4.pdf 

Adhikari, B.S., Uniyal S.K. & Rawat, G.S. (2009) Vegetation structure and community patterns of Tehri 

Dam Submergence Zone, Uttarakhand, India. EurAsia J BioSci 3, 40-49. 

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

University Press, Bombay. 

Andersson, E., Nilsson, C., & Johansson, M.E. (2000a) Effects of river fragmentation on plant dispersal 

and riparian flora. Reg. Riv. Res. Manage. 16:83-89 

Antoniuk, T. (2000) Cumulative effects assessment of pipeline projects. In: Kennedy A, editor. 

Cumulative environmental effects management: tools and approaches. Calgary, Canada: Alberta 

Society of Professional Biologists; 

Atkore V.M., Sivakumar, K., Johnsingh, A.J.T. (2011) Patterns of diversity and conservation status of 

freshwater fishes in the tributaries of Ramganga river, in the Shiwaliks of the Western Himalaya. 

Current science 100(4). 

Badola, S.P. (2001) Ichthyology of Central Himalaya. Transmedia Publisher, Srinagar, India. 

Bardach, J.E. & Dussart, B. (1973) Effects of man-made lakes on ecosystems. Geophys. Monogr., 

17:811-817. 

Batalla, R.J., Gomez C.M., & Kondolf G.M. (2004) River impoundment and changes in flow 

regime, Ebro River basin, northeastern Spain. Journal of Hydrology 290: 117-136. 

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 

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 

Bhardwaj, M. & Uniyal, V.P. (2009) Wildlife survey in Nilang valley of the Gangotri National Park. 

Wildlife Survey Report. Wildlife Institute of India. 23 pp.

Bhardwaj, M., Uniyal, V.P. & Sanyal, A. K. (2010) Estimating relative abundance and habitat use of 

Himalayan blue sheep Pseudois nayaur in Gangotri National Park, Western Himalaya, India. 

Galemys 22 (nº especial):545-560. 

Bhatt, C.P. (1997) “Future of large projects in the Himalaya”, PAHAR, Nainital, pp 46. 

Bhatt, V. & Purohit, V.K. (2009) Floristic structure and phytodiversity along an elevational gradient in 

Peepalkoti-Joshimath area of Garhwal Himalaya, India. Nature and Science 7(9) 63-74 

Bhattacharya, T. & Sathyakuma,r S. (2011) Natural Resource Use by Humans and Response of Wild 

Ungulates - A Case Study from Bedini-Ali, Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve, India. Mountain 

Research and Development 31(3):209-219. 

Bhattacharya, T. & 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):1359-1370. 

Bhattacharya, T. & Sathyakumar, S. (2007) An ornithological survey of Chenab Valley, Chamoli district, 

Uttaranchal, including notes on pheasants. Indian Birds 3(4):138-145. 

Bhattacharya, T. & Sathyakumar, S. (2010) Sighting of Tibetan Wolf Canis lupus chanko in the Greater 

Himalayan range of Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve, Uttarakhand, India: a new record. Journal of 

Threatened Taxa 2(12):1345-1348 

Bhattacharya, T., Sathyakumar, S. & 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. 

Bhattacharya, T., Sathyakumar, S. & 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, Govt. of India. New Delhi. 103 pp. 

Bhattacharya, T., Sathyakumar, S. & Rawat, G.S. (2007) Studies on Animal-Habitat Interactions in the 

Buffer Zone of the Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve. Final Report. Submitted to the Ministry of 

Environment & Forests, Government of India. Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun. 103 pp 

Biggs, B.J.F. (1996) Hydraulic habitat of plants in streams. Regulated Rivers: Research and 

Management 12:131–144. 

Birtwell, I. K. (1999) The effects of sediment on fish and their habitat. Fisheries and Ocean Canada, 

Science branch, Marine Environment and Habitat Science Division, Fresh Environment and Habitat 

science Section, West Vancouver Laboratory, West Vancouver, B.C. 

Blanch, S. J., Ganf, G. G. and Walker, K. F. (1999) Tolerance of riverine plants to flooding and 

exposure indicated by water regime. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 15:43– 62. 

Blanch, S. J., Walker, K. F. & Ganf, G. G. (2000) Water regimes and littoral plants in four weir pools of 

the River Murray, Australia. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 16:445– 456. 

Brisbane Declaration (2007) Available at http://www.nature.org / 

initiatives/freshwater/files/brisbane_declaration_with_organizations_final.pdf. 

187

Bonetto, A. A., Wais, J. R., & Castello, H. P. (1989) The increasing damming of the Parana´ Basin and 

its effect on the lower reaches. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 4:333–346 

Brismar, A. (2004) Attention to impact pathways in EISs of large dam projects. Environ Impact Assess 

Rev, 24: 59–87. 

Bunn, S. E. & Arthington, A. H. (2002) Basic principles and ecological consequences of altered flow 

regimes for aquatic biodiversity. Environmental Management 30(4): 492-507. 

Cada, G.F. & Hunsaker, C.T. (1990) Cumulative impacts of hydropower development: reaching a 

watershed impact assessment. The Environmental Professional, 12 :2–8. 

Cadwallader, P. (1986) Fish of the Murray-Darling system. In: B. R. Davies and K. F. Walker (eds.), The 

ecology of river systems. Pp 679 – 694 Dr W. Junk, Publishers, Dordrecht. 

Caltrans (with FHWA and EPA), (2005) “Guidance for Preparers of Cumulative Impact Analysis”, June 

30, 2005, Sacramento, California. http://www.dot.ca.gov/ser/cumulative_guidance/purpose.htm 

Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (1999). Cumulative Effects Assessment Practitioners 

Guide. 

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. & 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. 

Chakraborty, B.K., Mirza, Z.A., Miah, M.I., Habib, M.A.B. & Chakraborty, A. (2007) Reproductive cycle 

of the endangered sarpunti, Puntius sarana (Hamilton, 1822) in Bangladesh. Asian Fisheries 

Science 20: 145-164. 

Chambers, P. A., Prepas, E. E., Hamilton, H. R. & Bothwell, M. L. (1991) Current velocity and its effects 

on aquatic macrophytes in flowing waters. Ecological Applications 1:249–257. 

Champion, G. &. Seth, S.K. (1968) A revised survey of forest types of the India. Manager of 

publications, Government of India Press, New Delhi. 

Chandola, S., H.B. Naithanai & Rawat, G.S. (2008) Nilang: A little known Transhimalayan valley in 

Uttarakhand and its floral wealth. In: Special habitats and threatened plants of India. ENVIS 

bulletin: Wildlife and protected areas Ed. Rawat, G.S., Vol. II (1). Wildlife Institute of India, 

Dehradun, India, 239 pp. 

Cloquell-Ballester, V., Monterde-Díaz, R., Cloquell-Ballester, V., Santamarima-Siurana, M. (2007) 

Systematic comparative and sensitivity analyses of additive and outranking techniques for 

supporting impact significance assessments. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 27:62–83. 

Contant, C.K. & Wiggins, L.L. (1993) Toward Defining and Assessing Cumulative Impacts: Practical 

and Theoretical Considerations. In Environmental Analysis: The NEPA Experience, S.G. 

Hildebrand and J.B.Cannon (eds). Boca Raton, Florida:Lewis Publishers. 

188

Copp, G. H. (1989) The habitat diversity and fish reproductive function of floodplain ecosystems. 

Environmental Biology of Fishes 26:1–26. 

Copp, G. H. (1990) Effect of regulation on fish recruitment in the Great Ouse, a lowland river. 

Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 5:251–163. 

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. & 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. & Cottam, G.(1956) Plant Ecology Work Book. Laboratory Field Reference Manual. Burges 

Publishing Co. Minnesota. 

Deall, G., McCleland, W. & Hawkes, P. (2010) Environmental Impact Assessment Appendix B: 

Terrestrial Ecology Specialist study. Groot Letaba River Water Development Project. 

DEAT. (2004) Cumulative Effects Assessment, Integrated Environmental Management, Information 

Series 7. Department of EnvironmentalAffairs and Tourism (DEAT), Pretoria. 

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

Integrated Environmental Management, Information Series 7, Department of Environmental Affairs 

and Tourism (DEAT), Pretoria. 

Dickert, T.G. & Tuttle, A.E. (1985) Cumulative Impact Assessment in Environmental Planning – A 

Coastal Wetland Watershed Example. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 5: 37-6 

Dimri, N. K. (2010) Aspects of habitat use and conservation status of Otters in Alaknanda-Ganga basin, 

Uttarakhand. M.Sc. dissertation. HNB Garhwal Central University. 

Dubé, M. (2003) Cumulative effect assessment in Canada: a regional framework for aquatic 

ecosystems. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 23:723–45. 

Dubé, M.G. (2003) 'Cumulative effects assessment in Canada: a regional framework for aquatic 

ecosystems, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 23, 723-745. 

Duinker, P. & Greig, L. (2006) The impotence of cumulative effects assessment in Canada: ailments 

and ideas for redeployment. Environmental Management 37(2):153–61. 

Duinker, Peter N. & Greig, Lorne A. (2007) Scenario analysis in environmental impact assessment: 

Improving explorations of the future. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 27, 206–219 

Dunbar, M.J., Gustard, A., Acreman, M.C. & Elliott, C.R.N. (1998) Review of overseas approaches to 

setting river flow objectives. Environment Agency R&D Technical Report W6B(96)4. Institute of 

Hydrology, Wallingford, United Kingdom.61 pp. 

Dynesius, M. & Nilsson, C. (1994) Fragmentation and Flow Regulation of River Systems in the 

Northern Third of the World. Science, 266:753-762. 

189

Edds, D.R. (2007) Fishes in Nepal: ichthyofaunal surveys in seven nature reserves. Ichthyol. Explor. 

Freshwat. 18(3):277-287. 

Estes, C.C., & Orsborn, J.F. (1986) Review and analysis of methods for quantifying instream flow 

requirements. Water Resources Bulletin 22(3): 389–398 

Felley, J. D., & Felley S. M. (1987) Relationships between habitat selection by individuals of a species 

and patterns of habitat segregation among species: fishes of the Calcasieu drainage. Pp. 61–68 in 

D. C. Matthews and W. J. Heins (eds.), Community ecology of North American stream fishes. 

University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. 

Fischer,Thomas B. (2012) On the role(s) of (strategic) environmental assessment in ‘greening’ decision 

making. http://www.twoeam-eu.net/role.pdf accessed on 21 st January 2012. 

Forest Survey of India (2009) India State of Forest Report, 2009. Forest Survey of India, Dehradun. 

199 pp. 

Forman, R. T. T., & Godron M. (1986) Landscape ecology. John Wiley & Sons, New York, New York, 

USA. 

French, T. D., & Chambers, P.A. (1996) Habitat partitioning in riverine macrophyte communities. 

Freshwater Biology 36:509–520. 

Froend, R. H., & McComb, A. J. (1994) Distribution, productivity and reproductive phenology of 

emergent macrophytes in relation to water regimes at wetlands of South-western Australia. 

Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 45:1491–1508. 

FSI (1999) State of Forest Report, 1999. Forest Survey of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests, 

Government of India. 

FSI (2007) State of Forest Report, 2007. Forest Survey of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests, 


FSI, (2009) State of Forest Report, 2009. Forest Survey of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests, 


Futuring, Cornish E. (2004) The exploration of the future. Bethesda, MD: World Future Society. 313 pp. 

Gallopin, G., Hammond, A., Raskin, P. & Swart, R. (1997) Branch Points: Global Scenarios and 

Human Choice. PoleStar Series Report No. 7, Global Scenarios Group, Stockholm Environment 

Institute, Stockholm. 

Gartner Lee Limited (GLL). (2001) Evaluating significance: an initial scan of relevant literature and 

guidance materials. Markham: Gartner Lee Limited. 

Gaur, R.D. (1999) Flora of the district Garhwal North West Himalaya (with ethnobotanical notes) :752 

Gaur, R.D. (2007) “Biodiversity and river valley projects in Uttarakhand”, Proceedings of National 

Academy of Sciences India, 77 (BIII), pp 253-262. 

190

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. & Hildyard, N. (1984) The Social and Environmental Effects of Large Dams. 

SanFrancisco, CA, USA:A Sierra Club Book. 404 pp. 

Goodland, R., Juras, A., & Pachauri, R.. (1993) Can Hydro-Reservoirs in Tropical Moist Forests Be 

Environmentally Sustainable?. Environmental Conservation 20: 122–130. 

Gorman, O. T., & Karr, J. R. (1978) Habitat structure and stream fish communities. Ecology 59:507– 

515. 

Gouyon, P.H., King, E.B., Bonnet, J.M., Valdyron, G. & Vernet, P. (1987) Seed migration and the 

structure of plant populations. An experimental study on Thymus vulgaris L. Oecologia 72:92-94 

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.J.B. (1985) Aspects of the ecology of the Himalayan musk deer. Ph. D. Dissertation, 

Cambridge Univ. 292 pp. 

Green, M.J.B. (1986) The birds of the Kedarnath Sanctuary, Chamoli district, Uttar Pradesh: Status and 

distribution. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 63:603-617. 

Greig, L., Pawley, K., Duinker, P. (2004) Alternative scenarios of future development: an aid to 

cumulative effects assessment. Gatineau, QC: Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. 35 

pp. 

Grimmet, R., Inskipp, C. & Inskipp, T. (1998) Birds of Indian subcontinent. Oxford university press, 

Delhi. 888 pp. 

Habib, M. A., (2005) Strategic environmental assessment can help solve environmental impact 

assessment failures in developing countries. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev., 25, 307–317. 

Hajra, P.K. (1983) A Contribution to the Botany of Nanda Devi National Park. Botanical Survey of India, 

Calcutta. 

Hall L. S., Krausman P.R. & Morrison M. L. (1997) The habitat concept and a plea for standard 

terminology. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25(1):173-182 

Hamilton, F. (1822) An account of the fishes found in the river Ganges and its branches. Constable and 

Co, Edinburgh, UK. 

Harriman, J. & Noble, B. (2008) Characterizing project and strategic approaches to regional cumulative 

effects assessment in Canada. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy & Management 

10(1):25–50. 

Harris, J. H. (1984a) A survey of fishways in streams of coastal south-eastern Australia. Australian 

Zoologist 21:219 –233. 

191

Harris, J. H. (1984b) Impoundment of coastal south-eastern Australia, and a review of its relevance to 

fish migrations. Australian Zoologist 21:235–250 

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

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. 

Henry, C.P., Amoros, C. & Bornette, G. (1996) Species traits and recolonization processes after flood 

disturbances in riverine macrophytes. Vegetatio 122:13-27 

Hora, S. L. (1933) Siluroid fishes of India, Burma and Ceylon. 1. Loach-like fishes of the genus 

Amblyceps Blyth. Records of the Indian Museum 35: 607–621. 

Horak, G.C., Vlachos, E.C. & 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. 

Horne, B.V. (1983) Density is a misleading indicator of habitat quality. Journal of Wildlife Management 

47(4):893-901 

Humphries, P., King, A. J., & Koehn, J. D. (1999) Fish, flows and floodplains: Links between freshwater 

fishes and their environment in the Murray-Darling River system, Australia. Environmental Biology 

of Fishes 56:129 –151. 

ICEM. (2007) Pilot Strategic Environmental Assessment in the Hydropower Sub-sector, Vietnam. Final 

Report: Biodiversity Impacts of the hydropower components of the 6th Power Development Plan. 

Prepare for The World Bank, MONRE, MOI & EVN, Hanoi, Vietnam. 

Imbert, E. & Lefèvre, F. (2003) Dispersal and gene flow of Populus nigra (Salicaceae) along a dynamic 

river system. Journal of ecology 91, 447-456. 

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. 

IUCN. (2011) IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.2. 

Jansson , R., Nilsson, C., & Renofalt, B. (2000) Fragmentation of riparian floras in rivers with multiple 

dams. Ecology 81:899-903 

Johansson, M.E., Nilsson, C. & Nilsson, E. (1996) Do rivers function as corridors for plant dispersal? 

Journal of Vegetation Science 593-598 

Joshi, M.C. (2007) Hydro Power Potential in Uttarakhand. International Conference on Small 

Hydropower - Hydro Sri Lank a, 22-24 October 2007. Available at 

 

downloaded on 15th May 2011. 

Joy, M. K., & Death, R. G. (2001) Control of fish and crayfish community structure in Taranaki, New 

Zealand: Dams, diadromy or habitat structure. Freshwater Biology 46:417– 429. 

192

Junk, W. J., Bayley, P. B. & Sparks, R. E. (1989) The flood pulse concept in river-floodplain systems. 

Pages 110–127 in D. P. Dodge (ed.), Proceedings of the international large river symposium 

(LARS). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences Special Publication 106. 

Junk, W.J., Bayley, P.B. & 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. 

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

Kala, C.P. (1998) Ecology and conservation of alpine meadows in the Valley of flower National Park, 

Garhwal Himalaya. PhD. Thesis Forest Research Insititute of India, Dehradun. 

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

India. 

Kala, C.P. (2005) Indigenous uses, population density and conservation of threatened medicinal plants 

in Protected Areas of the Indian Himalayas. Conservation Biology, 19 (2): 368-378. 

Kala, C.P. (2005) The Valley of Flowers; A newly declared World Heritage Site. Current Science, 89 (6): 

919-920. 

Kandpal, V. & Sathyakumar, S. (2010) Distribution and Relative Abundance of Mountain 

Ungulates in Pindari Valley, Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve, Uttarakhand, India Galemys 22 (nº 

especial): 277-294. 

Kennett, S. (2002) Lessons from Cheviot: Redefining government's role in cumulative effects 

assessment. In: Kennedy A, editor. Cumulative Effects Assessment in Canada: From Concept to 

Practice. Calgary, AB: Alberta Society of Professional Biologists; 2002 

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

King, J.M., Tharme, R.E., & De Villiers, M. (2000) Environmental Flow Assessments for Rivers: Manual 

for the Building Block Methodology. Water Research Commission Technology Transfer Report No. 

TT131/00. Water Research Commission: Pretoria, South Africa. 

Kirk, D. (2001) Using science to assess the adverse effects of impacts of migratory birds. In: EA. Hull, 

Quebec: Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. 

Lawrence, D. P. (2007) Impact significance determination--Designing an approach. Environmental 

Impact Assessment Review 27(8): 730-754. 

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

253-273. 

Ledec, G. & Quintero, J. D. (2003) Good Dams and Bad Dams: Environmental Criteria for Site 

Selection of Hydroelectric Projects. Sustainable Development Working Paper No. 16. The World 

Bank Latin America and the Caribbean Region; Environmentally and Socially Sustainable 

Development Sector Management Unit. 

193

Ledec, George & Quintero, Juan David (2003) Sustainable Development Working Paper No. 16. 

Good Dams and Bad Dams: The World Bank Latin America and the Caribbean Region. 

Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development Sector Management Unit. 

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

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

Geological Survey 

Loar, J.M., Sale, M.J. & Cada, G.F. (1986) Instream flow needs to protect fishery resources. Water 

Forum '86: World water issues in evolution. Proceedings of A.S.C.E. conference/HY. IR, EE, WR, 

WW Divs. Long Beach, California, August 4-6, 1986. 

Lundqvist, J. (1998) Avert looming hydrocide. Ambio 27:428–433. 

Maheshwari, A. & Sharma, D. (2010) Snow leopard conservation in Uttarakhand and Himachal 

Pradesh. WWF-India, pp: 1-67. 

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

McAllister, D.E., Hamilton, A.L., & Harvey, B. (1999) 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. 

McCartney, M.P., Sullivan, C.A. & Acreman, M.C. (1999) Ecosystem impacts of large dams, a review 

for International Union for Conservation of Nature, Gland, Switzerland, Centre for Ecology and 

Hydrology, Wallingford, UK. 

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

pp. 

Meffe, G. K., & Sheldon, A. L. (1988) The influence of habitat structure on fish assemblage composition 

in southeastern blackwater streams. The American Midland Naturalist 120:225–240. 

Menon, A.G.K. (1999) Check list - fresh water fishes of India. Rec. Zool. Surv. India, Misc. Publ., 

Occas. Pap. No. 175, 366 p. 

Menon, V. (2003) A field guide to Indian mammals. Handbook, dorling Kindersley, India pvt. Ltd. 201 

pp. 

Mishra, S. S., Acherjee, S. K. & Chakraborty, S. K. (2009) Development of tools for assessing 

conservation categories of siluroid fishes of fresh water and brackish water wetlands of South West 

Bengal, India. Environmental Biology of Fishes 84(4): 395-407. 

Morhardt, 1986; 

MRC (2005) Scenarios for strategic planning. BDP Library Volume 4. March 2005. Revised November 

2005. Mekong River Commission. 

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

Sons. 

194

Munn, M. D., & Brusven, M. A. (1991) Benthic invertebrate communities in non-regulated and regulated 

waters of the Clearwater River, Idaho, USA. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 6:1–11. 

Naiman, R. J., Magnuson, J. J., McKnight, D. M. & Stanford, J. A. (1995) The freshwater imperative: A 

research agenda. Island Press, Washington, DC, 165 pp. 

Naithani, B.D. ( 1985) Flora of Chamoli Volume I & II, Botanical survey of India. 

Nanda Devi & Valley of Flowers National Parks Uttaranchal, India (2011) United Nation Environment 

Programme & World Conservation Monitoring Centre. 

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

putitora (Ham.) in Nayar River. J Bombay Nat Hist Soc 81:642–646 

Nautiyal P,& Lal, M.S.. (1985) Fecundity of golden Himalayan mahseer Tor putitora. J Bombay Nat Hist 

Soc 82(2):253–257 

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

Bombay Natural History Society, 82(2): 253-257 

Nautiyal, P., & 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., Bhatt, J.P., Rawat, V.S., Kishor, B., Nautiyal, R., & Singh, H.R. (1998) Himalayan 

Mahseer: Magnitude of commercial fishery in Garhwal hills. Fish Genetics and Biodiversity 

Conservation 5: 107-114 

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

Nayar, M. P. & Sastry, A.R.K. (1987) Red Data Book of Indian Plants – I. B.S.I. Howrah. 

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

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

Ng, H. H. & Kottelat, M. (2000) A review of the genus Amblyceps (Osteichthyes: Amblycipitidae) in 

Indochina, with descriptions of five new species. Ichthyological Exploration of Freshwaters 11(4): 

335–348. 

Nilsson, C. & Dynesius, M. (1994) Ecological effects of river regulation on mammals and birds: a 

review. Regul. Rivers: Res. Manage. 9:45-53. 

Nilsson, C., & Svedmark, M. (2002) Basic principles and ecological consequences of changing water 

regimes: riparian plant communities. Environmental Management 30:468–480. 

Ortolano, L. & Shepherd, A. (1995) "Environmental Impact Assessment: Challenges and Opportunities," 

Impact Assessment, Vol.13, No.1 (Spring, 1995), pp. 3-30. 

Parmanand, G.C.P. & Singh R.L. (2000) Management Plan of Gangotri National Park. Wildlife 

Preservation Organisation, Forest Department Uttar Pradesh. 

195

Payne, A.I., Sinha, R.K., Singh, H.R., & 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 

Peterson, G. D., Cumming, G. S. & Carpenter, S. R. (2003) Scenario planning: a Tool for conservation 

in an uncertain world. Conservation Biology 17:358-366. 

Pethiyagoda, R. (1991) Freshwater fishes of Sri Lanka. The Wildlife Heritage Trust of Sri Lanka, 

Colombo. 362 . 

Phondani, P.C., Maikhuri, R. K., & Bisht, N.S. (2009) Medicinal Plants Used in the Health Care System 

Practiced by Traditional Vaidyas in Alaknanda Catchment of Uttarakhand, India. Ethnobotanical 

Leaflets 13:1453-67. 

Phondani, P.C., Maikhuri, R. K., Rawat, L. S., Farooquee, N. A., Kala, C.P., Vishvakarma, S.C.R., Rao, 

K.S & Saxena, K.G (2010) Ethnobotanical Uses of Plants among the Bhotiya Tribal Communities of 

Niti Valley in Central Himalaya, India. A journal of Plant, People and Applied Research 8 (2547- 

3465) : 8-233. 

Poff, N. L., & Allan, J. D. (1995) Functional organization of stream fish assemblages in relation to 

hydrological variability. Ecology 76:606–627. 

Prasad, M.S., Yadav, A.N. & Singh, B. (1997) Threatened fishes of the world: Amblyceps mangois 

Hamilton, 1822 (Amblycipitidae). Environemntal Biology of Fishes 49(1): 62. 

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. & Read, M. G. (1993) Spatial and temporal variation in fish assemblage 

structure in the Mary River, south-east Queensland: the influence of habitat structure. 


Pusey, B. J., Arthington, A. H. & Read, M. G. (1995) Species richness and spatial variation in fish 

assemblage structure in two rivers of the Wet Tropics of Northern Queensland, Australia. 


Pusey, B. J., Arthington, A. H. & Read, M. G. (1998) Freshwater fishes of the Burdekin River, Australia: 

Biogeography, history and spatial variation in assemblage structure. Environmental Biology of 

Fishes 53:303–318. 

Pusey, B. J., Kennard, M. J. & Arthington, A. H. 2000. Discharge variability and the development of 

predictive models relating stream fish assemblage structure to habitat in north-eastern Australia. 

Ecology of Freshwater Fishes 9:30–50. 

Rana, N. (2007) “Socioeconomic and Environmental Implications of the Hydroelectric projects in 

Uttarakhand Himalaya, India”, Journal of Mountain Science, 4(4), 344353 pp. 

196

Rea, N., & Ganf, G. G. (1994) The role of sexual reproduction and water regime in shaping the 

distribution patterns of clonal emergent aquatic plants. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater 

Research 45:1469–1479, 

Reed, T.M. (1979) A contribution to the ornithology of the Rishi Ganga valley and the Nanda Devi 

Sanctuary. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 76(2): 270-82. 

Regan H. M., Davis F. W., Andelman S. J., Widyanata A., & Freese M. (2007) Comprehensive criteria 

for biodiversity evaluation in conservation planning. Biodiversity and Conservation 16(9): 2715- 

2728. 

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, 

476–501. 

Resh, V. H., Brown, A. V., Covich, A. P., Gurtz, M. E., Li H. W., Minshall, G. W.,. Reice, S. R, Sheldon, 

A. L, Wallace, J. B. and Wismaar, R. C. (1988) The role of disturbance in stream ecology. Journal 

of the North American Benthological Society 7:433– 455. 

Sadler, B & 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. 

Sand-Jensen, K., & Madsen, T. V. (1992) Patch dynamics of the stream macrophyte, Callitriche 

cophocarpa. Freshwater Biology 27:277–282. 

Sankaran, R. (1993) An ornithological survey of Nanda Devi National Park. Scientific and Ecological 

Expedition to Nanda Devi. A report. pp. 16-34. 

Sarkar, U. K., Pathak, A. K., Sinha, R. K., Sivakumar, K., Pandian, A. K., Pandey, A., Dubey, V. K., 

Lakra, W. S. (2011) Freshwater fish biodiversity in the River Ganga (India): changing pattern, 

threats and conservation perspectives. Rev Fish Biol Fisheries, DOI 10.1007/s11160-011-9218-6. 

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

Areas, 1(1):130. 

Sathyakumar, S & Kalsi, R.S. (2007) Partridges, Quails, Francolins and Snowcocks. Galliformes of 

India. ENVIS Bulletin. Wildlife and Protected Areas: Vol.10 (1). Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun. 

Pp. 3-32. 

Sathyakumar, S & Kaul, R. (2007) Pheasants. Galliformes of India. ENVIS Bulletin. Wildlife and 

Protected Areas: Vol.10 (1). Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun. Pp. 33-52Sathyakumar 1992, 

2006; 

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

Expedition to Nanda Devi. A report. Pp 5-15. 

Sathyakumar, S. (1994) Habitat Ecology of Major ungulates in Kedarnath Musk deer Sanctuary. Ph.D 

Dissertation. Saurashtra Univ., Rajkot. 244 pp. 

Sathyakumar, S. (2001) Musk Deer. An Encyclopaedia of the Mammals of the World. Second Edition. 

197

198 

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. Biodiversity Monitoring Expedition Nanda Devi 2003. A 

Report to the Ministry of Environment & Forests, Govt. of India. Uttaranchal State Forest 

Department, Dehradun. pp.1-14. 

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., Kaul, R., Kalsi, R.S., & 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., Prasad, S.N., Rawat, G.S. & Johnsingh, A.J.T. (1993) Conservation status of 

Himalayan musk deer and livestock impacts in Kedarnath Wildlife Santuary, Western Himalaya. 

High Altitudes of the Himalaya: Biogeography, Ecology and Conservation. Gyanodaya Prakashan, 

Nainital. Pp. 240-245.Schreiner 1976, 

Sathyakumar, S., R.M Athreya & Athreya, V.R. (1992) The Cheer Pheasant - A new recording. WPA 

News 37:28. 

Sati, V.P. (2008) Natural Resource Management and Food Security in the Alaknanda Basin of Garhwal 

Himalaya. Presented in Conference on International Research on Food Security, Natural Resource 

Management and Rural Development, University of Hohenheim, October 7-9, 2008. 

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. & 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. 

Schlosser, I. J. (1982) Fish community structure and function along two habitat gradients in a 

headwater stream. Ecological Monographs 52:395– 414. 

Schreiner, K. M. (1976) Critical habitat: what it is and is not. Endangered Species Tech. Bull. 1:1-4 

Semwal, D.P., Saradhi P. Pardha, Nautiyal, B.P., & Bhatt, A.B. (2007) Current status, distribution and 

conservation of rare and endangered medicinal plants of Kedarnath Wildlife Sanctuary, Central 

Himalayas, India. Current Science, 92 (12) : 1733-1738. 

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. (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. (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. (1984) Potamological studies on lotic environment of the upland river Bhagirathi of 

Garhwal Himalaya. .Environment and Ecology 2:239-242 

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

9 and 10:57-61. 

Shrestha, J. 1999 Coldwater fish and fisheries in Nepal. FAO Fish. Tech. Pap. 385:13-40. 

Sing, G. & Rawat, G.S. (2011) Ethnomedicinal Survey of Kedarnath Wildlife Sanctuary in Western 

Himalaya, India. Indian Journal of Fundamental and Applied Life Sciences 1 (1) 35-46. 

Singh, D., & 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 

Sippe, R. (1999) Criteria and standards for assessing significant impacts. In: Petts J, editor. Handbook 

of environmental impact assessment. Malden, MA: Blackwell Science, p. 74–92. 

Sivakumar, K & 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. 

Sivakumar, K. (2008) Species richness, distribution pattern and habitat use of fishes in the Trans- 

Himalayas, India. Elc. J. Ichthyology 1:31-42 

Smit, B. & Spaling, H. (1994) Methods for cumulative impact assessment. Environ Impact Assess 

Rev,15: 81-106. 

Smith, P. G. R. & Theberge, J. B. (1986) A review of criteria for evaluating natural areas. Environmental 

Management 10(6): 715-734. 

Sonntag, N.C., Everitt, R.R., Rattie, L.P., Colnett, D.L.,. Wolf, C.P, Truett, J., Dorecy, A., & 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. 

199

200 

Prepared by ESSA Environmental and Social Systems Analysts Ltd., Vancouver, B.C. 99 pp. + 

appendix. 

Sparks, R. E. (1995) Need for ecosystem management of large rivers and floodplains. BioScience 

45:168 –182. 

Stanford, J. A., & Ward, J. V. (1986a) Reservoirs of the Colorado River system. Pp 375–383 in B. R. 

Davies and K. F. Walker (eds.), The ecology of river systems. Dr W. Junk, Publishers, Dordrecht. 

Stockholm Environment Institute, SEI. (2008) Strategic environmental assessment of the hydropower 

master plan in the context of the power development plan VI. Final report. 

Swart, R., Raskin, P. & Robinson, J. (2004) The problem of the future: sustainability science and 

scenario analysis. Global Environmental Change 14:137-146. 

Tak, P.C. and G. Kumar. (1987) Wildlife of Nanda Devi National Park – an update. Ind. J. For. 10:184- 

190. 

Therivel, R., & 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. 

Tiwari, J.K., Ballabha, R. & Tiwari, P. (2010) Diversity and Present Status of Medicinal Plants in and 

around Srinagar Hydroelectric Power Project in Garhwal Himalaya, India: Needs for Conservation. 

Researcher 2(2) 50-60. 

Treweek, J. (1999) Ecological impact assessment. Wiley-Blackwell. 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. (1988) Endangered species act of 1973, as amended through the 100th 

Congress. U.S. Dep. Inter., Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. (2002) Critical Habitat: What is it? Downloaded on 11 January 2012 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/wildlife/tes/docs/esa_references/critical_habitat.pdf 

Uniyal, B. ( 2006) Traditional Knowledge and conservation of medicinal plants for sustainable 

livelihoods in the Garhwal Himalayan region of Uttaranchal, India. International Symposium towards 

Sustainable Livelihoods and Ecosystems in Mountainous Regions, 7-9 March, Chang Mai, 

Thailand. 

Uniyal, S., Awasth,i A. & Rawat, G.S. (2002) Traditional and ethnobotanical uses of plants in Bhagirathi 

Valley, Western Himalaya. Indian J. of Traditional Knowledge 1 (1): 7-19. 

Uniyal, V.P. & Ramesh K.. (2004) Wildlife survey in Gangotri National Park. Wildlife Institute of India 

and Uttarakhand Forest Department, Dehradun, India, pp.10. 

Valdiya, K. S. (1997) Developing a paradise in peril. Proceedings of 7 th Pandit Govind Ballabh Pant 

Memorial Lecture, G.B. Pant Institute of Himalayan Environment and Development, Kosi- Katarmal, 

Almora, 1997. 

Vanclay, F. (1999) Social impact assessment. In: Petts J, editor. Handbook of environmental impact 

assessment, vol. 1. Oxford: Blackwell Science; 1999. p. 301–26.

Vasudevan, K. & Sondhi, S. (2010) Amphibians and Reptiles of Uttarakhand, India. Wildlife Institute of 

India, Dehradun. 94 pp. 

Walker, K. F., Thoms, M. C. & Sheldon, M. C. (1992) Effects of weirs on the littoral environment of the 

River Murray, South Australia. Pages 271–292 in P. J. Boon, P. Calow and G. E. Petts (eds.), River 

conservation and management. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK. 

Ward, J. V., Tockner, K. and Schiemer, F. (1999) Biodiversity of floodplain ecosystems: Ecotones and 

connectivity. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 15:125–139. 

Webb, R.H., Schmidt, J.C., Marzolf, G.R. & 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 Fisheries Technical Paper 262. Food and Agriculture 

Organisation of the United Nations, Rome, 330 pp, 

Welcomme, R. L. (1992) River conservation—future prospects. Pages 454 – 462 in P. J. Boon, P. 

Calow and G. E. Petts (eds.), River conservation and management. John Wiley & Sons, 

Chichester, UK 

Wetmore, S. H., Mackay, R. J. & Newbury, R. W. (1990) Characterisation of the hydraulic habitat of 

Brachycentrus occidentalis, a filter feeding caddisfly. Journal of the North American Benthological 

Society 9:157–169. 

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). 

Wollenberg, E., Edmunds, D. & Buck, L. (2000) Using scenarios to make decisions about the future: 

anticipatory learning for the adaptive co-management of community forests. Landscape and Urban 

Planning 47:65-77. 

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

May 2011. 

World Commission on Dams (WCD) (2000) Dams and Development: A New Framework for Decision- 

Making the Report of The Earthscan Publications Ltd., London and Sterling, VA. 

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. 

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. 

Smakhtin, V. & Anputhas, M. (2006) An assessment of environmental flow requirements of Indian river 

basins. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water Management Institute. 42p. IWMI Research 

Report 107. 

201

Smakhtin, V., Arunachalam, M., Behera, S., Chatterjee, A., Das, S., Gautam, P., Joshi, G. D., 

Sivaramakrishnan, K. G., & 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. 

Stalnaker, C.B. & 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., & 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, Australia. 

Talwar, P. K. & Jhingran, A.G. (1991) Inland Fishes of India and Adjacent Countries - Vol. I. Oxford & 

IBH Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi, 541 pp. 

Tharme, R. E. (2003) A global perspective on environmental flow assessment: emerging trends in the 

development and application of environmental flow methodologies for rivers. River res. Applic. 19: 

397– 441 

Wesche, T.A., & 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. 

Rajvanshi, A., Mathur, V.B., Iftikhar, U.A. (2007) Best practice guidance for biodiversity-inclusive impact 

assessment:a manual for practitioners and reviewers in South Asia. CBBIA-IAIA Guidance Series. 

Capacity Building for Good practice in Biodiversity and Impact Assessment (CBBIA) Project, 

International Association of Impact Assessment (IAIA), North Dakota, USA. 

International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources and the United Nations 

Environmental Programme. (2001) Ecosystem Impacts of Large Dams. Background Paper Nr. 2, 

Prepared for IUCN / UNEP / WCD by M.P. McCartney, C. Sullivan and M.C. Acreman 

Lane, P.A., Wallace, R.R., Johnson, R.J., & Bernard, D. (1988) A Reference Guide to Cumulative 

Efsects Assessment in Canada. Volume 1, Hull, Quebec: Canadian Environmental Assessment 

Research Council. 

Witmer, G.W., Bain, M.B. & Irving, J.S. (1987) Cumulative impact assessment: application of a 

methodology. CONF-8708124-1, presented at Waterpower 1987 Conference, American Society of 

Civil Engineers, 19-21 August 1987, Portland, OR, USA. 

Lamba, B. S. (1987) Status survey of fauna. Nanda Devi National Park. Occasional Paper No. 103. 

Zoological Survey of India, Dehradun. 

Rasmussen, P. C. & Anderton, J. C. (2005) Birds of South Asia. The Ripley Guide. ISBN 84-87334-67- 

9 

202

Sharma, R.C., Gusain, O.P. and Juyal, C.P., 1990. Ecology of high altitude river Builangana of Garhwal 

Himalaya. In. Trivedy, R.K. (ed) River Pollution in India. Ashish Publ. House, New Delhi: 11-30 

Sharma, R.C., Bhanot, G. and Singh, D., 2004. Aquatic macro invertebrate diversity in Nanda Devi 

Biosphere Reserve, India. The Environmentalist. 24:211-221.Sharma et al., 2008 

Sharma, R.C., and Rawat, J.S., 2009. Monitoring of aquatic macroinvertebrates as bioindicator for 

accessing the health of Asan Conservation Reserve, India: A case study. Ecological Indicators, 

9:118-128. 

Payne, A.I., & Temple, S.A., 1996. River and floodplain fisheries in the Ganges basin. Final Report. 

Marine Resources Assessment Group Ltd. London. 

Trihey, E. W., & Stalnaker, C. B. (1985) Evolution and application of instream flow methodologies to 

small hydropower development: an overview of the issues. In: F. W. Olson, R. G. White, and R. 

H. Hamre, eds. Proceedings of the symposium on small hydropower and fisheries. American 

Fisheries Society, Bethesda, 176-183. 

203

i 

Appendix – 2.1

iii

1.1. Assignment 

CHAPTER -1 

INTRODUCTION 

The National River Conservation Directorate (NRCD), Ministry of Environment 

and Forests (MoEF), Government of India (GoI), vide letter no. J11022/1/2010-NRCD- 

II dated July 15, 2010 assigned a study to Alternate Hydro Energy Centre (AHEC), IIT 

Roorkee, for “Assessment of Cumulative Impact of Hydroelectric Projects in 

Alaknanda- Bhagirathi Basins”. The Terms of Reference of the study are given as 

Annexure 1.1. 

1.2. Geographical Area of Study 

The study area, comprising of Alakananda and Bhagirathi Basins, is shown in the 

index map (Fig. 1.1). Ganga Basin is the largest river basin in India with an area of 

8,61,404 sq.km and home to for nearly 43% of India’s population (448.3 million as per 

2001 census) (Fig. 1.2, Anon, 2009). The Alaknanda and Bhagirathi rivers are in the 

North Western part of the State of Uttarakhand, which is cradled in the Himalayas. 

These rivers have their confluence at Devprayag and lose their names to acquire a new 

one “Ganga”. 

Fig. 1.1 Index Map of Alaknanda and Bhagirathi Basins 

AHEC/2011: Assessment of Cumulative Impact of Hydropower Projects in Alaknanda and Bhagirathi Basins 

1-1

Fig. 1.2 Map of Ganga Basin (from National River Conservation Directorate, 

Ministry of Environment and Forests, “Status paper on River Ganga” 2009.) 

As a result of a combination of various factors Alaknanda and Bhagirathi basins 

are rich in water resources. Additionally the topography provides a large number of sites 

for setting up hydropower projects to generate large quantity of electricity with relatively 

low investments. Some hydropower projects have already been commissioned and many 

more are either under construction or are planned. For this study hydropower projects 

with installed capacity exceeding 1 MW have been considered as the smaller ones will 

have much smaller impact. 

The present generation capacity of the commissioned hydropower projects is 

1,850.8 MW. Hydropower projects under construction and development will add another 

7,712.5 MW of power to the existing capacity and if all the identified sites are made 

operational 9,563.3 MW of additional power will be added. (Annexure 1.2). 

1.3. Components of the Ecosystem for Cumulative Impact Assessment 

There is an apprehension that if hydropower potential of the study area is 

developed without a study of their impact on various components of the ecosystem 

(response components), then cumulative impact of these projects on various components 

of the ecosystem of the basin could be significantly adverse and would therefore be 

unacceptable. The components on which the impact of development of hydropower 

projects needs to be assessed, identified by NRCD, MoEF are as follows: 

a) geological (tectonic) stability, 

b) stability of glaciers resulting in more frequent avalanches, 


1-2

c) stability of slopes resulting in landslides, 

d) soil erosion reducing productivity of land and producing frequent floods, 

e) requirement of environmental flow, 

f) altered surface and ground water regime affecting drinking and irrigation 

water sources and their potential to provide water, 

g) flows in streams, tributaries and rivers and, above all, environmental flows 

necessary for sustaining biotic life and observing religious practices, 

h) impact on places of cultural and religious importance and 

i) details of submergence area under protected area network, 

1.4. Objectives of the Study 

Objectives of this study are the following 

a. To assess the cumulative impact of commissioned, under construction and 

proposed hydro power projects in Alaknanda and Bhagirathi basins. The 

assessment would consider, interalia, factors mentioned in paragraph 1.2 of 

ToR, and mentioned in Section 1.3 from a) to i) above. 

b. To estimate the extent to which hydropower potential identified in the basins 

should be developed without risking stability of landforms and environment. 

At the same time ensuring that the quality, quantity, and timing of water flows 

required to maintain functions, assimilative capacity and aquatic ecosystems 

that provide goods and services to people are maintained. 

c. Restrictions, if any, that need to be placed in the development of hydropower 

in the two basins. 

1.5. Other Requirements of the Study 

1.5.1. Collection of Maps 

The following maps were collected 

a) topographical maps of the two basins, 

b) satellite imageries and geological maps of the basins. 

c) satellite imageries of large completed projects to detect any discernible change 

between preconstruction period and post construction period. 

1.5.2. Collection of Reports 

The following reports were collected 

a) Detailed Project Reports and Prefeasibility reports (DPRs/PFRs) of all 

commissioned / proposed Hydropower Projects and 

b) EIA studies and Environmental Management Plans (EMPs) of all 

commissioned/ proposed HPs. 

c) Clearances accorded to all HPs. 

d) Monitored observations and activities under taken post clearances as per 

requirement 

e) Meteorological data 

f) Surface and ground water hydrology 


1-3

i. discharge upstream of hydropower sites. 

ii. discharge downstream of the hydropower sites. 

g) Available ground water levels in affected areas. 

h) Available socio-economic data of affected areas. 

i) Water quality data at each potential site. 

1.5.3. Collection of Data Relating to Completed Projects With Capacity Above 25 MW 

This study includes an assessment of impact of large hydropower projects on 

environment and other factors mentioned in paragraph 1.2. In particular the following 

data was gathered: 

a) landslides 

b) loss of irrigation potential, if any 

c) Health hazards 

d) Socio-economic survey of the area to assess the socio-economic impact of 

completed projects. 

e) Water quality and discharge studies in the immediate vicinity and d/s of the 

project 

f) Study the impact on springs. 

1.5.4. Deliverables 

Based on this study the following reports are to be delivered 

a) The impact of large completed hydropower projects in the basin of rivers 

Alaknanda and Bhagirathi, up to Devprayag. 

b) Based on the above study, drawing empirical inferences in assessing impact of 

hydropower projects under implementation / proposed. 

c) Cumulative impact of 

i. All projects on a stream on the tributary. 

ii. All projects located on a tributary at its confluence with river 

Alaknanda. 

iii. All projects located on a tributary at its confluence with river 

Bhagirathi. 

iv. All hydropower projects proposed / established on river Alaknanda and 

Bhagirathi upto Devprayag. 

d) This report addresses the following issues 

i. Whether acceptable limits of geomorphologic stability or of 

environmental sustainability, particularly of environmental flows, are 

likely to exceed at any small or large hydropower project site(s). 

ii. Whether there will be a depletion of irrigation potential or availability 

of drinking water in habitations as a result of any project. 

iii. Impact on ground water and springs in the basin. 

iv. Impact of these projects on places of cultural, religious or of tourism 

importance. 

v. Whether any restrictions should be placed on development of 

hydropower in the basin. 

vi. The impacts should be expressed qualitatively and quantitatively. 

The Terms of Reference (ToR) of the assignment are given at Annexure 1.2. 


1-4

1.6. Background of the Problem 

As is well known, the state of Uttarakhand and the country are acutely short 

of electricity, a prerequisite for development. In view of rapid economic growth the 

gap between demand and supply of electricity has been increasing. In this context all 

sources of power generation need to be harnessed. In the last 50 years, although the 

role of hydropower in meeting the power requirement of the country has increased in 

terms of output, its share in the mix of power has significantly reduced and is far 

below the desirable level. 

Any form of power generation affects the environment. Hydrocarbons and 

coal release a large amount of green house gases and particulate matter which pollutes 

the atmosphere and may also contribute to global warming. Wind, tidal and 

geothermal related power plants can be located only in very specific and limited areas 

where suitable conditions exists, moreover, cost of power production by these plants 

is invariably high. Solar energy requires panels which are made from rare earth 

elements. The rare earth elements are expensive and available at the moment only in 

very limited regions of the world and hence have to be imported. Moreover, cost of 

production of solar panels by the present known technology is high and large scale 

use of solar energy in the next few decades seems unlikely. Material required to 

generate nuclear energy (nuclear fuel) is available only with large constraints and 

serious environmental hazards are associated with this form of electrical energy 

generation in case of an accident. The occurrence of such accidents, however few, are 

serious environmental hazards. 

Considering the above, hydropower generation appears to be a viable 

alternative to meet the ever increasing power demand. Before a decision is taken to 

harness this considerable hydropower potential in the basin under study it is necessary 

to understand the cumulative impact of development of this hydropower potential on 

the response components of the ecosystem. In view of the above an attempt is made in 

this study to assess the cumulative impact of hydropower projects in Alaknanda and 

Bhagirathi Basins. 

1.6.1 Cumulative Impact Assessment 

1.6.1.1 Concept 

The impact of human activity or a project on an environmental resource or 

eco-system may be considered insignificant when assessed in isolation, but may 

become significant when evaluated in the context of the combined effect of all the 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities that may have or have had 

an impact on the resources in question. The Council for Environmental Quality 

established under the US National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) came to 

the view that a conventional project and site-specific approach to environmental 

assessment has its limitations when it comes to assessing potential cumulative effects 

on environmental resources. 


1-5

1.6.1.2 Definition of Cumulative Impact 

Cumulative impact is defined by the US Council on Environmental Quality as 

"the impacts on the environment that result from the incremental impact of the action 

when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions (RFFA) 

regardless of what agency undertakes such other actions." Thus the practice of 

Cumulative Effects Assessment (CEA) of projects in a region began. Various aspects 

of CEA began to be studied. 

There are several reasons why Cumulative Impact Assessments should be carried out 

i.e., 

i. Conceptual reasons – For a group of projects, the environmental effects of 

primary concern tend to be cumulative and it will not be advisable to consider 

simply the effects of individual projects 

ii. Pragmatic reasons – CEA guidance and other EIA legislation of the 1990s 

requires that CEs be assessed 

iii. Regulatory reasons – make “room” for future developments 

iv. Idealistic reasons – minimize negative CEs, promote resource sustainability 

In India, so far, there is no law requiring the conduct of Cumulative 

Environmental Impact Assessment before a development project is given 

Environmental Clearance. 

During 1980s and 1990s, it became the practice in many countries to include 

Cumulative Effects in Environmental Impact Statements. CEA processes were also 

developed. Litigation in courts also clarified some of the concepts. With the dawn of 

the present millennium i.e., 2000s practice for project CEAs was improved; methods 

of analysis developed and existing methods expanded. 

In view of the above the present study attempts to deal with the issue of 

cumulative impact assessment of hydropower projects in Alaknanda and Bhagirathi 

basins in light of the prevailing concepts of cumulative impact assessment of 

hydropower projects. 

1.7. Description of Area 

1.7.1. Uttarakhand State 

Uttarakhand (formerly known as Uttaranchal) was carved out of Uttar Pradesh 

as the 27 th state of India on 9 th November 2000. The state lies between latitudes 

28°43 N to 31°27 N and longitudes 77°34 E to 81°02 E, with a total geographical area 

53,484 sq km (1.6% of total area of the country). Forest area of 34,651 sq km, is 

63.99% of the total area of the state (Kumar, 2010). 

This state is predominantly mountainous, with hilly area covering 46035 sq 

km (86.07%) and the plains having an area of 7448 sq km (13.93%). The state is 

divided into two divisions Kumaon and Garhwal, and has 13 districts, with 78 Tehsils, 

95 Development Blocks, 670 Nyaya Panchayats, 7541 Gram Panchayats and 16826 

villages, excluding forest settlements, of which 15761 are inhabited. Total population 

of the state, as per 2001 census, was 84,89,000. Bulk of the population, 46.24%, lives 


1-6

in the three plain districts of Hardwar, Dehradun and Udham Singh Nagar. Population 

density of the state is 159 persons/ sq km as against 324 at the national level. Urban 

component of population is 25.59 per cent, slightly lower than the national average of 

27.78 per cent. The female population is 962 per thousand males, a little higher than 

the national average of 933 recorded by the last census. However, rural areas have a 

better sex ratio with 1007 females per thousand males. 

In the overall ranking of different states in the country, the state ranks 20 th in 

terms of population, 18 th in terms of area, 25 th in terms of population density and 14 th 

in terms of literacy. District wise data for the state is given in Table 1.1. 

Table 1.1 Statistical Data on Uttarakhand as per 2001 Census 

District Headquarter Area 

(sq 

km) 

Population Male Female Populati 

on 

Density 

(persons 

/sq km) 


Literacy 

rate 

(%) 

Uttarkashi Uttarkashi 8016 295013 152016 142997 37 65.71 

Tehri 

Garhwal 

New Tehri 3796 604747 295168 309579 166 66.73 

Pauri 

Garhwal 

Pauri 5230 697078 331061 366017 124 77.49 

Rudraprayag Rudraprayag 2439 227439 107535 119904 115 73.65 

Chamoli Gopeshwar 7520 370359 183746 186614 43 75.43 

Pithoragarh Pithoragarh 7169 462289 227615 234674 65 75.95 

Bageshwar Bageshwar 2246 249462 118510 130952 111 70.42 

Champawat Champawat 1766 224542 111084 113458 126 71.29 

Udham 

Singh Nagar 

Rudrapur 3055 1235614 649484 586130 486 64.96 

Nainital Nainital 4251 762909 400254 362655 179 78.36 

Almora Almora 3689 630567 293848 336719 201 73.64 

Hardwar Hardwar 2360 1447187 776021 671168 613 63.75 

Dehra Dun Dehra Dun 3088 1282143 679583 602560 415 78.99 

Total Uttarakhand 53,484 8489349 4325925 4163427 159 71.6 

The state is also known as Dev Bhumi (“Abode of Gods) and tourism plays an 

important role in the economy of the state. It has the famous pilgrim centers: four 

dhams (Badrinath, Kedarnath, Gangotri and Yamnotri), five prayags (Vishnuprayag, 

Nandprayag, Karnprayag, Rudraprayag and Devprayag), besides Hardwar and 

Rishikesh which are prominent religious centres for Hindus. The famous “Kumbh 

Mela” is held every twelve years at Hardwar. Hemkund Sahib, a prominent pilgrim 

centre for Sikhs is also situated in Uttarakhand. Besides centres of religious 

importance, many hill stations are very popular tourist destinations like Nainital, 

Mussorie, Kausani, Ranikhet, Almora and Lansdown. These places are famous for 

their natural beauty. The state also has several sites for winter, river and adventure 

sports at Auli, Dayara Bugyal, Tehri Dam, Kodiyala etc. 

The Alaknanda basin lies mainly in Chamoli, Rudraprayag, Tehri Garhwal and 

Pauri Garhwal districts with small areas of Pithoragarh and Bageshwar districts also 

included in it. The Bhagirathi basin is confined within Uttarkashi, Tehri Garhwal and 

Pauri Garhwal districts. After the confluence of Alaknanda and Bhagirathi Rivers, at 

Devprayag, the river is called Ganga. Fig. 1.3, shows districts and towns of the state, 

1-7

Fig. 1.4 shows villages in Alaknanda and Bhagirathi basins and Fig. 1.5 shows the 

location of commissioned and under development power projects along with protected 

areas. 

Uttarakhand has consistently recorded a high rate of economic growth even 

though more than 61 per cent of the area is covered by forests which contributes very 

little directly to the State Domestic Product, and only a little over 13 per cent of the 

area is available for any meaningful agriculture. Per capita income has been slightly 

higher than the national average. Level of literacy recorded in the last census was 71.6 

percent, with 83.3 percent for males and 59.6 per cent for females, much higher than 

the national average. 

Since the formation of the State its GDP has generally been higher than the 

national GDP, except for a few years. 

A decade has passed since the formation of this State. In this period 

contribution of primary sector to the State GDP, which was 31%, has declined to 18% 

and that secondary sector increased from 18% to 35%. Thus, roles of the two sectors 

have been reversed. The share of tertiary sector has marginally declined. The 

secondary sector comprises of manufacturing, organized and unorganized; 

construction; and electricity, gas and water supply. Trade, hotels and restaurants, as a 

sub-sector, had the largest share in the tertiary sector followed by public 

administration and transport in most districts. 

Contribution of Alaknanda and Bhagirathi Basins to the state GDP is low, 

being only 400 million against the state GDP of 207 million, as is to be expected 

because of the rugged terrain. The districts constituting the basin under had in 2008- 

09 per capita NDDP about half of that of Hardwar the district with the highest per 

capita NDDP. 

1.7.2. Climatic Conditions 

The state has two distinct climate regions (a) the predominant hilly terrain and 

(b) the plain region. Alaknanda and Bhagirathi Basins fall under the first category. 

The mountain regions do not have a uniform type of climate and variations are due to 

location, altitude, aspect and morphology. Places situated on southern slopes of the 

Himalaya receive more sunshine and a larger amount of rainfall. But due to a high 

rate of evaporation and transpiration, these slopes remain generally dry. The duration 

of sunshine is shorter on northern slopes, with the result that the moisture retaining 

capacity of the soil is higher, even though these slopes receive less rainfall. 

Uttarakhand has been divided into seven broad climatic zones based primarily on 

altitude as given in Table 1.2. 


1-8


1-9


1-10


1-11

Table 1.2 Climatic Zones in Uttarakhand 

Climatic Zone Altitude (m) Average Temperature Range (°C) 

Annual June January 

Tropical Zone 300–900 18.9–21.1 27.2 – 29.4 11.1–13.3 

Warm 

Temperature 

(Sub-Tropical) 

900–1800 13.9–18.9 21.1–27.2 6.1–11.1 

Cool Temperature 1800–2400 10.3–13.9 17.2–21.1 2.8–6.1 

Cold Zone 2400–3000 4.5–10.3 13.3–17.2 1.7–2.8 

Alpine Zone 3000–4000 3.0–4.5 5.6–13.3 Below 

Zero 

Glacial Zone 4000–4800 For ten months, 

Perpetually Above 4800 below zero, and 

Frozen Zone 

(Cold desert, No 

vegetation) 

in July and 

August between 

2.2°C and 3.9°C 

1.7.3. General Geological Setup 

Uttarakhand is located in the central part of the Himalayan mountain chain, in 

the northern part of the Indian subcontinent. The Himalaya in the Uttarakhand is 

subdivided into east-west trending linear belts with their specific physiographic 

features. These belts are, from north to south, Tethys Himalaya, Great Himalaya 

(Higher Himalaya), Lesser Himalaya and Sub-Himalaya (Himalayan Foot hills i.e., 

Siwalik hills). In the south of the Himalayan belt, the Ganga alluvial plain is located. 

These physiographic belts of the Himalaya also show specific geological and 

rock characteristics. The Tethys Himalaya is made of sedimentary rocks (Tethys 

zone), the Great Himalaya is made up of metamorphic rocks (central crystalline zone), 

the Lesser Himalaya is made up of Precambrian sedimentary rocks and some 

metamorphic rocks (Krol belt, Inner Sedimentary belt) and the Sub-Himalaya is made 

up of young friable sedimentary rocks (Siwalik zone). These belts are also separated 

by regional tectonic lineaments, namely Basement Thrust Front (BTF) between 

Tethys and Central Crystalline zone, Main Central Thrust between Central Crystalline 

zone and Inner Sedimentary belt, Main Boundary Thrust between Krol belt and 

Siwalik belt and Himalayan Frontal Thrust between Siwalik belt and Ganga Alluvial 

Plain. These thrusts and faults are the main deep-seated weak zones. Additionally, 

there are a large number of small faults crisscrossing the entire area. 

The study area is a part of the seismically active regions of the world. 

According to seismic zoning map of India it falls in seismic zones IV and V. The area 

has witnessed many earthquakes of medium to large size in the recent past. These 

earthquakes are related to two major tectonic features, namely Main Central Thrust 

(MCT) and Main Boundary Thrust (MBT). The study area is part of local seismicity 

zone extending from Barkot to Chamoli towns. The study area has the Main Central 

Thrust (MCT) in the central part of the Bhagirathi and Alaknanda river basins. 

Geology in detail is discussed in Chapter 4 and seismicity is discussed in Chapter 5. 

1.7.4. Alaknanda – Bhagirathi Basins 

Both Bhagirathi and Alaknanda rivers originate from glaciers, namely 

Gangotri glacier and Satopanth and Bhagirathi Kharak, respectively. Several 


1-12

tributaries also originate from glaciers and snow fields. However, contribution of 

snow melt in the river system is rather limited. Rivers of the region show strong 

fluctuation in discharge depending upon the season of the year. Total catchment of 

Alaknanda and Bhagirathi basins up to Devprayag is 19,600 sq. km. Alaknanda and 

Bhagirathi rivers meet at Devprayag and downstream, the river acquires the name 

Ganga. 

The area occupied by river drainage is rather rugged with deep, steep river 

valleys separated by linear narrow ridges in between. In general the pattern of 

drainage is dendritic. In several segments the tributaries show preferred parallelism 

and other preferred orientation indicating a tectonic or lithological control on the 

drainage development. 

An important feature of rivers of the area is that these are deeply incised and 

possess steep valley slopes. Many minor tributaries meet the trunk river with steep 

slopes and often bring large quantities of debris. The Himalaya is undergoing fast 

erosion and large quantities of sediment are generated due to intense physical 

weathering. This sediment is quickly moved along steep slopes and downstream by 

rivers. 

In some segments of river valleys, particularly in the upper reaches, valley 

slopes are very steep and unstable. These segments regularly witness landslides and 

sediment movement as debris flow. Landslides are very intense and cause destruction 

of forest cover on hill slopes. Due to this phenomena large parts of valley slopes are 

barren, without any vegetation cover. 

A regular feature of the river system of the area is that it receives 

intermittently huge amount of sediment from valley slopes; but most commonly from 

steep gradient minor tributaries. Often this sediment transfer takes place as a quick 

single event of few hours. The amount of sediment is so large that it blocks flow in 

the channel by making a temporary dam, and converting the river upstream into a 

temporary lake. This natural damming may exist for a few hours, days, weeks or in 

exceptional cases several decades. The breaking of these natural dams releases large 

amount of water and sediment debris. It may cause local flooding in downstream 

areas and also huge amount of sediment can be deposited on fertile agricultural land. 

Some important such lakes are Barital in Rishiganga, Chinatal in Patalganga, and 

Gauna lake in Alaknanda. 

In higher reaches, particularly during winter, snow avalanches take place 

which may temporarily block flow in the river. Breaking and melting of snow 

avalanches causes flash flood in downstream areas locally. 

In monsoon season the main source of water discharge is surface runoff of 

rainwater, along with some contribution from snow melt water and groundwater. In 

the post-monsoon season discharge is essentially from groundwater. In summer 

season discharge is from melt water and groundwater. 

These rivers, along with their catchment, are depicted in Fig 3.6. Other 

hydrological details of the basin may be seen in Chapter 7 on Hydrological Studies. 

In the study area several high altitude protected areas (national parks) are 

present, namely Govinda National Park, Gangotri National Park, Kedarnath Wild Life 


1-13

Sanctuary, Valley of Flowers National Park, and Nanda Devi National Park. These 

areas are partly located above the snowline and partly incorporate drainage basins of 

tributaries of Bhagirathi and Alakhnanda rivers in their upper reaches. The study 

shows a rich biodiversity. The flora shows a wide range from low altitude to high 

altitude alpine flora. This region is well-known for growth of a wide variety of 

medicinal and aromatic plants. 

In the last few decades changes in Himalayan landforms and ecosystem have 

been observed. One important factor for changes has been population growth and 

haphazard developmental activities, namely, unplanned construction of residential and 

commercial buildings. Road construction and mining activity has not been properly 

planned. In some areas unplanned construction activity has caused land subsidence 

and increased landslides. Improper building design and construction has been 

responsible for large-scale damage of humans and buildings in case of recent 

Uttarkashi and Chamoli earthquakes. 

This study does not include socio-economic survey of the area, the effect of 

Hydropower Projects on landscape, livelihood of people living in the area around 

hydropower projects, development of transportation and other infra structural 

facilities due to coming up of hydropower projects in the region, effect of hydropower 

projects on fauna in the region and health of people living in the region. This is 

because these aspects were not covered in the terms of reference of the study and 

because of time constraints. It may, however, be added that it is felt that major 

conclusions and recommendations of the study would not change even if these were 

included. 

References: 

Anon ((2009): Status Paper on Ganga, National River Conservation Directorate, 

Ministry of Environment and Forest 31p. 

Sanjay Kumar (2010): Know Your State Uttarakhand, Arihant Publications (i) Pvt. 

Ltd., Meerut 208p. 


1-14


ANNEXURE 1.1 

Terms of Reference to undertake study for the Assessment of Cumulative 

Impact of Hydropower Projects in Alaknanda and Bhagirathi Basins as per The 

National River Conservation Directorate (NRCD), Ministry of Environment and 

Forests (MoEF), Government of India (GoI), letter no. J11022/1/2010-NRCD-II 

dated July 15, 2010. 

Terms of Reference 

1. Background 

1.1. Alaknanda and Bhagirathi Basins 

The rivers Alaknanda and Bhagirathi, which have their confluence at 

Devprayag, give birth to the holy river Ganga. Their basins comprise glaciers in the 

higher reaches of the mighty Himalayas, which feed the rivers. The entire region has 

enormous social and cultural significance. 

Both these rivers, along with their tributaries, are rich in water resources. 

Because of the hilly terrain huge falls are available and the identified potential for 

hydropower in the area is large. There are a number of identified sites for large and 

small hydropower projects. 

Hydroelectric projects in the area may have major implications for the 

environment, for flow in stream/rivers, ground water etc. The risks in many cases may 

not be obvious but could be latent. Among the environmental conditions the quantity 

and quality of water during different parts of the year (environmental flow) is very 

important. 

1.2. Probable Impact of Hydropower Projects 

Before taking up any hydropower project of more than 25 MW capacity an 

EIA is mandatory and the project can be implemented only if the environmental 

clearance is accorded and the environmental safeguards prescribed are complied with. 

However, environmental impact assessment of isolated projects, on a case to case 

basis, may not present the true picture of the cumulative impact of all the projects that 

are proposed/ under implementation in due course. Against a large number of sites 

with potential to develop large/medium/small hydro power projects in the basin, only 

few projects have so far been set up or are under execution. With the projects 

proposed / being developed, it is important to ensure that their cumulative impact does 

not exceed the limits in terms of the following parameters:- 

a) geological (tectonic) stability, 

b) stability of glaciers resulting in more frequent avalanches, 

c) stability of slopes resulting in landslides, 

d) soil erosion reducing productivity of land and producing frequent floods, 

e) requirement of environmental flow, 

f) altered surface and ground water regime affecting drinking and irrigation 

water sources and their potential to provide water, 

g) flows in the streams, tributaries and rivers and, above all, environmental flows 

necessary for observing religious practices and sustaining biotic life, 

1-15

h) impact on the places of cultural and religious importance, 

i) details of submergence area under protected area network, 

2. Objective of the Study 

2.1. To assess the cumulative impact of existing/ proposed/ under construction 

hydro power projects in the Alaknanda and Bhagirathi basins. The 

assessment should consider, inter alia, the factors mentioned in paragraph 

1.2. 

2.2. To assess the extent to which the hydropower potential identified in the 

basins should be developed without risking stability and environment and at 

the same time ensuring that the quality, quantity, and timing of water flows 

required to maintain the functions and assimilative capacity that provide 

goods and services to people are maintained. 

2.3. Restrictions, if any, that needs to be placed in the development of 

hydropower in the two basins. 

3. Approach 

There are three kinds of hydropower project sites. One where hydropower 

projects are operational. The second which are under implementation and the third 

those sites where work is yet to commence. 

Study of the impact of projects that have already been implemented will give 

empirical evidence of the consequences of activities whose impact otherwise is 

difficult to precisely predict. This will help in drawing suitable inferences of the 

impact of activities w.r.t. the projects which are under implementation or where 

implementation has not begun. 

The impact of the hydropower projects may be studied stream, tributary and 

river wise in series moving from upstream to downstream. The project most u/s on 

the uppermost stream may be taken first and its impact should be taken in to account 

while assessing the impact on the next d/s project. Tributaries and streams should 

also be studied in the same sequence. This approach will ensure that at any particular 

site the impact of all the u/s sites is reflected. 

There are already a few projects which have been set up and are operational. 

The projected impact of u/s identified projects that may come up in the future needs 

to be superimposed on the impact of the existing Hydropower Project. The 

cumulative impact of the project should then be superimposed on the assessed 

impact of the identified d/s projects that have not been set up so far upto Devprayag. 

The available EIA reports of all existing/proposed projects in the two river 

basins may be used. Prudence will require that impacts of these projects when 

implemented do not exceed the limits of safety or sustainability. 

4. Methodology 

4.1. Identification of Stakeholders 


1-16

The stake holders shall be identified and they be taken in to confidence in the 

process of impact assessment at various stages. 

4.2. Assessment of the requirement of data 

The impact assessments that need to be made will have their own requirements 

of data. This requirement shall be identified. Whatever data is available shall be 

collected. This will enable identification of the gaps in the data which will be filled up 

through primary collection of data. 

4.3. The hydropower projects may have implications on geologic stability, stability of 

slopes, landslides and erosion of soil in the catchment. Geological information will, 

therefore, need to be gathered. 

4.4. Maps, Reports & Data 

The following data shall be collected: 

a) Topographical maps, satellite imageries and geological maps of the basins. For 

completed projects, three satellite imageries, one pertaining to pre-project 

period, second pertaining to the period immediately after completion and the 

third pertaining to the latest period. These can be used to: 

i. Mark the streams, tributaries and the completed projects, projects 

under implementation, Sites with potential for the development of 

hydropower, both large and small. 

ii. Identify the area upstream and downstream likely to be affected by the 

hydro-power potential sites and mark the villages. 

iii. Natural features – glaciers, tributaries, streams, other drainage lines. 

iv. Geological Features in the affected areas. 

v. Present land use 

vi. Subsidence Erosion Intensity Maps, Relief and Aspect Maps should be 

prepared. 

vii. Changes that have taken place over the time – since the establishment 

of hydropower projects in the basin 

viii. Sites from where building material was either extracted or material is 

proposed to be extracted. 

b) Reports 

j) DPRs I PFRs of all commissioned I proposed Hydropower Projects and 

k) EIA studies and Environmental Management Plans (EMPs) of all 

commissioned/ proposed HEPs. 

l) Clearances accorded to all HEPs. 

m) Monitored observations and activities under taken post clearances as per 

requirement 

n) Meteorological 

o) Surface and ground water hydrology 

discharge upstream of the hydropower sites. 

discharge downstream of the hydropower sites. 

p) Ground water levels in the affected areas. 

q) Socio-economic data of the affected areas. 


1-17

) Water quality data at each potential site. 

4.5. Completed Projects -Data Collection for Impact Assessment 

The projects with capacity 25 MW and above which have been completed and 

are operational would have made an Impact. The study should include an assessment 

of their impact on environment and other factors mentioned in paragraph 1.2 in 

particular the following data should be gathered: 

a) landslides 

b) loss of irrigation potential, if any 

c) Health hazards 

d) Socio-economic Survey of the area to assess the socio-economic impact of the 

completed projects. 

e) Water quality and discharge studies in the immediate vicinity and d/s of the 

project 

f) Study the impact on springs 

4.6. This data should be compared with the base line data as available in the EIA 

report of the project. 

4.7. Use of the above data to generate further outputs such as 

i. Develop Digital Elevation Models (DEM), wherever needed. 

ii. Mark existing and new transmission lines that will need to be erected. 

iii. Mark villages which get their drinking water and or irrigation water from 

streams likely to be affected by hydropower plants 

iv. Mark areas which are prone to land slides 

v. Mark areas which are prone to soil erosion. 

4.8. Analysis of Data and Recommendations: 

The data will be analysed to assess the impact of each activity necessary to 

implement the hydropower projects. The safe limits of parameters for geological and 

slope stability, environmental flows, availability of water for various traditional uses 

and other natural resources and environmental sustainability should be determined 

based on the standard methodologies. It should be examined if any of these limits will 

exceed at any site or sites and if so what measures need to be taken to take care of 

safety and sustainability norms. 

5. Deliverables 

a) Study the impact of large completed hydro-electric projects in the basin of the 

rivers Alaknanda and Bhagirathi up to Devprayag. It will include all factors 

mentioned in paragraph 1.2. 

b) Based on the above study, drawing empirical inferences in assessing impact of 

hydroelectric projects under implementation / proposed. 

c) A report, on the cumulative impact of 

i. all projects on a stream on the tributary. 

ii. all projects located on a tributary at its confluence with the river 

Alaknanda. 

iii. all projects located on a tributary at its confluence with the river 


1-18

Bhagirathi. 

iv. all hydroelectric projects proposed / established on river Alaknanda and 

Bhagirathi up to Devprayag. 

(i). The report should, inter-alia, address whether the acceptable 

limits of geomorphologic stability or of environment al 

sustainability, particularly of environmental flows, are likely to 

exceed at any small or large hydropower project site(s). 

(ii). Whether there will be a depletion of irrigation potential or 

availability of drinking water in habitations as a result of any 

project. 

(iii). Impact on ground water and springs in the basin. 

(iv). Impact of these projects on places of cultural, religious or 

tourism importance. 

(v). Whether any restrictions should be placed on the development 

of hydropower in the basin. 

d) The impacts should be expressed qualitatively and quantitatively. 

6. Time to Cary out the Assignment 

Six months 


1-19


ANNEXURE 1.2 

Table Showing Operational, Under Construction and Under Development Hydropower 

Projects in Alaknanda and Bhagirathi Basins 

S. 

No. 

Project Name Basin Name of River/ 

Tributary 

Installed 

Capacity 

(MW) 

In Operation 

1 Agunda thati Bhagirathi Dharamganga 3 

2 Badrinath II Alaknanda Rishi ganga 1.25 

3 Bhilangana Bhagirathi Bhilangana 22.5 

4 Debal Alaknanda Kailganga 5 

5 Jummagad Alaknanda Jummagad 1.2 

6 Maneri bhali I Bhagirathi Bhagirathi 90 

7 Manaeri bhali-II Bhagirathi Bhagirathi 304 

8 Pilangad Bhagirathi Pilangad 2.25 

9 Rajwakti Alaknanda Nandakini 3.6 

10 Tehri stage-I Bhagirathi Bhagirathi 1000 

11 Urgam Alaknanda Kalpganga 3 

12 Vanala Alaknanda Nandakini 15 

13 Vishnuprayag Alaknanda Alaknanda 400 

Total Capacity 1850.8 

Under Development – At Construction Stage 

1 Bhilangana-III Bhagirathi Bhilangana 24 

2 Birahi Ganga Alaknanda Birahi Ganga 7.2 

3 Kail ganga Alaknanda Kailganga 5 

4 Kaliganga-I Alaknanda Kaliganga 4 

5 Kaliganga-II Alaknanda Kaliganga 6 

6 Koteshwar Bhagirathi Bhagirathi 400 

7 Lohari Nagpala Bhagirathi Bhagirathi 600 

8 Madhmaheshwar Alaknanda Mandakini 10 

9 Phata Byung Alaknanda Mandakini 76 

10 Rishi Ganga Alaknanda Rishi ganga 13.2 

11 Singoli Bhatwari Alaknanda Mandakini 99 

12 Srinagar Alaknanda Alaknanda 330 

13 Tapowan Vishnugad Alaknanda Dhauliganga 520 

14 Vishnugad Pipalkoti Alaknanda Alaknanda 444 


Under Development – At Other Stages 

1 Alaknanda Alaknanda Alaknanda 300 

2 Asiganga-I Bhagirathi Asiganga 4.5 

3 Asiganga-II Bhagirathi Asiganga 4.5 

4 Asiganga-III Bhagirathi Asiganga 9 

5 Balganga-II Bhagirathi Balganga 7 

6 Bharon Ghati Bhagirathi Bhagirthi 381 

7 Bhilangna-II A Bhagirathi Bhilangana 24 

8 Bhilangna-II B Bhagirathi Bhilangana 24 

9 Bhilangna-II C Bhagirathi Bhilangana 21 

1-20

S. 

No. 

Project Name Basin Name of River/ 

Tributary 

Installed 

Capacity 

(MW) 

10 Bhyundar ganga Alaknanda Bhyundar ganga 24.3 

11 Birahi Ganga-I Alaknanda Birahi ganga 24 

12 Birahi Ganga-II Alaknanda Birahi ganga 24 

13 Bowla Nandprayag Alaknanda Alaknanda 300 

14 Devsari Alaknanda Pinder 252 

15 Dewali Alaknanda Nandakini 13 

16 Gohana Tal Alaknanda Birahi ganga 50 

17 Jadh Ganga Bhagirathi Jadhganga 50 

18 Jalandharigad Bhagirathi Jalandhari 24 

19 Jelam Tamak Alaknanda Dhauliganga 126 

20 Jhala koti Bhagirathi Balganga 12.5 

21 Kakoragad Bhagirathi Kakoragad 12.5 

22 Kaldigad Bhagirathi Kaldigad 9 

23 Karmoli Bhagirathi Jadhganga 140 

24 Khirao ganga Bhagirathi Khaiaoganga 4 

25 Kot Budha Kedar Bhagirathi Balganga 6 

26 Kotli Bhel-I A Bhagirathi Bhagirathi 195 

27 Kotli Bhel-I B Alaknanda Alaknanda 320 

28 Kotli Bhel-II Ganga Ganga 530 

29 Lata Tapovan Alaknanda Dhauliganga 170 

30 Limcha Gad Bhagirathi Limcha Gad 3.5 

31 Malari Jelam Alaknanda Dhauliganga 114 

32 Melkhet Alaknanda Pinder 15 

33 Nandprayag Langrasu Alaknanda Alaknanda 100 

34 Pala Maneri Bhagirathi Bhagirthi 480 

35 Pilangad- II Bhagirathi Pilangad 4 

36 Ram Bara Alaknanda Mandakini 24 

37 Rishi Ganga-I Alaknanda Rishi ganga 70 

38 Rishiganga II Alaknanda Rishi ganga 35 

39 Siyangad Bhagirathi Siyangad 11.5 

40 Suwari Gad Bhagirathi Suwari Gad 2 

41 Tamak Lata Alaknanda Dauliganga 250 

42 Tehri Stage-II Bhagirathi Bhagirathi 1000 

43 Urgam-II Alaknanda Kalpganga 3.8 



1-21

Terms of Reference for a study on the “Assessment of Cumulative 

Impacts of Hydroelectric Projects on aquatic and terrestrial 

biodiversity in Alaknanda and Bhagirathi Basins, Uttarakhand” 

1. 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 Kothibhel Stage 1A, Kothibhel Stage IB and 

Kothibhel 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 23 rd July, 2010 (Annexure-I) has 

requested the Wildlife Institute of India 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 appropriate 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 17 th 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 existing and proposed hydroelectric projects in Bhagirathi and Alaknanda river 

basins are shown in Figure 1. 

- 1 - 

Appendix – 2.3

2. SCOPE OF STUDY 

Figure 1. Existing and proposed hydroelectric projects in 

Bhagirathi and Alaknanda river basins 

The broad scope of the study will be as follows: 

- 2 - 

Source: AHEC, 2010 

a) Assessment of ecological flows required for conservation of rare, endangered 

and threatened (RET) floral and faunal species. 

b) Assessment of the cumulative impacts of hydropower projects in the two 

basins on the riverine ecosystem in general and terrestrial and aquatic 

biodiversity in particular 

Considering the interdisciplinary nature of the work, the AHEC will provide the 

necessary data, information and products relating to environmental flows and water 

budget. The WII will provide AHEC data, information and products relating to 

protected area network and ecological requirements of RET species.

3. CONTEXT 

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 Bhaigrathi 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. 

Status and distribution of the above mentioned taxa and several faunal species which 

might use riverine forests as dispersal corridors needs to be assessed on a priority 

basis so as to determine the cumulative impacts of hydropower projects and to 

develop/evolve appropriate mitigation / conservation plans. 

4. APPROACH 

The study merits inter-institutional cooperation for achieving all the study objectives. 

While the WII will contribute towards generating ecological baseline for evaluating the 

impacts on aquatic and terrestrial ecology, AHEC will provide the major data inputs for 

evaluating cumulative environmental impacts. WII will collect the data on status and 

distribution of rare, threatened and endangered species both aquatic and terrestrial, 

using standard methods. Similarly, ecological requirements of select individual species 

that command conservation significance will be collected observing their habitat use 

and behavior. Secondary data wherever available will be utilized for this study. 

- 3 -

Based on the locations of the proposed and existing projects an assessment of 

quantum of change on the loss and gain of seasonal flow regimes in the two river 

basins also needs to be calculated, so that appropriate measures for a critical 

minimum flow for maintenance of riverine ecology for RET species can be worked out. 

Implications on environmental flow with special reference to water flow impacts on 

aquatic and associated terrestrial species would be subsequently determined using 

outputs generated by AHEC. These are seen as critical inputs to the outputs to be 

ultimately generated by the WII. 

5. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY 

5.1. 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. 

5.2. To identify the critical wildlife habitats along the existing and planned 

hydroelectric projects located on rivers Alaknanda and Bhagirathi upto 

Devaprayag. 

5.3. Delineate river stretches critical for conservation of rare, endangered and 

threatened (RET) aquatic species. 

5.4. To assess the key habitat variables for RET species, including minimum flows 

6. DELIVERABLES 

and volume of water for ecological sustainability of the two rivers. 

1. Baseline status of RET species in the Alaknanda and Bhagirathi river basin. 

2. Report on critical wildlife habitats along the existing and planned hydroelectric 

projects on rivers Alaknanda and Bhagirathi upto Devaprayag. 

3. Report on cumulative impacts on the RET flora and fauna. 

7. REPORTING 

1. Inception report within one month of the receipt of 1 st installment of funds. 

2. Interim report after four months of the receipt of 1 st installment of funds. 

3. Draft final report after 8 months of the receipt of 1 st installment of funds. 

4. Final report on the completion of the study period. 

- 4 -

8. RELEASE OF FUNDS 

1. 50% of the total amount with the approval of ToR. 

2. 40% of the total amount upon submission of the interim report. 

3. 10% of the total amount upon submission of final report. 

9. TIME TO CARRY OUT THE ASSIGNMENT 

Nine months from the receipt of first installment of funds. 

10. PROJECT TEAM 

Project Coordinator 

Dr. V.B. Mathur 

Dean, WII 

Principal Scientists 

Dr. G.S. Rawat 

Scientist-G 

Shri B.C. Choudhury 

Scientist-G 

Dr. V.K. Melkani 

Scientist-F 

Shri V.K. Uniyal 

Scientist-F 

Dr. Asha Rajvanshi 

Scientist-F & Nodal Officer, EIA Cell 

Dr. S. Sathyakumar 

Scientist-F 

Dr. K. Sivakumar 

Scientist-E 

Dr. K. Ramesh 

Scientist-C 

Project Associate/ Assistants 

To be engaged 

- 5 -

11. PROJECT BUDGET 

COMPONENT Nos. RATE (Rs.) DURATION 

1 MANPOWER 

- 6 - 

TOTAL 

(Rs.) 

Project Associate 01 25000/month 09 months 2,25,000 

Project Assistant – Level I 04 15000/month 09 months 5,40,000 

Project Assistant – Level II 04 8000/month 09 months 2,88,000 

2 TRAVEL 

Sub-Total 10,53,000 

Hiring of Vehicle 01 30000/month 09 months 2,70,000 

WII Faculty 06 -- -- 1,50,000 

3 PROCUREMENT OF 


SPECIALIZED SERVICES 

FROM EXPERT 

INSTITUTIONS 5,00,000 


4 DEVELOPMENT OF SPATIAL 

DATABASE -- -- LS 5,00,000 


5 ESTABLISHMENT AND 

OPERATION OF BASE-CAMP 02 30000/month 9 months 5,40,000 


6 FIELD EQUIPMENT LS 1,00,000 


7 MISCELLANEOUS LS 50,000 

Sub-Total 50,000 

GRAND TOTAL 31,63,000 

(Rupees Thirty-one lakhs sixty-three thousand only) 

***

i 

Appendix – 2.4

MANERI BHALI-I H.E.PROJECT 

Profile of 70 HEPs in Alaknanda and Bhagirathi Basins 

Location: Maneri 

Tehsil: Bhatwari 

District: Uttarkashi 

Catchment area: 4024 Km 2 

Longitude: 78°032’E 

Latitude: 30°044.5’N 

Developer: UJVNL 

River: Bhagirathi 

Tributary: Ganga 

Up stream \Downstream HEP projects : Kaldigad /Maneribhali II 

Diverted river length: 18000 

Type: Reservoir 

Height of the Dam: 39.00 m 

Volume content of Dam: 600000.00 cum 

Full Reservoir level (FRL): 1294.50 m 

Head race Tunnel Type: Length: 8.63 Km 

Tail Race-Length: 120.00 m 

Penstock- Nubmer and type: 415 m long 

Power House Size: Under ground 

Installed Capacity: 90 MW 

Firm Power Capacity: 33.23 MW at 90% Availability of Discharge. 

Annual Power generation: 545.829x106 K.W.H. 

Status: Construction completed Power house under production. 

MANERI BHALI –II HYDRO-ELECTRIC PROJECT 

Location: Joshyara 

Tehsil: Uttarkashi 


Longitude: 78°24’ 07’’E 

Latitude: 30°42’ 36’’N 



Tributary of: Ganga 

Up stream \Downstream HEP projects: Maneribhali I/ Tehri I 

Diverted river length: 22000 M 

Type: Run of River 

Height/ length of the Dam/Barrage: 81 meters long barrage 

FRL: 1108 m 

Volume content of Dam: 7.55 lac cum 

Head Race Tunnel: 16.8 km long 

Tail Race- Length: 

Power House: over ground located near Dharasu on left bank of river Bhagirathi. 

Installed Capacity: 304 mw 

Anuual generation: 1566 MU 

Status: Construction completed Power house under production. 

Source: http://hydropowerstation.com/?cat=1 - Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ 

Category . Maneri Bhali Stage-II (4×76 = 304) Head Race Tunnel and 

Appurtenant Civil Structures. 

i 

Appendix – 3.1

ASIGANGA –I HYDRO-ELECTRIC PROJECT 

Location: On the way Gangori to sangamchatti 



Catchment area: 147 km 2 

Longitude: 78°27’12“ E 

Latitude: 30°46’56” N 


River catchment : Asi ganga 

River: Assi Ganaga 

Tributary of: Bhagirathi 

Up stream \Downstream HEP projects: Kaldigad/ Assi ganga II 

Diverted river length: 3000 m 

Type: Run off (ROR) 

Height/ length of the Dam weir/ trench: 22 m long trench 

Full Reservoir level (FRL): 1491.05 

Head race Tunnel Type: 700 m Long 


Power House: On surface 

Installed Capacity: 4.5 MW 

Annual generation: 19.11 MU 

Source: Summary provided by Maneri Bhali dam authority-SF1: 

ASIGANGA –III HYDRO-ELECTRIC PROJECT 

Location: Sangam chatti 



Catchment area: 190.32 km 2 

Longitude: 78°27’05“ E 



River: Assi Ganga 


Up stream \Downstream HEP projects: Assi Ganga I/ Maneri Bhali I 


Type: Run off river 

Height of the Dam: Ungated weir 20.7 m long. 

Full reservoir level: 1294.50 m 

Head race Tunnel: 700 m 


Penstock- Number and type: Single underground Penstock pf 3.80 m Dia Length: 415 m 

Power House Size: Surface 


Annual Power generation: 48.5 MU 

Project capital cost: 48.5 million Rs. 

Status: Under construction 

Source: Summary provided by Maneri Bhali dam authority-SF1 

ii

ASIGANGA –II HYDRO-ELECTRIC PROJECT 

Location: Sangam chatti 



Longitude: 78 o26’40“ E 

Latitude: 30 o47’40” N 


River: Assi Ganga 


Up stream \Downstream HEP projects : Assi Ganga I/ 

Assi Ganga II 

Diverted River length: 2000 

Type: Run off river. 

Height of the Dam: 

Full Reservoir level (FRL): 1376 m 

Head race Tunnel Type: 



Installed Capacity: 4.5 mw 


Status: Under various stages of development. 

Source: Summary provided by Maneri Bhali dam authority-SF1 

SINGOLI BATWARI HYDRO-ELECTRIC PROJECT 

Location: Near Tilwara village. 

Tehsil: Ookhimath 

District: Rudraprayag 


Longitude: 79°05’22” 

Latitude: 30°30’70” 

Developer: L& T 

River: Mandakini 

Tributary: Alaknanda 

Up stream \Downstream HEP projects : Phata Bhyung/Srinagar 


Type: Reservoir 

Height of the Dam/ weir/trench: 22 m 

Volume content of Dam: 0.495mm 2 


Head race Tunnel: 11.87km 


Penstock- Number and type: Single underground Penstock pf 3.80 m Dia Length: 415 m 



Annual Power generation: 28.0MU 


Source: Summary provided by dam authority- 

iii

PALA MANERI HYDRO-ELECTRIC PROJECT 

Location: Between Pala and Maneri 



Longitude: 78°35’ 15” E 

Latitude: 30°46’ 25” N 

Catchment area: 3667 KM 2 


Project river: Bhagirathi 

Tributry of: Ganga 

Type: Reservoir type 

Height of the Dam: 78 m 

Full Reservoir level (FRL): 624.90m 

Head race Tunnel Type: 12.64 km 

Tail Race-Length: 1.37 km 

Power House: Under ground on the right bank of the river 


Annual generation: 1993 MU 

Status: Work on halt due to environment clearance 

Source: Salient features as provided by dam authorities 

MALARI JHLEM HYDRO-ELECTRIC PROJECT 

Location: Malari to Jhlem 

Tehsil: Joshimath 

District: Chamoli 

Longitude: 79°53’ 4.5” E 

Latitude: 30°40’ 54.7” N 


Developer: THDC 

Project river: Dhauliganga 

Tributry of: Alaknanda 


Up stream \Downstream HEP projects: -----/Jhleum-Tamak 


Volume content of Dam 

Full Reservoir level (FRL): 2879 





Annual generation: 466.7MU 

Status: Under various stages of development 


iv

JHLEM TAMAK HYDRO-ELECTRIC PROJECT 

Location: Between Jhlem 

and Tamak 

Tehsil: Joshi math 


Longitude: 79°37’35.4” E 

Latitude: 30°37’35.4” N 













Status: Under various stages of construction 

Source: Salient features as provided by dam authorities 

TAMAK LATA HYDRO-ELECTRIC PROJECT 

Location: Lata village 




Longitude: 79°47’13” E 




Tributry: Alaknanda 

Up stream \Downstream HEP projects : Jhleum –tamak \ 

Lata tapovan 


Type: Run off river (ROR) 

Height of the Barrage : 


Head race Tunnel Type: 12.0 Km 

Tail Race-Length : 

Power House: Under ground 



Status: Under various stages of construction 

Source: NT website PC.co.in 

v

LATA TAPOVAN HYDRO-ELECTRIC PROJECT 

Location: Lata village 




Latitude: 30°31’ 20” N 


Developer: NTPC 



Up stream \Downstream HEP projects : Tamak Lata/ 

Tapovan Vishnugad 


Type: Run off the river type 

Height of the Barrage: ???? 


Head race Tunnel Type: 7.51 Km 






Source: NT website PC.co.in 

TAPOVAN VISHNU GAD HYDRO-ELECTRIC PROJECT 

Location: Between Tapovan and Helang 




Latitude: 30°44’ 30” N 





Up stream \Downstream HEP projects: Lata Tapovan/ 

Tapovan- Vishnugad 

Diverted river length : 





Tail Race-Length: 439 m 

Power House: Under ground on the left bank of the river 




Source: Summary as provided by dam authority- 

Anonymous. 2007. India: NTPC Capacity Expansion Financing II 

(Tapovan–Vishnugad Hydroelectric Project and Loharinag–Pala 

Hydroelectric Project) : Summary Environmental Impact Assessment 

Asian Development Bank (ADB). 

vi

RISHI GANGA HYDRO-ELECTRIC PROJECT 

Location: Near Raini village 




Latitude: 30°28’ 59’’N. 


Developer: Rishiganga Power 

Corporation Ltd 

Project River: Rishiganga 

Tributary of: Dhauliganga 

Up stream/ Downstream HEP: Rishiganga II / 

Tapovan vishnugad 


Type: Run off type 

Height of the Dam/ Barrage: diversion weir 5 m in height, 

Full Reservoir level (FRL): 2012 M 

Head raise Tunnel: 597 m 

Tail Race-Length : ?? 

Power House: Over ground on the left bank of the river 



Status: Construction complet, power house under production 

Source:http://cdm.unfccc.int/filestorage/Y/U/S/YUSJCLMIK16F3ON2ZW4BXTHV9REAP8/RGHEP%20PDD.pdf?t=M218bHJ 

nN3R0fDDBE1q4SZEoBbEAaJWaM7de PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03 

RISHI GANGA II HYDRO-ELECTRIC PROJECT 

Location: Down stream of Raunthi gad with Rishi ganga 



Longitude: 79°46 26 

Latitude: 30°27 37 


Developer: Uttarakhand Jal vidut 

Nigam limited (UJVNL) 

River: Rishiganga 


Up stream \Downstream HEP projects: Rishi ganga I/Rishiganga 


Type: Storage 

Height of the Dam/ Barrage: 29 m high dam 


Head race Tunnel: 3.24 km 





Project Capital Cost (Million Rs.): 2129.8 

Source : http://hydropowerstation.com/?s=Rishiganga+II Salient features of RISHI GANGA-II Hydroelectric Project (35 MW) 

vii

RISHI GANGA I HEP 

Location: Raini 



Longitude: 79°46’ 26” 

Latitude: 30°27’ 37” 


Developer: Uttarakhand Jal vidut 

Nigam limited (UJVNL) 

Project River: Rishiganga 


Up stream \Downstream HEP projects: No project/Rishiganga 

Diverted river length: 

Type: Storage 

Height of the Dam/ Barrage: 29 m high dam 


Volume content of Dam: 1.52 M cum 

Head race Tunnel : 3.24 km 

Tail Race-Length : 300 m 




Status: under various stages of development 

Source : http://hydropowerstation.com/?s=Rishiganga+II Salient features of RISHI GANGA-II Hydroelectric Project (35 MW) 

BHYUNDER GANGA 

Location: In Between Govindghat and ghangria near valley of flowers 



Longitude: 79°41’59’’E 

Latitude: 30°28’ 59’’N. 


Developer: SHEPL 

River: Bhyunder (Laxman) 

Ganga 

Tributary of: Alaknanda 

Up stream \Downstream HEP projects : JP HEP ? 



Height of the Dam/ Barrage: diversion weir 4 m in height, 


Head raise Tunnel: 597 m 

Tail Race-Length: 

Power House: over ground on the left bank of the river 




Source : http://cdm.unfccc.int/filestorage/Y/U/S/YUSJCLMIK16F3ON2ZW4BXTHV9REAP8/RGHEP%20PDD.pdf?t= 

M218bHJnN3R0fDDBE1q4SZEoBbEAaJWaM7de PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03 

viii

VISHNUGAD-PIPALKOTI HYDRO-ELECTRIC PROJECT 

Location: Helang 

Tehsil: Pipal koti 


Longitude: 79°25’20” E. 

Latitude: 30°26’15” N; 



Project river: Alaknanda 


Up stream \Downstream HEP projects: Tapovan Vishnu gad / 

Bowla Nandprayag 











Source: http://www.uttarakhandjalvidyut.com 

DEVSARI HYDRO-ELECTRIC PROJECT 

Location: Devasari 

Tehsil: Thalisain 



Latitude: 30°02’40” N; 


Developer: SJVNL 

Project river: Pindar 


Up stream \Downstream HEP projects: Debal/ Srinagar 






Tail Race-Length : 1.5 km. 






ix

NANADPRAYAG LANGASU HYDRO-ELECTRIC PROJECT 

Location: Nanadprayag 

Tehsil: Nandprayag 


Longitude: 79°18’ 55” E. 

Latitude: 30°19’ 55” N; 





Up stream \Downstream HEP projects : Vishnugad Pipalkoti/ 

Bowla Nandprayag 


Height/ length of the Dam/ Barrage: 141 m long weir along the river 


Head race Tunnel Type: 5 km 

Tail Race-Length: ???? 

Power House: Surface 




Source : http://hydropowerstation.com/?tag=bowala-nand-prayag-hydro-electric-project; 

http://www.uttarakhandjalvidyut.com/cms_ujvnl/Bowala_Nanda.php 

BOWLA NANDPRAYAG HYDRO-ELECTRIC PROJECT. 

Location: Bowla 

Tehsil: Nandprayag 



Latitude: 30°24’ 00” N; 






Up stream \Downstream HEP projects: Nandprayag Langasu/ 

SrinagarHEP 


Height of the Dam/ Barrage: 8 M 



Tail Race-Length: ???? 




Source : http://hydropowerstation.com/?tag=bowala-nand-prayag-hydro-electric-project; 


x

SRINAGAR HYDRO-ELECTRIC PROJECT. 

Location: Srinagar 

Tehsil: Srinagar 

District: Pauri 


Latitude: 30°13’ 40” N; 


Developer: GVK 

Project River: Alaknanda 


Up stream \Downstream HEP projects: Bowla Nandprayag / 

Kotlibhel II 


Type: Storage 

Height of the Dam/ Barrage: 90 M 



Tail Race-Length: ? 

Power House: Surface on the right bank 




Source: http://hydropowerstation.com/?tag=bowala-nand-prayag-hydro-electric-project; 


KOTLIBHEL IB HYDRO-ELECTRIC PROJECT. 

Location: Devprayag near Pali village 

Tehsil: Devprayag 

District: Tehri 


Latitude: 30°9’ 45” N; 


Developer: NHPC 



Up stream \Downstream HEP projects: Srinagar HEP/ 

Kotlibhel II 


Type: Storage type 

Height of the Dam/ Barrage: 70.5 M 



Tail Race-Length: 230 M 





Source : Environment Management Plan 

xi

KOTLIBHEL II HYDRO-ELECTRIC PROJECT. 

Location: Kodiyala 



Longitude: 78°30p’ 00” E. 

Latitude: 30°3’ 30” N; 





Up stream \Downstream HEP projects: Kotlibhel IB (Up stream) 





Head race Tunnel: 145 m 





Project Capital Cost (Million Rs.): 19228 


Source: EIA Report 

KOTLIBHEL IA HYDRO-ELECTRIC PROJECT. 

Location: Muneth village 



Longitude: 78°35p’ 24” E. 

Latitude: 30°09’45” N; 





Up stream \Downstream HEP projects: Koteshwar HEP/ 

Kotlibhel II 





Head race Tunnel Type: 40 m 






Source: EIA and EMP 

xii

KOTESHWAR HYDRO-ELECTRIC PROJECT. 

Location: Near Pendaras Village 




Latitude: 30°45’ 02” N; 





Up stream \Downstream HEP projects: Tehri HEP/Kotlibhel IA 





Divergence Tunnel: 593 m 

Tail Race-Length:?? 

Power House: Surface at toe of the dam on the right bank of the river 




Source: "Koteshwar Hydro Power Project". Tehri Hydro Development Corporation. http://thdc.gov.in/Projects/ 

english/Scripts/Prj_Introduction.aspx?vid=134. 

"Features". Tehri Hydro Development Corporation. http://thdc.gov.in/Projects/english/Scripts/Prj_ Features.aspx?Vid=134. 

Koteshwar Dam http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koteshwar_Dam. 

TEHRI I HYDRO-ELECTRIC PROJECT. 

Location: Tehri 

Tehsil: Tehri 



Latitude: 30°24’ 00” N; 





Up stream \Downstream HEP projects: Maneri Bhali/Koteshwar 

Diverted river length: - 




Divergence Tunnel: 593 m 





Status: construction completed , power house under production 

Source: "Koteshwar Hydro Power Project". Tehri Hydro Development Corporation. http://thdc.gov.in/Projects/ 

english/Scripts/Prj_Introduction.aspx?vid=134. 

"Features". Tehri Hydro Development Corporation. http://thdc.gov.in/Projects/english/Scripts/Prj_ Features.aspx?Vid=134. 

Koteshwar Dam http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koteshwar_Dam. 

xiii

TEHRI STAGE II HYDRO-ELECTRIC PROJECT. 

Location: Tehri 

Tehsil: Tehri 


Longitude: 78°28’ 51.6” E. 

Latitude: 30°23’ 20” N; 





Up stream \Downstream HEP projects: Tehri I/Koteshwar 



Height of the Dam/ Barrage: ???M 


Divergence Tunnel: ??? 

Tail Race-Length: ??? 





ALAKNANDA HYDRO-ELECTRIC PROJECT. 

Location: Near 3 Km downstream of 

Badrianth 




Latitude: 30°43’24” N; 


Developer: GMR 

Project River: Alaknanda 


Up stream \Downstream HEP projects: Badrinath II/ 

Vishnuprayag 


Type: Run of the river 

Height of the Dam/ Barrage: ? 


Head Race Tunnel: 2886 m 


Power House: under ground on the right bank of the river 





Source: EIA Reports 

xiv

VISHNUPRAYAG HYDRO-ELECTRIC PROJECT. 

Location: Near 15 Km downstream of Badrianth 



Longitude: 79°28’ 0” N; 

Latitude: 30°32’ 0” E. 


Developer: JAYPEE 



Up stream\Downstream HEP projects: Alaknanda/ 

Vishnugad Pipalkoti 



Height of the Dam/ Barrage: Barrage across the river 


Head Race Tunnel: 11.334 m 





Source: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/26098671/VISHNUPRAYAG-HYDRO-ELECTRIC-PROJECT-_4X100MW_ 

BIRAHI GANGA HYDRO-ELECTRIC PROJECT. 

Location: Birahi village 

Tehsil: Pipalkoti 



Latitude: 30°24’ 35” N; 

Catchment area: 3000km 2 

Developer: Birahi Ganga Hydro 

power Ltd. 

Project River: Birahi Ganga 


Up stream \Downstream HEP projects: Birahi Ganga II / Srinagar 



Height/length of the Dam/ Barrage: 25 m long weir 

FRL: 1080 m 



Tail Race- Length: 100 m 

Power House: Over ground on the right bank of the river 

Installed Capacity: 4.8 MW 


Status: Under operation 

Source: http://indscan.weblogs.us/archives/530. 

xv

KALDI GAD HYDRO-ELECTRIC PROJECT. 

Location: Near Sangam chatti 




Latitude: 30°50’ 27” N; 


Project river: Kaldi gad 

Tributary of: Asiganga 

Up stream \Downstream HEP projects: Assi Ganga I (Down 

stream) 



Height/length of the Dam/ Barrage: 15 m long trench 



Pen stock: 560 m 

Power House: Over ground on the left bank of the river 




Source : http://indscan.weblogs.us/archives/530; salient features provided by the authorities of HEP 

GOHNA TAL HYDRO-ELECTRIC PROJECT. 

Location: 1.7 km d/s of confluence of 

Pui Gadhera joining river 

Birahi Ganga from Right Bank 



Longitude: 79°30' 18"E 

Latitude: 30°22' 43" N 



Project river: Birahi Ganga 


Up stream \Downstream HEP projects: --------/ Birahi II 



Height/ length of the Dam/ Barrage: 84 m long 


Area under submergence: 24.64 ha 

Head Race Tunnel: 9 km 







Source : http://thdc.gov.in/Projects/english/Scripts/Prj_Features.aspx?Vid=14 

3 Gohna Tal Features 

xvi

MADH MAHESHWAR HYDRO-ELECTRIC PROJECT. 

Location: Madmaheswar 

Tehsil: Okihmath 

District: Rudrya prayag 

Longitude: 79°30' 18"E 

Latitude: 30°22' 43" N 



River: Birahi Ganga 


Up stream \Downstream HEP projects: --------/ Singoli Bhatwari 



Height/ length of the Dam/ Barrage: 


Head Race Tunnel: …. km 

Tail Race- Length: ….m 





PHATA BHYUNG HYDRO-ELECTRIC PROJECT. 

Location: Near Sita pur village 

Tehsil: Okhimath 


Longitude: 79o 00’ 28’’E 

Latitude: 30o 37’ 35’’N 


Developer: LANCO 

Project river: Mandakini 


Up stream \Downstream HEP projects: Rambara / 

Singoli Bhatwari 


Type: Storage 

Height/ length of the Dam/ Barrage: 26 m high 


Head Race Tunnel: 9.38 km 

Tail Race- Length: ? m 

Power House: Under ground on the right bank 



Project Capital Cost (Million Rs.): 4840 


Source: EMP report 

xvii

LOHARINAG PALA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT. 

Location: Near loharinag Pala 



Latitude: 30°58’ 16’’N 





Up stream \Downstream HEP projects: Bhairon ghati / 

Limcha gad 



Height/ length of the Dam/ Barrage: 13 m wide and 8.5 m high 



Tail Race - Length: 510 m 

Power House: Under ground on the right bank near Pala Village 




Source: Environmental Assessment Report (Anonymous 2007. India: NTPC Capacity Expansion Financing II (Tapovan– 

Vishnugad Hydroelectric Project and Loharinag–Pala Hydroelectric Project. NTPC) 

BHAIRON GHATI HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT. 

Location: Bhaironghati 



Latitude: 31° 01’ 02’’N 





Up stream \Downstream HEP projects: Jadh Ganga/ 

Loharinag Pala 


Height/ length of the Dam/ Barrage: 12×9.5 m of barrage 



Tail Race- Length : ?? 




Status: Work on hold due to environment issues in river Bhagirathi 

Source : http://hydropowerstation.com/?tag=bhairon-ghati-hydroelectric-project - Salient features of BhaironGhati 

Hydroelectric Project (381 MW). 

xviii

BIRAHI GANGA I SMALL HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT. 

Location: Birahi Ganga 




Latitude: 30°22’ 30’’N 


Developer: PES Engineers Pvt. Ltd 

Project River: Birahi Ganga 


Up stream \Downstream HEP projects: Birahi ganga II/ 

Birahi ganga 

Type: Run of river 

Up stream \Downstream HEP projects: Birahi Ganga II/ 

Birahi Ganga 



Height/ length of the Dam/ Barrage: 67 m long concrete weir 



Tail Race- Length: 




Status: Work on hold due to environment issues 

Source: Silent features provided by HEP authorities. 

BIRAHI GANGA II SMALL HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT. 

Location: Birahi Ganga 




Latitude: 30°22’ 30’’N 


Developer: PES Engineers Pvt. Ltd. 

River: Birahi ganga 


Up stream \Downstream HEP projects: Gohna Tal / 

Birahi Ganga I 



Height/ length of the Dam/ Barrage: 46.5 m long concrete weir 







xix

BHILANGANA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT 

Location: Ghansali 

Tehsil: Ghansali 



Latitude: 30°26’ 07’’N 


Developer: Swasti Hydro power Ltd. 

River: Bhilangana 


Up stream \Downstream HEP projects: Bhilangana IIC/ 




Height/ length of the Dam/ Barrage : 30.0 m long weir 

FRL: 965 m 

Head Race Tunnel : 13.0km 

Power House: over ground 



Status: under operation 

Source: http://www.careratings.com/archive/9/5564.pdf; 

BHILANGANA III HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT. 

Location: Bhilangana valley 




Latitude: 30°33’ 07’’N 


Developer: Bhilangana Hydro 

Power Limited (BHPL) 

Project river: Bhilangana 


Up stream \Downstream HEP projects: …./B 



FRL: 1105 m 





Source: http://www.careratings.com/archive/9/5564.pdf; 

xx

JADH GANGA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT. 

Location: 100 m D/S of confluence 

of Gartang gad with 

Jadhganga river. 



Latitude: 31° 2’ 18’’N 



River: Jadh Ganga 


Up stream \Downstream HEP projects: Karmoli/Bhaironghati 


Type: Storage 

Height/ length of the Dam/ Barrage: 45 m High 110 m long 








Source: http://thdc.gov.in/Projects/english/Scripts/Prj_Features.aspx?Vid=165 

KARMOLI HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT. 

Location: 700 m D/S of confluence 

of Chorgad with 

Jadhganga river 



Latitude: 31°6’ 4’’N 



Project river: Jadh Ganga 


Up stream \Downstream HEP projects: ……/Jadh Ganga HEP 


Type: Storage 

Height/ length of the Dam/ Barrage: 56 m High 128 m long 







Status: Under various stages of development. 

Source: http://thdc.gov.in/Projects/english/Scripts/Prj_Introduction.aspx?Vid=141 

xxi

URGAM HYDRO-ELECTRIC PROJECT. 

Location: Near Helong 







River: Kalpganga 


Up stream \Downstream HEP projects: Urgam I/ 

Vishnuprayag 

pipaplkoti HEP 

Type: Run of the River 

Height/ length of the Dam/ Barrage: 25 m long concrete weir 







Source : http://hydropowerstation.com/?s=urgam 

RAMBARA HYDRO ELECTRIC PROJECT 

Location: Rambara 

Tehsil: Ookhimath 


Longitude: 79°03’ 20.01’’E 

Latitude: 30°41’ 42.3’’N 


Developer: Lancod. Mandikini 

hydro Energy Pvt. Ltd. 

Project River: Mandakini 


Up stream \Downstream HEP projects: ………..I/Phata bhyung 








Source: http://hydropowerstation.com/?s=urgam 

xxii

KAIL GANGA HYDRO ELECTRIC PROJECT 

Location: Near Debal village 

Tehsil: Tharali 






River: Kail ganga 

Tributary of: Pinder 

Up stream \Downstream HEP projects: ..------/Debal 



Height/ length of the Dam/ Barrage: 12 m long trench type Rcc 






KALI GANGA I HYDRO ELECTRIC PROJECT 

Location: Jaitala village 


District: Rudryaprayag 


Latitude: 30°36’ 40’’N 

Catchment area: 69.55km 2 


River: Kali ganga 

Tributary of: Mandakini 

Up stream \Downstream HEP projects: ----/Kali ganga II 



Height/ length of the Dam/ Barrage: 12 m long trench type weir 

Full Reservoir level (FRL): 69.55m 







Source: Salient features of the project 

xxiii

URGAM II HYDRO ELECTRIC PROJECT 

Location: Near Urgam village 




Latitude: 30°32’ 56’’N 





Up stream \Downstream HEP projects: ---/Urgam 


Height/ length of the Dam/ Barrage: ? 


Head Race Tunnel: ? 


Installed Capacity: 3.8mw 



Source: http://hydropowerstation.com/?s=urgam 

BADRINATH II HYDRO ELECTRIC PROJECT 

Location: Badrinath 




Latitude: 30°43’ 9.1’’N 

Catchment area: 4024km 2 


River: Risi Ganga 


Up stream \Downstream HEP projects: -----/Alaknanda HEP 


Height/ length of the Dam/ Barrage: ??? 


Head Race Tunnel: ??? 




Status: under operation 

xxiv

JALANDHARIGAD HYDRO ELECTRIC PROJECT 

Location: Near Harsil 

Tehsil: Harsil 






River: Jalandharii gad 


Up stream \Downstream HEP projects: ----/Lohari Nagpala HEP. 


Height/ length of the Dam/ Barrage: ??? 


Head Race Tunnel: ?? 





LIMCHA GAD HYDRO ELECTRIC PROJECT 

Location: On way to Harsil 



Latitude: 30°55’ 31’’N 





Up stream \Downstream HEP projects: Lohari nag pala/ 

Palamaneri HEP 



Height/ length of the Dam/ Barrage: ?? 







xxv

SUWARI GAD HYDRO ELECTRIC PROJECT 

Location: On way to Harsil 






River: Suwari gad 


Up stream \Downstream HEP projects: Palamaneri / 

Maneri Bhali HEP 


Height/ length of the Dam/ Barrage : 







SIYANG GAD HYDRO ELECTRIC PROJECT 




Latitude: 31°30’ 10’’N 



River: Siyan gad 


Up stream \Downstream HEP projects: ------/LohariNagpala HEP 









xxvi

KAKORA GAD HYDRO ELECTRIC PROJECT 







River: Kakora gad 


Up stream \Downstream HEP projects: ------/LohariNagpala HEP 




Head Race Tunnel : ? 


Installed Capacity : 12.5 mw 



PILANG GAD HYDRO ELECTRIC PROJECT 

Location: Near Bhatwari 

Teshil: Bhatwari 






River: Pilang gad 


Up stream \Downstream HEP projects: /Pilang gad II/ 

Maneri Bhali. 



Full Reservoir level (FRL): UA 

Head Race Tunnel: 





xxvii

PILANG GAD II HYDRO ELECTRIC PROJECT 

Location: Near Bhatwari 

Teshil: Bhatwari 



Latitude: 30°45’ 55’’N 



River: Pilang Gad 


Up stream \Downstream HEP projects: /------/Pilang gad 






Installed Capacity: 4mw 



DEBAL HYDRO ELECTRIC PROJECT 

Location: Debal village 






Developer: Chamoli Hydro 

power Pvt. Ltd. 

River: Kail Ganga 

Tributary of: Pi nder 

Up stream \Downstream HEP projects: Melkhet /Devsari 


Height/ length of the Dam/ Barrage : ? 




Installed Capacity: 5 


Status: Under operation Debal Hydro Electric Project 

xxviii

MELKHET HEP 

Location: Melkhet village 






Developer: Melkhet Hydro 

power Pvt. Ltd. 

River: Pinder Ganga 


Up stream \Downstream HEP projects: -----/Devsari 







Installed Capacity: 15 



AGUNDA THATI HYDRO-ELECTRIC PROJECT. 

Location: Bhudha Kedar 



Developer: Gunsola Hydro Power 

Generation Pvt. Ltd. 





Tributary: Dharamganga 

Up stream \Downstream HEP projects: Jhala koti/ Kot Bhuda Kedar HEP 

Diverted river length (M): 2000 

Type: ROR 

Height of the Dam: 3.5 

Volume content of Dam: 

FRL: 1286.5 

Head race Tunnel Type: Length: 


Penstock- Nubmer and type: 

Power House Size: 

Installed Capacity (MW): 3 

Firm Power Capacity: 

Annual Power generation (MU): 26.23 

Status: Commissioned 

xxix

JUMAGAD HYDRO-ELECTRIC PROJECT. 

Location: Jumagad 







River: Dhauliganga 

Tributary: Jummagad 

Up stream \Downstream HEP projects: None 


Type: ROR 



FRL: 1143.9 

Head race Tunnel Type: Length 




Installed Capacity (MW): 1.2 




RAJWAKTI HYDRO-ELECTRIC PROJECT. 

Location: Rajwakti village 

Tehsil: Ghat 


Developer: Him Urja Private Limited 




River: Alaknanda 

Tributary: Nandakini 

Up stream \Downstream HEP projects: Vanala / Devali HEP 


Type: ROR 



FRL: 991 









xxx

VANALA HYDRO-ELECTRIC PROJECT. 

Location: Vanala village 

Tehsil: Ghat 








Up stream \Downstream HEP projects: Rajwakti HEP (D) 


Type: ROR 



FRL: 1202.5 









DEVALI HYDRO-ELECTRIC PROJECT. 


Tehsil: Ghat 



Catchment area: 497.5 Km 2 





Up stream \Downstream HEP projects: Rajwakti HEP (U) 


Type: ROR 

Height of the Dam: 6 


FRL: 939 

Head race Tunnel Type Length: 







Status: Under the other stage of development. 

xxxi

KALIGANGA-II HYDRO-ELECTRIC PROJECT. 

Location: Near Jaitala village 


District: Rudryaprayag 


Latitude: 30°36’ 40’’N 



River: Kali ganga 

Tributary of: Mandakini 

Up stream \Downstream HEP projects: ----/Kali ganga II 

Diverted river length: 3000 


Height/ length of the Dam/ Barrage: 6.48 







BALGANGA-II HYDRO-ELECTRIC PROJECT. 





Catchment area (Km 2): 395 




Tributary: Balganga 

Up stream \Downstream HEP projects: Balganga HEP (U) 


Type: ROR 



FRL: 1145 









xxxii

BHILANGANA- II A HYDRO-ELECTRIC PROJECT. 

Location: On the way Budhakedar temple. 








Tributary: Bhilangana 

Up stream \Downstream HEP projects: Bhilangana III / 

Bhilangana II B 


Type: ROR 



FRL: 1660 









BHILANGANA- II B HEP 

Location: Near Bhilangana II A HEP. 




Catchment area: 562.3 





Up stream \Downstream HEP projects: Bhilangana II A / 

Bhilangana II C 


Type: ROR 



FRL: 1410 









xxxiii

BHILANGANA- II C HYDRO-ELECTRIC PROJECT 

Location: Near Bhilangana II B HEP 









Up stream \Downstream HEP projects: Bhilangana II B / 

Bhilangana 


Type: ROR 



FRL: 1248.5 









JHALAKOTI HYDRO-ELECTRIC PROJECT. 

Location: Jhalakoti 










Up stream \Downstream HEP projects: Agunda Thati (D) 


Type: ROR 



FRL: 1724.2 



Penstock: Number and type 






xxxiv

KOT BUDHA KEDAR HYDRO-ELECTRIC PROJECT. 

Location: Bhudha Kedar 










Up stream \Downstream HEP projects: Agunda Thati (U) 


Type: ROR 



FRL: 1577 



Penstock- Number and type: 






KHIROGANGA HYDRO-ELECTRIC PROJECT. 

Location: Khiron valley 



Developer: Super Hydro Pvt. Ltd 


Latitude: 30°41’2.5” 



Tributary: Khironganga 

Up stream \Downstream HEP projects: Alaknanda HEP ? 


Type: ROR 


Volume content of Dam 

FRL: 2451 



Penstock- Number and type: 


Installed Capacity (MW) - 4 


Annual Power generation (MU) - 19.4 


xxxv

Criteria adopted for developing impact matrix. 

Impact Sources 

River Length 

Affected 

Forest Area loss 


Receptors 

RET 

species 

Endemic 

species 

IWPA 

species 

Medicinal 

Species 

Habitat Diversity Breeding/ 

Congregation sites 

Appendix – 4.1 

Migratory 

Sites

Checklist of plant species found in the Alaknand and Bhagirathi basins 

Trees Species recorded in the two basins 

S.No. Name of the Species Vernacular Name 

1. Abies pindrow Royle 

2. 

3. 

Acacia arabica (Lam). 

Willd. 

Acacia catechu (L.F.) 

Wild. 

i 

Ethnobotanical 

Notes 

Raga M,Ed, Tm, Fl 

Appendix 5.1 

References 

GMR HE Project 

Report 

Khair M , Fd Kotlibhel EIA Report 

Khair M,Fl 

Kotlibhel EIA Report, 

Gangwar et al.2011 

4. Acacia nilotica L. Babool Tm, Fl Gangwar et al. 2011 

5. 

6. 

Acacia farnesiana (L.) 

Willd.) 

Acer caesium Wall. ex 

Brandis 

Vilayati Kikar Fl, M, Api, Ag. Kotlibhel EIA Report 

Fd, Fl Uniyal et al. 2002 

7. Adina cordifolia Roxb. Haldu M Kotlibhel EIA Report 

8. Aegle marmelos L. Bel Ed, M , Api Kotlibhel EIA Report 

9. 

10. 

11. 

12. 

Albizia chinensis (Osb.) 

Merr. 

Albizia julibrissin 

Durazz. 

Albizia lebbek (L.) 

Benth. 

Albizia procera (Roxb.) 

Benth. 

Siris Ag. Gangwar et al.2011 

Bhondir Tm Gangwar et al.2011 

Siris M, Fl, Fd Kotlibhel EIA Report 

Safed siris Tm Gangwar et al.2011 

13. Alnus nepalensis D. Don Utis M, Fl Gangwar et al.2011 

14. 

Anogeisus latifolia 

(Roxb. ex DC.) 

Dhauda Tm, Ag. Kotlibhel EIA Report 

15. Aesculus indica L. Pangar M Phondani et al. 2009 

16. 

Azadirachta indica 

A.Juss. 

Neem M, Tm Gangwar et al.2011 

17. Bauhinia purpurea L. Guiral Ed, M , Dye Kotlibhel EIA Report 

18. 

Bauhinia racemosa 

Lam. 

Jhanjhora Fl Gangwar et al.2011 

19. Bauhinia variegata L. Kachnar M, Fd, Fl Kotlibhel EIA Report 

20. Betula utilis D.Don Bhojpatra M Phondani et al. 2009 

21. Boehmeria rugulosa Genthi Fd, M Kotlibhel EIA Report

Wedd. 

22. Bombex ceiba L. Semal M , Ed Kotlibhel EIA Report 

23. 

Butea monosperma 

(Lam.) Kuntze. 

Dhak Fd, M Kotlibhel EIA Report 

24. Carica papaya L. Papeeta M Phondani et al. 2009 

25. Cassia fistula L. Amaltas M, Fd, Fl Kotlibhel EIA Report 

26. 

Cedrus deodara 

(Roxb.ex D.Don) G.Don 

Deodar M, Tm Phondani et al. 2009 

27. Celtis australis L. Kharik Fl, Tm, Fd Kotlibhel EIA Report 

28. 

Citrus aurantifolia 

(Christm. & Panzer) 

Swingle 

Kagji Nimbu M Phondani et al. 2009 

29. Dalbergia sissoo L. Shisham M, Fd, Fl Kotlibhel EIA Report 

30. Delonix regia Boj. Gulmohar Fd, Fl Kotlibhel EIA Report 

31. 

Dyospyros montana 

Roxb. 

NA M, Ag. Kotlibhel EIA Report 

32. Erythrina variegata L. Dhaul Dhak M Kotlibhel EIA Report 

33. Eucalyptus 

camaldulensis Dehnh. 

34. 

Ougenia oojeinensis 

Benth. 

Safeda M, Fl, Fd Kotlibhel EIA Report 

Sandan M, Tm, Fl, Fd Kotlibhel EIA Report 

35. Ficus hispida L.f. Gobla Fd Gangwar et al.2011 

36. Ficus palmata Forsk. Bedu M, Fd,Ed Kotlibhel EIA Report 

37. Ficus racemosa L. Gular Fd Gangwar et al.2011 

38. Ficus religiosa L. Peepal M, Fd, Fl Kotlibhel EIA Report 

39. Ficus roxburgii Wall. Timal Tm Gangwar et al.2011 

40. 

Ficus semicordata Buch 

-Ham. ex Smith 

Khina M, Fd,Fb, Ed Kotlibhel EIA Report 

41. Ficus benghalensis L. Bargad M, Fd Kotlibhel EIA Report 

42. 

43. 

44. 

45. 

Grevillea robusta A. 

Cunn. 

Grewia optiva 

Drummond ex Burret 

Hippophae rhamnoides 

L. 

Hippophae salicifolia 

D.Don 

Silver aak Tm Gangwar et al.2011 

Bheemal M, Fb, Fd, Ed Kotlibhel EIA Report 

NA M 

ii 


Report 

Amesh M Phondani et al. 2009

46. 

Jacaranda mimosifolia 

D.Don 

47. Juglans regia L. 

Padeli 

Akhrot M,Fd. 

iii 

Kotlibhel EIA Report 

Phondani et al. 2009, 

Uniyal et al. 2002 

48. Kydia calycina Roxb. Pula M, Fl, Fb Uniyal et al. 2002 

49. 

50. 

51. 

Lagerstroemia parviflora 

Rox. 

Lannea coromandelica 

(D.Don) Houttuym 

Leucaena leucocephala 

(Lam.) Wit. 

Dhaudi Tm Gangwar et al.2011 

Kalmina Tn,Fl,Fd Kotlibhel EIA Report 

Subabul Sc. Kotlibhel EIA Report 

52. Lyonia ovalifolia Wall. Anyar M Uniyal et al. 2002 

53. 

54. 

55. 

Mallotus phillipensis 

(Lam.) Muell-Arg. 

Mangifera indica L. 

Melia azedarach L. 

Ruina Ml, Fl, Api, Dy, Rit. 



Aam Ed, Tm, M Kotlibhel EIA Report 

Daikan Fd, Ag, M 



56. Moringa oleifera Lamk. Sunara Ed, M Kotlibhel EIA Report 

57. 

58. 

Morus alba L. 

Myrica esculenta Buch- 

Ham ex D.Don 

Tatri Ed, Fl Gangwar et al.2011 

Kafal M,Ed, Fd, 



59. Phoenix humilis Royle Khajoor Fb, Ed Kotlibhel EIA Report 

60. Phyllanthus emblica L. Anowla M,Ed, Fd, Phondani et al. 2009 

61. 

Picea smithiana (Wall.) 

Boiss. 

Roi Fl Gangwar et al.2011 

62. Pinus roxburghii Sargent Chir Tm, M, Fl. 

63. Pinus wallichiana Jacks. Kail M,Fl 

64. 

Pistacia integrerrima 

Stewart ex Brandis 

65. Populus ciliata Wall. ex 

Royle. 

66. 

Premna barbata Wall. ex 

Schauer 





Kaker singhee M Phondani et al. 2009 

Ban Pipal M,Fd.Tm 


Report, Uniyal et al. 

2002 

NA Fd, M, Fl Kotlibhel EIA Report

67. 

68. 

Prunus cerasoides D 

Don 

Prunus persica (L.) 

Batsch 

Paiyan M, Rit. Kotlibhel EIA Report 

Aaru M, Ed, Fd Phondani et al. 2009 

69. Psidium guajava L. Amrood Ed Kotlibhel EIA Report 

70. Punica granatum L. Darim Ed, M Gangwar et al.2011 

71. 

72. 

73. 

Pyrus pashia Buch - 

Ham ex D.Don 

Quercus leucotricophora 

A. 

Quercus semecarpifolia 

Sm. 

Melu Fd, Sc, Ed, M, Api. 

Banj M 

iv 





Fd, Fl Uniyal et al. 2002 

74. Rhamnus virgatus Roxb. Cholu M Phondani et al. 2009 

75. Rhododendron 

arboreum Sm. 

76. Rhus wallichii Hook. f. 

77. 

78. 

79. 

80. 

Salix disperma Roxb. ex 

D.Don 

Sapindus mukorossi 

Gaertner 

Spondias pinnata (L.f.) 

Kurz. 

Syzygium cumini (L.) 

Skeels 

81. Taxus baccata (L.) 

82. 

83. 

84. 

85. 

86. 

87. 

Terminalia alata Heyne 

ex Roth 

Terminalia arjuna Roxb. 

Ex. Dc. 

Terminalia bellerica 

Roxb. 

Terminalia chebula 

Retzr. 

Toona ciliata (Wall. ex 

Roxb.) Rom. 

Wrightia tomentosa 

Roem. 

Burans M, Ed, Fl Uniyal et al. 2002 

Jalmala, laila M 

Fl Uniyal et al. 2002 


Report 

Reetha M. Kotlibhel EIA Report 

Amra M, Ed,Fl. Phondani et al. 2009 

Jamun Ed, Tm, M, Dy, Tm Kotlibhel EIA Report 

Thuner M 



Sain Tm Gangwar et al. 2011 

Arjuna M Phondani et al. 2009 

Bahera M Phondani et al. 2009 

Haira M Phondani et al. 2009 

Pahari - Tun Tm, Dy, Api, Soc, Fl Kotlibhel EIA Report 

Dudhali Tm Gangwar et al. 2011

Shrub and undershrub species recorded in the two basins 

S.No. Name of the Species 

Vernacular 

Name 

v 


Notes 

References 

1. Abutilon indicum L Kanghi M, Fl Gangwar et al. 2011 

2. Adhatoda zeylanica Medikus Baisingu M, Ed 

Gangwar et al. 2011, 


3. Aerva sanguinolenta (L.) Blume Safedphulia M, Ed Kotlibhel EIA Report. 

4. Agave americana L. Ram Baans Fb, M, Sc 


Gangwar et al. 2011 

5. Ardisia solanacea Roxb. Bhatmal M Gangwar et al. 2011 

6. 

7. 

Artemisia nilagirica 

(C.B.Clarke) Pamp. 

Artemisia roxburghiana Wall. 

ex Besser 

8. Asparagus officinalis L. Satavar M 

9. 

Asparagus adscendens Buch - 

Ham. ex Roxb. 

10. Barleria cristata L. Saundi M, Sc. 

11. Berberis aristata DC. Chatru M 

12. Berberis asiatica DC. Kirmod M 

Kunja M Uniyal et al. 2002 

Kunja M, Rit Kotlibhel EIA Report 

NHPC Pipalkoti HE 

project, Uniyal et al. 

2002 

Jhimi Ed, M Kotlibhel EIA Report 

13. Berberis lycium Royle Kirmor M, Sc, Ed. 

14. Bergenia ciliata (Haw.) Strnb. 

15. 

Brugmansia suaveolens 

(Humb. & Bonpl. Ex Willd.) 

Berch. & Presl. 

Pathar chata, 

Pashan bhed 

16. Buddleja asiatica Lours. Bhati M. 









M Uniyal et al. 2002 

NA M. Kotlibhel EIA Report 



17. Buddleja paniculata Wall. Sendroi Fl Gangwar et al. 2011 

18. Cajanus mollis (Benth.) Maess. ban sem Fd,Sc Kotlibhel EIA Report 

19. Calicarpa macrophylla Vahl. Daya M 


project, Uniyal et al. 

2002 

20. Calotropis procera (Air.) R.Br Aak M Gangwar et al. 2011

21. 

Calotropis gigantea (L.) 

Dryander 

Mudar M Gangwar et al. 2011 

22. Cannabis sativa L. Bhang M, Fb, Ed 

vi 



23. Carissa opaca Stapf. ex Haines Karonda Fd, Sc Kotlibhel EIA Report 

24. 

Caryopteris odorata (D.Don) 

Robinson 

NA 


25. Cassia tora L. Chakunda M. Kotlibhel EIA Report 

26. Cestrum nocturnum L. Rat ki rani M.Api Kotlibhel EIA Report 

27. Cinnamomum tamala Nees Tejpat M 


project 

28. Clerodendrom viscosum Vent. Bhant M. Gangwar et al. 2011 

29. Clerodendrom serratum Spreng Banbahri M. Gangwar et al. 2011 

30. 

Clematis gouriana Roxb. ex 

DC. 

NA M, Api. 



31. Colebrookia oppositifolia Smith Binda M, Sc. Kotlibhel EIA Report 

32. 

33. 

34. 

35. 

Cotoneaster microphyllus Wall. 

ex Lindl. 

Debregeasia longifolia (Burm. 

f.) Wedd. 

Desmodium gangeticum (L.) 

DC. 

Desmodium velutinum (Willd.) 

DC. 

NA M 

36. Desmodium laxiflorum DC. NA M,Fd 


Report 

Syanru Fd, Fb, M Kotlibhel EIA Report 

NA 

37. Dodonaea angustifolia L.f. Sinatha 

38. 

Elsholtzia fruticosa (D.Don) 

Rehder 



NA Fi, M, Sc Kotlibhel EIA Report 

Pothi M 





Report 

39. Embelia robusta Roxb. Gaia M Gangwar et al. 2011 

40. 

Ephedra gerardiana Wall. ex 

Stapf. 

Som lata M GMR HE project Area 

41. Eupatorium perfoliatum L. Bashya M Phondani et al. 2009 

42. 

Eupatorium adenophorum 

Sprengel 

Kharnabakura Fd,M 



43. Euphorbia royleana Boissier Sulla M, Sc. Kotlibhel EIA Report 

44. 

Ficus sarmentosa Buch - Ham. 

ex Smith. 

NA Fd, Ed. Kotlibhel EIA Report

45. 

46. 

Flacourtia indica (Burm.f.) 

Merrill. 

Gerardinia diversifolia (Link) 

Friis 

NA Fd, Ed, M. Kotlibhel EIA Report 

Bichchhu M. Gangwar et al. 2011 

47. Helictreres isora L. Bhendu Fb, M Kotlibhel EIA Report 

48. Holmskioldia sanguinea Retz. NA M Kotlibhel EIA Report 

49. Indigofera astragalina DC. Sakina M, F. Kotlibhel EIA Report 

50. Jatropha curcas L. Pahari Arand Fl, M. 

51. Juniperus communis L. Junipers M 

vii 





2002 

52. Juniperus indica Bertol. Dhupi M GMR HE project Area 

53. 

Juniperus squamata Buch.- 

Ham. ex D. Don 

54. Lagerostroemia indica L. Dhatura 

Thelu Fl Gangwar et al. 2011 


55. Lantana camara L. Kuri - ghas Fl, M, Sc. Kotlibhel EIA Report 

56. Leea aspera M. Laws. Kunwai M. Gangwar et al. 2011 

57. Mimosa himalayana Gamble Alay M Gangwar et al. 2011 

58. Murraya koenigii. (L.) Sprengel. Kadi patta M Kotlibhel EIA Report 

59. Nerium oleander L. Kaner 


60. Opuntia elatior Miller Nagfani Ed Kotlibhel EIA Report 

61. 

Pelargonium graveolense 

L.Herit. 

Geranium M. 


project 

62. Plumbago zeylanica L. Chitrak M. Kotlibhel EIA Report 

63. Phoenix sylvestris Roxb. Khajur M. Gangwar et al. 2011 

64. 

Pogostemon benghalense 

(Burm.f.) Kuntze 

65. Prinsepia utilis Royle. Bhekal M 

66. 

Pteracanthus angustifrons 

(Clarke) Bremek. 

NA Api Kotlibhel EIA Report 



Pathora M. Kotlibhel EIA Report 

67. Pupalia lappacea (L.) Juss. Nagdaminee M Kotlibhel EIA Report 

68. 

69. 

Rauwolfia serpentina (L.) 

Benth. 

Pyracantha crenulata (D. Don) 

M. Roemer 

Sarpgandha M Gangwar et al. 2011 

Ghangharu M Gangwar et al. 2011

70. Rhamnus virgatus Roxb. Chentuli 

71. 

72. 

Rhododendron anthopogon 

D.Don 

Rhododendron campanulatum 

D.Don 

viii 


Awon M Phondani et al. 2009 

Simru M 

73. Rhus parviflora Roxb. Tungla Ed, Fl, M. 


Report 



74. Ricinus communis L. Arandi M, Sc. Kotlibhel EIA Report 

75. Rosa moschata Herm. Kunj pani M 


Report 

76. Rosa sinensis L. Gulab M Phondani et al. 2009 

77. 

78. Roylea cinerea (D.Don) Baillon. Karui Ed Kotlibhel EIA Report 

79. Rubus ellipticus Smith. Hinsalu M, Sc. Kotlibhel EIA Report 

80. Rubus foliolosus D.Don Kala hisar Ed 


81. Rubus niveus Thunb. Bhera M Gangwar et al. 2011 

82. Salix denticulata Anderss. 

83. 

Scurrula cordifolia (Wallich) 

G.Don 

bashal,chhoti 

bashroi 

NA 

Fl,Fd 


Report 


84. Sida cardifolia L. Balu Fb, M. Kotlibhel EIA Report 

85. 

Skimmia laureola (DC.) Seibold 

& Zucc. Ex walp. 

Nairpat Fd,Ed, M 



2002 

86. Solanum anguivi L. Barhanta M, Gangwar et al. 2011 

87. Solanum indicum L. Bhut-Kataia M. Gangwar et al. 2011 

88. Solanum surratense Burm. f. Kantakari M. Gangwar et al. 2011 

89. Solanum virginianum L. 

90. 

Sorbia tomentosa (Lindl.) 

Rehder. 

91. Tamarix dioica Roxb.ex Roth. NA 

Bakhree jhar M,Fd 

M. Gangwar et al. 2011 


Report 


92. Tephrosia candida (Roxb.)DC. Ban tor Fd. Kotlibhel EIA Report 

93. 

Thespesia lampas Dalz. & 

Gibs. 

94. Thymus linearis Benth. Ban ajwain M 

Ban kapasi Fl Gangwar et al. 2011 


project

95. Urtica dioica L. Kandali Fb, M. Kotlibhel EIA Report 

96. Viburnum cotonifolium D. Don Bhatyanu M. Gangwar et al. 2011 

97. 

Viburnum grandiflorum wall. ex 

DC. 

98. Vitex negundo L. NA 

Thallana Fl 

99. Woodfordia fruticosa (L.) Kurz Dhola M, Dy, Sc. 

100. Xanthium indicum Koening. Kuru 

101. Zanthoxylum armatum DC. Timru M, Rit. 

ix 


Report 







102. Zizyphus oenoplia (Linn.)Mill Makoy M, Fl Gangwar et al. 2011 

103. Ziziphus mauritiana Lamk. Ber M, Ed. 

104. 

Zizyphus nummularia (Burm. f.) 

W. & A. 

105. Zizyphus oxyphylla Edgew. 



Jharber Fl, Fd Gangwar et al. 2011 

M.

Herbaceous plants and grasses recorded in the two basins 

S.No. Name of the Species 

Vernacular 

Name 

1. Aconitum heterophyllum Wall. Atis M 

2. Achyranthes aspera L. NA M. 

3. Aconitum balfourii Stapf. Mithabish M 

4. Acorus calamus L. Bach M 

5. Aerva lanata (L.) Juss. Ex Schult. Chaya Fd 

6. Ageratum conyzoides L. Kansura M 

7. Ageratum houstonianum Mill. Gundhry M 

8. Ajuga bracteosa Wall. ex Benth. Neelkanthi M 

9. Ajuga macrosperma Wall. ex Benth. NA M 

10. Allium ampeloprasum L. Lahsun jangli M 

11. Allium humile Kunth Jamu faran M 

12. 

Alternanthera sessilis (L.) R.Br. ex 

DC 

Gudrisag M. 

13. Aloe barbadensis Mill. Ghritkumari M 

14. Aloe vera (L.) Burm. f. NA M. 

15. 

Alternanthera pungens Homb, 

Bonpl & Kunth 

NA 

16. Alternanthera pungens Humb. NA 

17. Alysicarpus vaginalis (L.) DC. NA 

18. Amaranthus spinosus Linn. Kanta-Chaulai M. 

x 


Notes 

References 

Phondani et al. 

2009 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report 


2009 


2009, Uniyal et al. 

2002 

Gangwar et al. 

2011 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report, Uniyal et 

al. 2002 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report 

NHPC Pipalkoti 

HE project 


2009 


2011 


HE project 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report 


2011

19. Amaranthus viridis L. NA M. 

20. Ammi majus L. Visnasa M 

21. Anagallis arvensis L. NA 

22. 

Anaphalis triplinervis (Sims.) 

Clarke. 

23. Anaphalis adnata Wall. ex. DC. NA 

Bugla Sc. 

24. Androsace sarmentosa Wall. Rock jasmine M 

25. Androsace umbellata (Lour.) Merrill NA Api 

26. Angelica glauca Edgew. Choru M 

27. Anisomeles indica (L.) Kuntze Goplya M. 

28. Apluda mutica L. NA Fd. 

29. Arenaria serpyllifolia L. NA 

30. Argemone ochroleuca Sweet NA M 

31. Argemone mexicana L. Pili kateli M. 

32. Arisaema tortousom (Wall.) Schott NA 

33. 

Arnebia benthami (Wall ex D.Don) 

Jhonston. 

Balchari M 

34. Artemisia nilagarica (Clarke) Pamp. Pati M. 

35. Artemisia capillaris Thunb. Marwa jhirun M. 

36. 

Arthraxon hispidus (Thunb.) 

Makino. 

NA M 

xi 

Kotlibhel EIA 


al. 2002 


HE project 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report 


report, Uniyal et 

al. 2002 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report 


report. 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report 



2002 


2011 

Kotlibhel EIA 


al. 2002 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report 


2009 


HE project, Uniyal 

et al. 2002 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report 


report.

37. Arundinella nepalensis Trinius NA Fd 

38. Aster peduncularis Wallich ex Nees Phulyan M 

39. Avena fatua L. Jawatu Fd. 

40. 

Baliospermum montanum (Wild.) 

Muell.-Arg. 

NA M 

41. Barleria prionitis L. Peela-bansa M. 

42. Bergenia ciliata (Haw.) Sternb. Silphori M. 

43. Bidens pilosa L. Kumur M. 

44. 

Bidens biternata (Lour.) Merrill & 

Sherff 

Kura M. 

45. Blumea lacera (Burm. F.) DC Kukronda M. 

46. Boerhavia diffusa L. NA M 

47. Brachiaria ramosa (L) NA Fd. 

48. 

Brachypodium sylvaticum (Huds.) 

P. Beaur. 

49. Brassica rapa L. NA 

NA Fd 

50. Bupleuram falcatum L. NA M. 

51. Calamagrostis emodensis Griseb. NA M 

52. Calendula arvensis L. Calendula M 

53. Callicarpa macrophylla Vahl. NA 

54. 

Campanula alsinoides Hook.f. & 

Thomsan 

Bell flower Ed. 

55. Canabis sativa L. Bhang M 

56. 

Capsella bursa-pastoris (L.) 

Medikus 

NA 

xii 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report 


2011 


2009 

Kotlibhel EIA 


al. 2002 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report 


2011 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report 

GMR HE prject 

report 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report 

GMR HE project 

Report. 


HE project 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report 


report. 


2009 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report, Uniyal et

57. Capsicum annuum L. Mirch M 

58. Cardiospermum helicacabum L. NA M. 

59. Carex myosurus Nees. NA 

60. Carum carvi L. Kala jeera M 

61. Cassia absus L. NA 

62. Cassia mimosoides L. NA 

63. Celosia argentea L. Gadrya Ed; M 

64. Cassia occidentalis Linn. Chakunda Fl 

65. Centella asiatica L. NA 

66. Chenopodium ambrosioides Linn. Bathua Ed, M 

67. Chenopodium album L. Bhettu Ed, M 

68. Chloris dolichostachya Lagasca. NA Fl 

69. 

Chlorophytum tuberosum (Roxb.) 

Baker. 

Safed musli M. 

70. Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop. Kardra M. 

71. Cirsium wallichii DC NA M. 

72. Cleome viscosa Linn Hurhur M. 

73. Colocasia elculenta (L.) Schott. NA Ed. 

74. Commelina benghalensis L. Kansura M. 

75. Conyza stricta Willd. NA 

xiii 

al. 2002 


2009 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report 


2009 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report 


2011 

Kotlibhel EIA 


al. 2002 


2011 

Kotlibhel EIA 


al. 2002 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report 


2009 


2011 


report. 


2011 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report

76. Conyza japonica (Thumb.) Lessing NA Ed. 

77. Cotula anthemoides L. NA 

78. Crepis mulitcaulis Ledebour. NA M. 

79. Crotalaria medicaginea Lam. Van methi M. 

80. Cucumis hardwickii Royle. Elaroo M. 

81. Curculigo orchioides Gaertn. Kali musli M. 

82. Cyathocline purpurea (D.Don) NA 

83. 

Cymbopogon citratratus (D.C.) 

Stapf 

Lemon grass M. 

84. Cymbopogon winterianus Jowitt. Citronela grass M. 

85. Cymbopogon martini (Roxb.) Wat. Mirchya ghas M. 

86. Cynodon dactylon (L.) Persoon Doob 

87. 

Cynoglossum glochidiatum Wall. ex 

Benth 

NA 

88. Cyperus corymbosus Rottboell NA 

89. Cyperus niveus Retz. NA 

90. Cyperus rotundus Linn. Motha M 

91. Cyperus compressus L. NA 

92. Datura stramonium L. NA 

93. Dactylorhizia hatagirea D.Don Hatajari M. 

94. 

Delphinium denudatum Wall. ex 

Hook. F. 

Nirbisi M. 

xiv 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report 


2009 


HE project 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report 


HE project 


HE project 


2009 

Kotlibhel EIA 


al. 2002 

Kotlibhel EIA 


al. 2002 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report 

Kotlibhel EIA 


al. 2002 


2011 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report 


2009 


Area, Uniyal et al.

95. Desmodium triflorum (L.) DC. Kudaliya Fd. 

96. Dicliptera bupleuroides Nees. NA 

97. Digitalis purpurea L. Digitalis M 

98. Digitaria ciliaris (Retz.) Koeler NA 

99. 

Drymaria cordata (L.) Wild ex 

Romer 

Pit papera M,. Fd 

100. Echinops cornigerus DC. Kantela Ed, M. 

101. Elettaria cardomomum (L.) Maton. Badi elachi M 

102. Eleusine coracona (L.) Gaertn. Koda 

103. Eclipta alba L. Bhangaru M. 

104. Eclipta prostrata (Linn.)Linn Keshraj M. 

105. Emilia sonchifolia (L.) DC. NA 

106. Epilobium latifolium L. 

107. Epilobium brevifolium D.Don NA 

108. Eragrostis minor Host. NA 

109. 

Eriophorum comosum (Wall.) Wall. 

ex Nees 

110. Euphorbia chamaesyce L. NA 

xv 

M 

NA Fb. 

111. Euphorbia hirta L. . Dudhi M. 

112. Evolvulus alsinoides (L.) Sankhpuspi M. 

113. Filago hurdwarica Wall. ex DC. NA 

2002 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report 


HE project 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report 


2009 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report 


2011 


2011 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report 


Area 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report 

114. Fragaria indica Andrews Gand khaphal M. Ed Kotlibhel EIA

115. Fumaria indica (Haussk.) Pugsley Pit papera M 

116. Galinsoga parviflora Cav. NA 

117. Galium aparine L. Lesskuri M 

118. Gnaphalium leuto album L. Bal-raksha M 

119. 

Gentiana capitata. Buch. –Ham. ex 

D.Don 

Chiratu M 

120. Geranium nepalense Sw. Phori M. 

121. Geranium roberttianum L. NA Orn, M 

122. Geranium ocellatum Cambess. Kaphlya M 

123. 

124. 

Gerbera gossypina (Royle) G. 

Beauv. 

Hedychium spicatum 

Var.acuminatum (Rosc) Wall. 

Kapasi M 

Van Haldi M 

125. Heliotropium strigosum Willd. NA M 

126. 

Heteropogon contortus (L.) Beauv. 

ex Romer & Schultes 

127. Hypoxis aurea Lour. NA M 

NA 

128. Impatiens balsamina L. NA 

129. 

Kalanchoe integra (Medikus) 

Kuntze 

Bis kapra 

130. Lamium amplexicaulis L. NA Fd. 

131. Lathyrus sativus L. NA Fd. 

132. Lathyrus sphaericus Retz. NA Fd. 

xvi 

Report 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report 


Area, Uniyal et al. 

2002 


2011 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report 


2011 


Area 

Kotlibhel EIA 


al. 2002 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report 



2002 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report

133. Lathyrus aphaca L. Kureheli Fd. 

134. 

Launaea asplenifolia (Willd.) Hook. 

F. 

135. Launnea procumbens Van-gobhi Fd. 

136. Lepidum sativum L. Chdrasur M, Ed, Fd 

NA 

137. Leucas cephalotus (Roth.) Sprengel Gumba 

138. Leucas lanata Benth. NA M 

139. 

Lobelia heyneana Roemer & 

Schultes 

NA 

140. Lotus corniculata L. NA 

141. 

Macrotyloma uniflorum (Lam.) 

Verdc. 

Cheerkaguli M 

142. Malva sylvestris L. Gurchanti M 

143. 

144. 

Malvastrum coromendalianum (L.) 

Garcke 

Mazus pumilus (Burm. f.) Van 

Steenis 

Suchi 

145. Medicago sativa L. NA 

Mastura M. 

146. Megacarpea polyandra Benth. Bermula M 

147. Merremia tridentata (Linn.)Hall. F. Prasarini M 

148. 

Micromeria biflora (Buch.-Ham.ex 

D.Don 

Gorakhopan M 

149. Microstylis muscifera (Lindl.) Ridl. Reebjak M 

150. Miscanthus nepalensis (Trin.) Hack. Feyari ghass Fd 

151. Morina longifolia Wall. Biskandru M 

152. Musa paradisiaca L. Kela Ed, Fb, M, Ri. 

xvii 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report 


2011 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report 


2009 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report 


2009 


2011 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report 


2009 


Area 


Area 


2009

153. Nardostachyas grandiflora DC. Jatamansi M 

154. Nepeta hindostana (Roth.) Haines. NA 

155. 

Notholirion thomsonianum (Royle) 

Stapf 

156. Ocimum basilicium L. Kali tulsi M 

157. 

Ocimum kilimandscharicum 

Guerke. 

NA 

Kapoor tulsi M 

158. Ocimum sanctum L. Tulsi M 

159. Origanum vulgare L. Ban Tulsi M, Rit. 

160. Oryza sativa L. NA Ed. 

161. Oxalis corniculata L. Chilmori M; Ed. 

162. Paeonia emodi Wall. ex Royle. Chandra M 

163. Panicum milialaceum L. Cheena M 

164. Perilla frutescens (L.) Britton Bhangjeera M.Ed. Api. 

165. Phragmitis karka Trin. Narkul M. 

166. Physalis divaricata D.Don. Damphu Ed; M. 

167. Picrorhiza kurrooa Royle ex Benth. Kutki M 

168. Pilea umbrosa wedd. NA M 

169. Plantago ovata Forsk. Isabgol M 

170. Podophyllum hexandrum Royle. Bankakri M 

xviii 



2002 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report 


HE project 


HE project 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report 

Kotlibhel EIA 


al. 2002 



2002 


2009 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report 


2011 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report 



2002 


Area 


2009 



2002

171. Polygonum hydropiper L NA M 

172. 

Polygomum plebeium R. Br. 

Dondya 

Dondya M. 

173. Polygonatum verticillatum (L.) All. Salam misri M 

174. Portulaca oleracea Linn. Badinoni M 

175. Potentilla fulgens wall. ex Lehm. Bajaradanti M 

176. Potentilla supina L. NA 

177. Ranunculus muricatus L. NA M 

178. Ranunculus laetus Wall. ex D.Don NA M 

179. 

Rauwolfia serpentina (L.) Benth. ex 

Kurz. 

Sharpgandha M 

180. Reinwardtia indica Dumort. Phiunli M 

181. Rheum australe D.Don Dolu M 

182. Ribes orientale Desf. Darbag M. 

183. 

Rosularia adenotricha (Wallich ex 

Edgew.) 

Looniya M. 

184. Rosularia rosulata (Edgew.) Ohba NA M 

185. Rumex hastatus D. Don Almora M, Ed. 

186. Rungia pectinata (L.) Nees Pindikunda M. 

187. Saccharum spontaneum L. wild sugar cane Fodder 

188. Salvia plebeia R. Br. 

189. 

Salvia coccinia Buch’ hoz ex 

Etlinger 

Sathi, 

Samundarsok 

NA 

xix 

M 


2011 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report 



2002 


2011 


2009 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report 


2009 


2009 



2002 


2011 


2011 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report 

Kotlibhel EIA 


al. 2002 


2011 


Area 


2011 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report

190. Saussurea costus (Falc.) Lipsch. Kuth M 

191. Saussurea obvallata (DC) Edgew Brahm kamal M 

192. 

Saussurea heteromalla (D Don) 

Hand. 

193. Scutellaria linearis Benth. NA M. 

194. 

Scutellaria scandens Buch. –Ham. 

ex D.Don 

NA 

kutlaphul M. Api 

195. Sedum motanum Wall. ex Edgew. NA Ed,M. 

196. 

Sedum multicaule Wallich ex 

Lindley 

cane M 

197. Selinum tenuifolium wall. Bhutkeshi M 

198. Sesamum orientale L. Til M 

199. Sida rhombifolia L. NA 

200. 

Sida cordata (Burm. f.) Borss. 

Waalk. 

201. Solanum nigrum L. NA 

202. Solanum viarum Dunal. NA 

203. Solanum erianthum D.Don NA 

204. Sonchus asper (L.) Hill. NA 

Bhiyli M 

205. Sonchus oleraceus Dudhi M., Fd 

206. Stellaria media (L.)Villars. Badalau M, Ed. 

207. 

Swertia chirayita (Roxb. ex 

Fleming) 

208. Tagetes erecta L. NA 

Cheriata M 

xx 


2009 



2002 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report 


Area 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report 


2009 


2009 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report 


2011 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report 



2002 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report

209. Taraxacum officinale Weber. NA M 

210. Thalictrum foliolosum DC NA 

211. Thalictrum javanicum Blume. Peeli jari M 

212. Themeda triandra Forssk. Red grass Orn 

213. Tridax procumbens L. Keshraj M. 

214. Trigonella corniculata L. Van mathi 

215. Trigonella foenum-graecum L. Methi M 

216. Trigonella polycerata L. NA 

217. Triticum aestivum L. NA 

218. Urena lobata Linn. Ungoo M 

219. Urginea indica (Roxb.) Kunth NA M 

220. Valeriana hardwickii Wall. Tagar M 

221. Verbascum chinense (L.) Santapau. NA 

222. Verbascum thapsus L. NA 

223. Vicia sativa L. NA 

224. Vicia faba L. NA 

225. Vigna radiate (L.) R. Wilczek. Mung 

226. Vigna ungiculata (L.) Walp. Sunte 

227. Viola canescens Wall. NA 

xxi 

GMR and 

Kotlibhel HE. 

Project Report 

Kotlibhel EIA 


al. 2002 


2009 


Area 


2011 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report 


2009 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report 


2011 


2011 


2009 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report 

Kotlibhel EIA 


al. 2002 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report 

Kotlibhel EIA 

Report

228. Withania somnifera (L.) Dunal. Ashwagandha M 

229. Xanthium strumarium L. Chota-dhatura M. 

Cultigens recorded in the two basins 

S.No. Name of the Species Vernacular Name Ethnobotanical 

Notes 

xxii 


2009 


2011 

References 

1. Allium cepa L. Pyaz M Phondani et al. 2010 

2. Allium sativum L. Lashun M Phondani et al. 2010 

3. 

Amaranthus cruentus Sieber ex C. 

Presl. 

Marsu M Kala, 2005 

4. Arisaema tortuosum (Wall.) schott Bag-mungri. M Phondani et al. 2010 

5. Brassica campestris L. Sarso M Phondani et al. 2010 

6. Brassica juncea (L.) Czern. Rai M Phondani et al. 2010 

7. Capsicum annuum L. Mirch M Phondani et al. 2010 

8. Coriandrum sativum L. Dhaniya M. Phondani et al. 2010 

9. Cucumis sativus L. Kakree M Phondani et al. 2010 

10. Curcuma longa L. Haldi M Phondani et al. 2010 

11. Daucus carota L. Gajar M. Phondani et al. 2010 

12. Echinochloa frumentacea Link. Jhangora. M Phondani et al. 2010 

13. Glycine max ( L.) Merr. Kala bhat. M Phondani et al. 2010 

14. Hordeum vulgare L. Jau. M Phondani et al. 2010 

15. 

Macrotyloma uniflorum (Lam.) 

Verdc. 

Gaheth. M Phondani et al. 2010 

16. Mentha arvensis L. Podina M Phondani et al. 2010

17. Momordica charantia L. 

Karela M Tiwari et al. 2010 

18. Raphanus sativus L. Muli M Phondani et al. 2010 

19. Sesamum orientale wild. ex Roxb. Til M Kala, 2005 

20. Trigonella foenum-graecum L. Methi M Kala, 2005 

21. Vigna mungo (L.) Hepper. Kali dal M Phondani et al. 2010 

22. Zingiber officinale Roscoe Adrak M Phondani et al. 2010 

Climbers recorded in the two basins 

S.No. Name of the Species Vernacular Name Ethnobotanical Notes References 

1. Abrus pulchellus Wall. M. Kotlibhel EIA Report 

2. 

Argyreia nervosa 

(Burm.f.) Boj. Ghav bel M Gangwar et al. 2011 

3. Bauhinia vahlii W. & A. Maljhan Fd Gangwar et al. 2011 

4. 

Caesalpinia bonducella 

(L.) Roxb. Kath Karanj M Gangwar et al. 2011 

5. Capparis zeylanica Linn. Hins M Gangwar et al. 2011 

6. 

Clematis gouriana Roxb. 

ex DC. NA M, Api. Kotlibhel EIA Report 

7. 

Cryptolepis buchananii 

Roem. & Schult. Medha-singhi M Gangwar et al. 2011 

8. Ficus hederacea Roxb. Beduli Fd Kotlibhel EIA Report 

9. Ipomoea hederifolia L. NA Kotlibhel EIA Report 

10. Ipomoea nil L. Guj Fd Gangwar et al. 2011 

11. Ipomoea pes tigris L. Panch patri Fd Gangwar et al. 2011 

12. Millettia auriculata Baker Gauj Fd Gangwar et al. 2011 

13. Mucuna prurita Hook. Kaircha M Gangwar et al. 2011 

14. 

Pergularia daemia 

(Forsk) Chioaenda. Utraun Kotlibhel EIA Report 

xxiii

15. Rosa brunoii Lindley 

NA M, Sc, Api. Uniyal et al. 2002 

16. Smilax aspera L. NA Kotlibhel EIA Report 

17. 

Tinospora cordifolia 

(Willd.) Hook. f. & 

Thomson Giali M Phondani et al. 2009 

18. Vallaris heynei Spreng Dudhi-bel Fd Gangwar et al. 2011 

[M = Medicinal, Ed = Wild Edible; Fd =Fodder, Tm = Timber, Fl = Fuelwood, Fb = Fiber, Api = 

Apiculture, Ag = Agricultural Implements, Dy = Dye, Rit =Ritual, Sc. = Soil Conservation.] 

xxiv

Appendix 5.2 

RET/Endemic species of plants recorded in the Bhagirathi and Alaknanda basins. 

S.N RET species Family Basin 

1. Acer caesium Wall. ex Brandis Aceraceae. Alk & Bhag. 

2. Aconitum balfourii Stapf. Ranunculaceae Alk. 

3. Aconitum falconeri Stapf var. falconeri Ranunculaceae Alk. 

4. Aconitum hetrophyllum Wall. Ranunculaceae Alk & Bhag. 

5. Aconitum violaceum Jacquem. ex Stapf. Ranunculaceae Alk. 

6. Acorus calamus L. Araceae Alk. 

7. Agrostis tungnathii Bhattach. & Jain Poaceae Alk. 

8. Allium humile Kunth Alliaceae Alk. 

9. Allium stacheyi Baker Alliaceae Alk & Bhag. 

10. Androsace garhwalicum Balodi & Singh Primulaceae Alk. 

11. Anemone raui Goel & Bhattach. Ranunculaceae Bhag. 

12. Angelica glauca Edgrew. Apiaceae Alk & Bhag. 

13. Arenaria curvifolia Majumdar Caryophyllaceae Alk. 

14. Arenaria ferruginea Duthie ex F. Williams Caryophyllaceae Alk. 

15. Arnebia benthamii (Wall. ex D. Don) Johnston Boraginaceae Alk & Bhag. 

16. Berberis osmastonii Dunn. Berberidaceae Alk. 

17. Berberis petiolaris Wall. ex G.Don Berberidaceae Alk. 

18. Bergenia ligulata (Wall.) Engl. Saxifragaceae. Alk. 

19. Calamogrostis garhwalensis Asteraceae Alk. 

20. Caragana sukiensis Schn. Fabaceae Bhag. 

21. Carex nandadeviensis Ghildyal, et al. Cyperaceae Alk. 

22. Catamixis baccharoides Thoms. Asteraceae Alk. 

23. Coleus barbatus (Andr.) Benth. Lamiaceae Alk & Bhag. 

24. Cyananthus integer Wall. ex Benth. Campanulaceae Alk. 

25. Cyathea spinulosa Wall. Cyatheaceae Alk. 

26. Dactylorhiza hatagirea ( D.Don) Soo. Orchideaceae. Alk. 

27. Datisca cannabina L. Datiscaceae Alk & Bhag. 

28. Delphinium brunonianum Royle. Ranunculaceae Alk. 

29. Dilophia purii Rawat, Dangwal & R.D. Gaur Brassicaceae Alk. 

30. Dioscorea deltoidea Wall. ex Griseb. Dioscoreaceae Alk. 

31. Epilobium latifolium L. Onagraceae Alk. 

32. Epipogium aphyllum (Schm.) Swartz Orchideaceae. Bhag. 

33. Euphorbia sharmae U.C. Bhattach Euphorbiaceae Alk. 

34. Festuca nandadevica Hajra Poaceae Alk. 

35. Fritillaria roylei Hook. Liliaceae Alk. 

36. Gentiana saginoides Burkill Gentianaceae Alk. 

37. Gentiana tetrasepala Biswas Gentianaceae Alk. 

38. Hedychium spicatum Lodd. Zingiberaceae Alk.

39. Hedysarum microcalyx Baker Fabaceae Alk. 

40. Lilium polyphyllum D. Don ex Royle Liliaceae Bhag. 

41. Listera nandadeviensis Hajra Orchidaceae Alk. 

42. Meconopsis aculeate Royle. Papaveraceae Alk. 

43. Microschoenus duthiei Clarke Cyperaceae Bhag. 

44. Nardostachys grandiflora DC. Valerianaceae Alk & Bhag. 

45. Picrorhiza kurrooa Royle ex Benth. Scrophulariaceae Alk & Bhag. 

46. Podophyllum hexandrum Royle. Berberidaceae Alk & Bhag. 

47. Polygonatum multiflorum Kunth. Convallariaceae Alk. 

48. Ranunculus uttaranchalensis Pusalkar & Singh Ranunculaceae Bhag. 

49. Rheum austral D.Don Polygonaceae Alk & Bhag. 

50. Rheum webbianum Royle. Polygonaceae Alk. 

51. Saussurea sudhanshui Hajra Asteraceae Alk. 

52. Silene gangotriana Pusalkar et al. Caryophyllaceae Bhag. 

53. Trachyspermum falconeri (Clarke) H. Wolff Apiaceae Alk & Bhag. 

54. Trillidium govanianum (D. Don) Kunth. Liliaceae Alk. 

55. Viola kunawarensis Royle Violaceae Alk. 

Alk = Alaknanda basin, Bhag = Bhagirathi basin.

Description of RET plant species found in the two basins. 

Name: Acer caesium Wall. ex Brandis. 

Family: Aceraceae 

Vern/ 

Kanchula 

Common name: 

Distribution: India, Western Himalaya from Kashmir to 

Kumaon. 

Appendix 5.3 

Description Large deciduous broad-leaved trees dormant flower buds large and prominent. Leaves 

8-18 x 10-20 cm, palmately 5-lobed, upper surface green, lower surface 

characteristically caesio-pruinose, base deeply cordate, 5-nerved, leaf lobes caudateacuminate, 

petioles 6-15 cm long, reddish. Inflorescence corymbose-panicle, erect, 

terminal, puberulous, appearing after the leaves. Flowers pale greenish-yellow to 

yellow. Sepals longer than petals. Stamens 8, inserted into the disc, exserted. Ovary 

pubescent , style 2, connate half way up. Fruit a two winged samara. 

Habitat and 

Ecology 

It is the largest maple in the western Himalayas between t 2130-3050 m asl. It is 

characteristic of the moist temperate deciduous forests, commonly associated with 

Corylus colurna, Aesculus indica, Prunus cornuta, Ulmus wallichiana, Carpinus viminea, 

Betula utilis and the lauraceous genera such as Lindera and Machilus. In Upper west 

Himalayan temperate forest the species is in association with Quercus semicarpifolia, 

Q. dilatata and Abies pindrow. 

Uses Wood is frequently used for making agricultural implements, wooden utensils and also 

as fuel wood. The knots on the stem are highly prized for making wooden bowels by 

certain ethnic communities in hills. 

Source : Nayar & Sastry 1987. Red Data Book of Indian Plants, Vol-I: 5 

Name: Aconitum heterophyllum Wall. 

Family: Ranunculaceae 

Vern/ 

Common name: 

Atees 

Status: Threatened 

Distribution Temperate and Alpine zone of Western & Central Himalaya 2000-4000 m. 

Description An erect, leafy herb having biennial, paired, tuberous roots. Stem upto 1 m tall with 

broad, ovate or orbicular, cordate, lobed and toothed, shortly stalked or sessile, 

amplexicaule leaves. Flowers bright-blue to yellow greenish blue with purple veins in 

long, many flowered peduncles. Fruit, a 5 celled capsule. 

Habitat and An erect herb found in forested blanks and alpine meadows above 3000 m. 

Ecology 

Uses Used in Ayurvedic as a well as Unani system of medicine for the preparation of various 

formulations. It is also used locally as a popular household medicine for the treatment of 

fever and stomachache. 

Source: Nayar & Sastry 1987. Red Data Book of Indian Plants

Name: Acorus calamus L. 

Family: Araceae 

Vern/ 

Common name: 

Baodh, Bauj, Baj, Bach,; 

Status: Threatened 

Distribution Widely distributed in temperate belt of northern Hemisphere including Himalaya. 

[Mondal, Pindar valley, Akash kamini, Phata]. 

Description An erect, semi-aquatic herb. Root stock rhizomatous, creeping and aromatic. Leaves 

fascicled, 3-4 from a tiller, 35 – 50 cm long and 8 – 15 cm wide, shining green. 

Inflorescence compact spadix borne on basal parts of upper leaves. Flowers minute, 

yellowish green, inconspicuous. 

Habitat and A typical species of hill valley wetlands and marshes. 

Ecology 

Uses Sweet flag is used medicinally for a wide variety of ailments since centuries. The 

aromatic oil extracted from its rhizomes are valued in the perfume industry. 

Source: Pl. 324, 1753; Hook. f. Fl. Brit. India. 6: 555. 1893, Naithani, Fl. Chamoli – II, 150, 1984; Gaur, Fl. Garhwal 604, 

1999. 

Name: Allium stracheyi Baker 

Family: Alliaceae 

Vern/ 

Common name: 

Faran, Jambu 

Status: Vulnerable 

Distribution Western Himalaya: From Pakistan to Uttrakhand , Nepal.Endemic to Himalaya. 

Description Small bulbous herb, 8-20 cm tall, bulbs 3.5-5 cm long, elongate-ovoid with parallel 

fibrous scales. Leaves 2-4, 11-30 cm X 1-2 mm, linear, longer than scapes. Flowers 

purple or pink in colour, 4-5 mm long, oblong-campanulate, on 3-7 mm long pedicel, 

many, heads subglobose or hemispherical, 1.5-2.5 cm in diameter. Stamens and pistil 

longer and exserted. Capsules ca 4x3 mm, globose, oblong, thin papery, with 6 black 

seeds. 

Habitat and 

Ecology 

Found on open grassy slopes and alpine meadows between 2400-4000 m. Cultivated in 

some parts of Dhauliganga Valley. 

Uses Used for seasoning vegetables locally and also used to cure physical injuries and joint 

pains. 

Source: Nayar,M.P. & Sastry,A.R.K. 1987. Red Data Book of Indian Plants, vol-III: 9.

Name: Allium humile Kunth 

Family: Alliaceae 

Vern/ 

Common name: 

Jimboo; Faran 

Status: Not assessed 

Distribution Sporadically distributed along the sub-alpine and alpine moist valleys mainly in Western 

Himalaya. In Uttarakhand the species is found in upper catchments of Yamuna, 

Bhagirathi and Alaknanda rivers. 

Description Perennial, tufted and bulbous herbs. Aerial parts withering during winter. Leaves 

strongly aromatic, 4-7, linear, 4-5 mm wide, flat, fleshy. Flowers white, star shaped, in a 

rather lax umbel 2.5-4 cm across, born on a leafy stem. 

Habitat and Alpine moist slopes at altitudes of 3000-4000 m. 

Ecology 

Uses Leaves are used in culinary purposes locally as in case of Allium stracheyi. It is also 

known to be used in the treatment of minor ailments such as stomach diseases, 

jaundice, cold and cough. 

Source: Kunth, Naithani, Fl. Chamoli – II, 647, 1984. 

Name: Arnebia benthamii (Wall. ex D. Don) Johnston 

Family: Boraginaceae 

Vern/ 

Common name: 

Ratan Jot; Balchhad 


Distribution Alpine moist pastures, especially in the Western Himalaya between 3000–3900 m asl. 

Description A perennial, erect, hoary herb. Stem stout up to 50 cm high. Leaves linear, alternate. 

Inflorescences a dense shaggy-haired cylindrical spike. Flowers reddish-purple. 

Habitat and Open slopes and shrubberies between 3500 - 4200 m asl. 

Ecology 

Uses The species is a major ingredient of the commercial drug available under the name 

Gaozaban, which has antibacterial, antifungal, anti-inflammatory and wound-healing 

properties. Roots yield purplish red dye when soaked in mustard oil and used locally as 

a hair tonic. 

Source: (Wall. ex G. Don) I.M. Johnson in Journ. Arn. Arb. 35:36, 1954; Raizada and Saxena, Fl. Mussoorie, 567, 1978.

Name: Berberis osmastonii Dunn. 

Family: Berberidaceae. 

Vern/ 

Common name: 

NA 

Status: Rare 

Distribution Endemic to Uttarakhand in Pindar Valley and Pithoragarh District. 

Description Subprostrate shrubs. Stems terete or subterete, mature shoots purplish red. Spines 3fid, 

slender, 1-3 cm. leaves 10-20 x 2-3 mm, lonear-oblong or very narrowly elliptic, 

margins entire revolute. Flower solitary. Outer sepals 3.5 X 1mm, entire, glands 

orbicular, stamens 5 mm, produced, apiculate. Berries ovoid, stylose. 

Habitat and Patchily distributed on open dry, hill slopes at higher altitudes (1800 – 2200 m asl). 

Ecology 

Uses Not known. 

Source: Nayar,M.P. & Sastry,A.R.K. 1987. Red Data Book of Indian Plants, vol-I: 100. 

Name: Caragana sukiensis Schn. 

Family: Leguminosae 

Vern/ 

Common name: 

NA 

Status: Not assessed 

Distribution Near Endemic. Known to occur in few patches of Western Uttarakhand and Western 

Nepal. In Uttarakhand few patches have been located near Sukhi and Harshi Villages. 

Description A spiny, tufted shrub up to 2 m tall. Leaves crowded, pinnate with 

8-10 leaflets. Stipule not connate behind. Flowers yellow,fading to orange or brown. 

Pods 4-6 cm long, turgid. 

Habitat and 

Ecology 

Sparsely distributed along dry, boulder slopes and sandy riverbanks. An excellent soil 

binder and helps in reclamation of soil owing to its nodular roots and nitrogen fixing 

properties. 

Uses Important fuel wood and valuable for soil reclamation. 

Source: C.K. Schneid in Bull. Herb. Boiss. Ser. 2, 7: 313. 1907; Naithani, Fl. Chamoli - I 150, 1984. C. hoplites I Dunn. In 

Kew Bull. 338.

Name: Catamixis baccharoides Thoms. 

Family: Asteraceae 

Vern/ 

Common name: 

NA 


Distribution Endemic to the Siwalik belt and outer Himalaya. Sporadically distributed along Dehra 

Dun Shiwaliks between Yamuna and Ganges. Few patches have been located in dry 

slopes near Kotlibhel in Tehri district. 

Description A low hanging shrub, 1.0-1.5 m high. Stems with silky pubescence. Leaves alternate, 

shortly petiolate, semi-amplexicaule, obovate or obovate-spathulate, 5.0-7.5 X 2.0-3.7 

cm, crenate or crenate serrate. Inflorescence in heads, ligulate, 7.5 mm long, in terminal 

corymbs. Involucral bracts few to many seriate, much shorter than flowers. Florets all 

ligulate, purplish white. Achenes silky-villous. Pappus hairy,white. 

Habitat and 

Ecology 

The species is found on steep calcareous and sand stone rocks between 500 – 1200 m 

asl. 

Uses Not known 

Source: Nayar,M.P. & Sastry,A.R.K. 1987. Red Data Book of Indian Plants, vol-1: 78. 

Name: Coleus barbatus (Andr.) Benth. 

Family: Lamiaceae or Labiatae 

Vern/ 

Common name: 

Status: Not Assessed 

Patthar Chud, Fiwai. English : Indian coleus, 

False boldo. 

Distribution Sub-montane and warm temperate belt of Himalaya between 1000 – 2000 m. In 

Uttarakhand it can be seen sporadically distributed along lower parts of Bhagirathi and 

Alaknanda valleys. Also reported from hilly tracts of Central India and Western Ghats. 

Description Perennial herbs, 30- 60 cm high. Roots fleshy, fibrous. Stem decumbent, cylindrical 

and hairy. Leaves ovate to obovate, petiolated. Flowers in whorls of 6 -8, pale- blue. 

Calyx and corolla 2 lipped. 

Habitat and 

Ecology 

Coleus is a hardy plant species growing on the dry slopes of the lower Himalaya, often 

along the edges of fallow fields and pine forests. 

Uses An important source of Colenol, this species is exploited heavily by various Ayurvedic 

industries. 

Source: (Andr.) Benth. Hook. f Fl. Brit. India.4: 625.1885. Naithani, Fl. Chamoli -II. 504, 1984s.

Name: Cyananthus integer Wall. ex Benth. 

Family: Campanulaceae 

Vern/ 

Common name: 

NA 

Status: Rare 

Distribution Endemic to Uttarakhand 

Description Dwarf, decumbent branched, glabrous to puberulous herbs. Leaves alternate or 

opposite, petiolate, ovate to ovate-lanceolate, dentate or sub-entire, pubescent on the 

upper surface and villous on the lower surface, 1.2-7.6 x 0.5-4.6 cm. Flowers purplish 

blue. Corolla broadly cylindric or campanulate, cleft for less than ½ the length, 9-11.5 

mm. Capsules subglobose, 8.5-11.5 mm long and 9-12 mm broad. 

Habitat and Moist alpine slopes and rocks in alpine areas between 3000-3800m. 

Ecology 

Uses Not known 

Source: Nayar,M.P. & Sastry,A.R.K. 1987. Red Data Book of Indian Plants, vol-II: 81. 

Name: Datisca cannabina L. 

Family: Datiscaceae 

Vern/ 

Common name: 

Bajra Bhang 


Distribution Sparsely and patchily distributed in dry temperate belt of Western Himalaya and 

extends up to Mediterranean zone. Garhwal Himalaya a few patches have been located 

near Harsil, Tharali, Khetaswami, Chirbatiya, and Narayan Bagarh. 

Description An erect shrub up to 2.5 m tall. Stem slender, cylindrical, branching only in the terminal 

parts. Leaves pinnate. Pinnae resemble the leaflets of hemp. Flowers small, greenish, 

unisexual, male and female plants borne on different plants, in terminal racemes. 

Habitat and 

Ecology 

The species is peculiar in its habitat, largely colonizing banks of seasonal streams 

especially on steep slopes. 

Uses Roots are known to be an importance source of dye. 

Source: Hook. f Fl. Brit. India.2: 656. 1879. Naithani, Fl. Chamoli -I. 249, 1984.

Name: Dioscorea deltoidea Wall. ex Kunth. 

Family: Dioscoreaceae 

Vern/ 

Common name: 

Ghanjir 

Status: Vulnerable due to the over exploitation. 

Distribution Widely distributed in temperate and sub-alpine zone 

of Himalaya, from Kashmir to Arunachal Pradesh, South-West China. 

Description Glabrous, herbaceous climber with tuberous roots. Leaves alternate, 5-13 cm long, 

ovate, acuminate, base deeply cordate, lobes rounded, sometimes dilated outwards 

petiole as long as the blade. Male spikes solitary, rarely in pairs, 8-35 cm long, very 

slender, perianth segments broadly oblong, flower in small, distinct cluster, stamen 6. 

Female spikes 8-16 cm long, usually broader than long, solitary, flower few, distinct. 

Capsule 1.5-2.5 X 2.5-5 cm, variable in shape. Seeds round, winged. 

Habitat and Temperate belt in open areas and forest edges between 1000-3500 m altitudes. 

Ecology 

Uses Tuberous roots are used for extracting steroidal saponin, diosgenin. Diosgenin is a 

precursor of cortisone, hydro-cartisone, sex hormone & antifertility drug largely used in 

modern medicine. 

Source: Nayar,M.P. & Sastry,A.R.K. 1987. Red Data Book of Indian Plants, vol-II: 104. 

Name: Epipogium aphyllum (Schmidt) Sw. 

Family: Orchideaceae 

Vern/ 

Common name: 

N.A. 


Distribution Sparsely distributed in the temperate and sub-alpine 

zone of Western and Central Himalaya. Only two populations 

of this species were located in Garhwal – one in Bhyundar Valley and other near 

Gangotri (3200m). 

Description A slender, leafless ground orchid. Root stock creeping. Leaves reduced to scales. 

Flowering stem 10-20 cm long, pale brown, smooth. Lowers white to pale yellow, 4-5 in 

a simple raceme. 

Habitat and 

Ecology 

The species likes to grow in shady moist areas as an understory of forested habitats in 

especially along riverine areas between 2500 – 3000 m. 

Uses The species is of botanical interest. Local uses are not known. 

Source: Veget. Scand. 32. 1814. Orchis aphylla Schmidt in May Sammal. Phys. Aufs. 1:240. 1791. Non frossk. 1775; 

Hook. f. Fl. Brit Ind. 6: 124.1890; Naithani, Fl. Chamoli – II, 616, 1984.

Name: Lilium polyphyllum D.Don ex Royle 

Family: Liliaceae 

Vern/ 

Common name: 

Kakoli, Kshir Kakoli 


Distribution Sparsely distributed in the temperate belt of Western Himalaya between 2000 – 3300 m 

asl, from Kashmir to Garhwal. In the survey area a few populations were located near 

Kanol Sitale and Gangotri (3200m asl). 

Description Perennial, erect herbs upto 50 cm tall. Bulbs up to 5 cm across. Leaves sessile, 

alternate or nearly opposite or whorled, narrowly lanceolate or linear, 8-12 x 1- 2 cm. 

Bracts leaf-like, often whorled. Flowers whorled and with long stalk. Perianth 5- 8 cm 

long, greenish white with purple dots inside, segments obtuse, recurved when fully 

expanded. 

Habitat and 

Ecology 

This species is found primarily as and understory of deodar and fir between 2400 – 

3300 m asl. 

Uses The species has a great potential as horticultural crop. Its medicinal properties are yet 

to be explored. 

Source: Don in Royle, III. Bot. Himal. 388. 1840; Hook. f Fl. Brit. India. 6:351. 1892; Naithani, Fl. Chamoli – II, 652, 1984. 

Name: Nardostachys jatamansi DC. 

Family: Valerianaceae 

Vern/ 

Common name: 

Mansi, Jatamansi 


Distribution Sparsely distributed in the moist alpine areas of Greater Himalaya 

from Eastern Himachal Pradesh to Sikkim. 

Description An aromatic, decumbent herb, 10-30cm high. Basal parts of stem rhizomatous, fibrous 

covered with tail like brown fibers left over from the withered leaves towards the stem, 

while the root continuous to penetrate deep in the soil. Leaves are radical in nature 

long, narrow and the flower are creamy white, often rosy or pale pink in appearance 

arising in terminal corymbose cymes. 

Market drug consists of a short portion of rhizome, as thick as little finger, dark grey, 

covered by a tuft of fine, reddish brown fibers and gives an appearance of a tail. Fibers 

are malted together as a network. It has a heavy aromatic odour and tastes bitter. 

Habitat and Usually found on rocky slopes in the alpine areas above 3500 m. 

Ecology 

Uses It is used in Ayurvedic system of medicine and perfumery. Local people use as incense. 

Market drug consists of a short portion of rhizome. 

Source: Nayar & Sastry 1987. Red Data Book of Indian Plants.

Name: Picrorhiza kurrooa Royle ex Benth. 

Family: Scrophulariaceae 

Vern/ 

Common name: 

Kutki, Karui 


Distribution Himalaya: From Kashmir to Sikkim. 

Description A rhizomatous, perennial herb with bitter taste. Leaves 5-10 cm, coriaceous, trip 

rounded, base narrowed into a winged sheating petiole. Flowering stock ascending, 

longer than the leaves, with or without bracts below the inflorescence. Spike 5-10 cm 

long, obtuse, many flowered, sub- hirsute, bracts oblong or lanceolate, as long as calyx. 

Sepals 5, lanceolate, 4-5 mm long, ciliate. Corolla 5-8 mm long, lobes ovate, acuminate, 

ciliata. Capsule 1-1.5 cm long, ovoid, turgid, acute. 

Habitat and 

Ecology 

The species is found sporadically on moist skeletal alpine valleys and stream courses 

between 3300-4500 m altitudes. 

Uses Used locally to cure stomach ache. Commercially exploited across the Himalaya for 

preparation of various formulations especially to cure liver diseases. 

Source: Nayar,M.P. & Sastry,A.R.K. 1987. Red Data Book of Indian Plants, vol-I: 350. 

Name: Trillidium govanianum (D. Don) Kunth 

Family: Liliaceae 

Vern/ 

Common name: 

Satwa 


Distribution Sparsely but widely distributed throughout the Himalayan region between 3000 – 4000 

m asl. In the survey area this species was 

recorded in upper parts of Bhagirathi and Alaknanda valleys. 

Description A tuberous herb often up to 30 cm tall, growing frequently in forest shades with three 

leaves in one whorl at the summit of the stem and solitary, purple flower in the centre. 

Leaves are broadly ovate, ovate and conspicuously stalked, 3.5 – 10 cm long. Flowers 

brown purple with narrow, spreading petals, the outer three narrowly lanceolate, the 

inner 3, linear. Anthers large, yellow, style 3, long and conspicuous. Fruit is a red, 

globular berry, 1-2 cm in diameter. 

Habitat and Shady moist forests among boulders often under the birch-rhododendron forests. 

Ecology 

Uses The cortico-steroid hormone isolated from the plant is used in various preparations like 

sex hormones, cortisone and allied preparations used in the treatment of rheumatism, 

birth control, regulation of menstrual flow and the like. It is an important source of 

diosgenin. 

Source: Kunth. Nayar & Sastry 1987. Red Data Book of Indian Plants. Trillium govanianum Wall. Cat. 812,

Checklist of fishes found in the ZoIs of hydroelectric projects in Alaknanda and Bhagirathi basins 

SL. 

NO Name of the Fish Species 

Agunda 

thati Badrinath Bhilangana Dewal 

Jumma 

gad 

Maneri 

bhali I 

Maneri 

bhali II Pilangad Rajwakti 

Annexure 5.4 

1 Salmo trutta fario Linnaeus 

Salmo gairdnerii gairdnerii 

- - - + - + - + - - 

2 Richardson - - - - - - - - - - 

3 Tor tor (Ham.) - - + - - - - - + + EN 

4 Tor putitora (Ham.) - - + + - + + - + + EN 

5 Tor chelinoides (McClell.) 

Neolissochilus hexastrichus 

- - - - - - - - - + 

6 (McClell.) - - - - - - - - - + 

7 Labeo dyocheilus (McClell.) - - - + - - + - + + 

8 Labeo dero (Ham.) - - + + - + + - + + 

9 Labeo boga (Ham.) - - - - - - - - - - 

10 Labeo bata (Ham.) - - - - - - - - - - 

11 Chagunius chagunio (Ham.) - - + - - - - - - + EN 

12 Puntius ticto (Ham.) - - - - - - - - - - 

13 Puntius conchonius (Ham.) - - - - - - - - - - 

14 Puntius sophoue (Ham.) - - - - - - - - - - 

15 Puntius chola (Ham.) - - - - - - - - - - VU 

16 Puntius sarana (Ham.) - - - - - - - - - - VU 

17 Puntius phutunio (Ham.) - - - - - - - - - - 

18 Barilius bendelisis (Ham.) + - + + - + + + + + 

19 Barilius shacra (Ham.) - - + + - - + - + + 

20 Barilius barna (Ham.) + - + + - + + - + + 

21 Barilius barila (Ham.) + - + + - - + - + + 

22 Barilius vagra (Ham.) + - + + - + + - + + 

23 Raiamas bola (Ham.) - - - - - - - - - + 

Tehri 

stage-I 

NBFGR 

2009

24 Danio (Brachydanio) rerio (Ham.) - - - - - - - - - - 

25 Devario aequipinnatus (McClell.) - - - - - - - - - - 

26 Devario devario (McClell.) - - - - - - - - - - 

27 Esomus danricus (Ham.) - - - - - - - - - - 

28 Rasbora daniconius (Ham.) - - - - - - - - - - 

29 Schizothorax richardsonii (Gray) 

Schizothorax plagiostomus 

+ - + + - + + + + + VU 

30 Heckel - - + + - - - - + - 

31 Schizothorax progastus (McClell.) - - - + - - - - - - 

32 Schizothorax esocinus Heckel 

Schizothoraichthys micropogon 

- - - - - - - - - - 

33 (Heckel) 

Schizothoraichthys longipinnis 

- - + + - - - - + - 

34 (Heckel) 

Schizothoraichthys curvifrons 

- - + - - - - - + - 

35 (Heckel) 

Schizothoraichthys planifrons 

- - + + - - - - + - 

36 (Heckely) - - + + - - + - + + 

37 Garra gotyla gotyla (Gray) - - + - - + + + - + VU 

38 Garra lamta (Ham.) - - + - - - + - - + VU 

39 Crossocheilus latius latius (Ham.) - - + - - - - - - + VU 

40 Psilorhynchus balitora (Ham.) - - - - - - - - - + 

41 Balitora brucei Gray - - - - - - - - - - 

42 Lepidocephalus guntea (Ham.) - - - - - - - - - - 

43 Botia dario (Ham.) - - - - - - - - - + VU 

44 Botia almorhe Gray - - - - - - - - - + 

45 Acanthacobitis botia (Ham.) - - - - - - - - - - 

46 Schistura rupicola (McClell.) 

Paraschistura montanus 

- - + - - + + + - + 

47 (McClell.) - - + - - + + - - + 

48 Schistura beavani Gunther - - + - - + + - - + 

49 Schistura savona (Ham.) - - + - - - - - - +

50 Schistura denisonii (Jerdon.) - - + - - - - - - + 

51 Nemacheilus multifasciatus Day 

Nemacheilus scaturigina 

- - + - - - - - - + VU 

52 (McClell.) - - - - - - - - - - 

53 Schistura corica (Ham.) - - - - - - - - - - 

54 Mystus tengara (Ham.) - - - - - - - - - - 

55 Rita rita (Ham.) - - - - - - - - - - 

56 Clupisoma garua (Ham.) - - + - - - - - - + 

57 Amblyceps mangois (Ham.) - - - - - - - - - - EN 

58 Bagarius bagarius (Ham.) - - - - - - - - - - VU 

59 Parachiloganis hodgarti (Hora) 

Glyptothorax madraspatanum 

- - + - - - - - - + 

60 (Day) 

Glyptothorax pectinopterus 

- - - - - - - - - + 

61 (McClell.) - - + + - + + + + + 

62 Glyptothorax telchitta (Ham.) - - + + - - + - + + VU 

63 Glyptothorax conirostris (Steind.) - - + + - - - - + + 

64 Glyptothorax cavia (Ham.) - - + + - - - - + + EN 

65 Glyptothorax trilineatis Blyth - - + + - + + - + + 

66 Glyptothorax kashmirensis Hora - - - - - - - - - + 

67 Glyptothorax brevipinnis Hora 

Pseudecheneis sulcatus 

- - + + - - + - + + 

68 (McClell.) - - + + - - - - + + VU 

69 Xenetodon cancila (Ham.) - - - - - - - - - - 

70 Channa gachna (Ham.) - - - - - - - - - - 

71 Mastacembelus armatus (Lacep.) - - - - - - - - - - 

72 Trichogaster fasciatus (Schn.) - - - - - - - - - - 

73 Glyptothorax alaknandi - - - - - - - - - - 

74 Glyptothorax garhwali - - - - - - - - - - 

75 Cyprinus carpio carpio - - - - - - - - - + 

76 Ctenopharyngodon idella - - - - - - - - - +

SL. 

NO Name of the Fish Species Urgam Vanala 

Vishnu 

prayag 

Bhilangana 

-III 

Birahi 

Ganga 

Kail 

ganga 

Kaliganga 

-I 

Kaliganga 

-II Koteshwar 

Lohari 

Nagpala 

1 Salmo trutta fario Linnaeus - - - - - + - - - + 

2 Salmo gairdnerii gairdnerii Richardson - - - - - - - - - - 

3 Tor tor (Ham.) - - - - - - - - + - EN 

4 Tor putitora (Ham.) - + - + - + - - + + EN 

5 Tor chelinoides (McClell.) - - - - - - - - + - 

6 Neolissochilus hexastrichus (McClell.) - - - - - - - - - - 

7 Labeo dyocheilus (McClell.) - + - - - - - - - + 

8 Labeo dero (Ham.) - + - - - - - - + + 

9 Labeo boga (Ham.) - - - - - - - - - - 

10 Labeo bata (Ham.) - - - - - - - - - - 

11 Chagunius chagunio (Ham.) - - - - - - - - + - EN 







18 Barilius bendelisis (Ham.) - + - - - + - - + + 

19 Barilius shacra (Ham.) - + - - - - - - + - 

20 Barilius barna (Ham.) - + - - - + - - + - 

21 Barilius barila (Ham.) - + - - - + - - + - 

22 Barilius vagra (Ham.) - + - - - - - - + - 

23 Raiamas bola (Ham.) - - - - - - - - + - 




NBFGR 

2009



29 Schizothorax richardsonii (Gray) - + - + + + - - + + VU 

30 Schizothorax plagiostomus Heckel - + - - + + - - - - 

31 Schizothorax progastus (McClell.) - + - - - + - - - + 



- - - - - - - - - - 

33 (Heckel) - + - - - - - - - - 

34 Schizothoraichthys longipinnis (Heckel) - - - - - - - - - - 

35 Schizothoraichthys curvifrons (Heckel) - + - - - - - - - - 

36 Schizothoraichthys planifrons (Heckely) - + - - + - - - + - 

37 Garra gotyla gotyla (Gray) - - - - - + - - + + VU 

38 Garra lamta (Ham.) - - - + - - - - + - VU 

39 Crossocheilus latius latius (Ham.) - - - - - - - - + - VU 

40 Psilorhynchus balitora (Ham.) - - - - - - - - + - 



43 Botia dario (Ham.) - - - - - - - - + - VU 

44 Botia almorhe Gray - - - - - - - - + - 


46 Schistura rupicola (McClell.) - - - - - + - - + - 

47 Paraschistura montanus (McClell.) - - - - - - - - + - 

48 Schistura beavani Gunther - - - - - - - - + - 

49 Schistura savona (Ham.) - - - - - + - - + - 

50 Schistura denisonii (Jerdon.) - - - + - - - - - - 

51 Nemacheilus multifasciatus Day - - - - - - - - + - VU 

52 Nemacheilus scaturigina (McClell.) - - - - - - - - - - 


54 Mystus tengara (Ham.) - - - - - - - - - -

55 Rita rita (Ham.) - - - - - - - - - - 

56 Clupisoma garua (Ham.) - - - - - - - - + - 



59 Parachiloganis hodgarti (Hora) - - - - - - - - + - 

60 Glyptothorax madraspatanum (Day) - + - + + - - - + - 

61 Glyptothorax pectinopterus (McClell.) - + - + + + - - - - 

62 Glyptothorax telchitta (Ham.) - + - - + - - - + - VU 

63 Glyptothorax conirostris (Steind.) - + - - + - - - - - 

64 Glyptothorax cavia (Ham.) - + - - + - - - + - EN 

65 Glyptothorax trilineatis Blyth - + - - + - - - + - 

66 Glyptothorax kashmirensis Hora - - - - - - - - + - 

67 Glyptothorax brevipinnis Hora - + - + + - - - + + 

68 Pseudecheneis sulcatus (McClell.) - + - - + - - - - - VU 






74 Glyptothorax garhwali - - - - - - - - + - 

75 Cyprinus carpio carpio - - - - - - - - - - 

76 Ctenopharyngodon idella - - - - - - - - - -

SL. 


Madh 

mesheshwar 

Phata 

Byung 

Rishi 

Ganga 

Singoli 

Bhatwari Srinagar 

Tapovan 

Vishnugad 

Vishnugad 

Pipalkoti 

Alaknanda 

-Badrinath 

Asiganga 

-I 

Asiganga 

-II 



- - - - - - - - + + 

2 Richardson - - - - - - - - - - 

3 Tor tor (Ham.) - - - + + - - - - - EN 

4 Tor putitora (Ham.) + - - + + - - - - - EN 



+ - - - + - + - - - 

6 (McClell.) - - - - + - + - - - 

7 Labeo dyocheilus (McClell.) - - - - + - - - - - 

8 Labeo dero (Ham.) + - - - + - - - - - 

9 Labeo boga (Ham.) - - - + - - - - - - 

10 Labeo bata (Ham.) - - - - - - - - - - 

11 Chagunius chagunio (Ham.) - - - - + - - - - - EN 







18 Barilius bendelisis (Ham.) + - - + + - - - - - 

19 Barilius shacra (Ham.) + - - - + - - - - - 

20 Barilius barna (Ham.) + - - + + - - - - - 

21 Barilius barila (Ham.) + - - + + - - - - - 

22 Barilius vagra (Ham.) + - - + + - - - - - 

23 Raiamas bola (Ham.) - - - - + - - - - - 



NBFGR 

2009






+ - - + + - + - + + VU 

30 Heckel 

Schizothorax progastus 

- - - + - - + - - - 

31 (McClell.) + - - + - - + - - - 



- - - - - - + - - - 

33 (Heckel) 


- - - + - - + - - - 

34 (Heckel) 


- - - - - - + - - - 

35 (Heckel) 


+ - - - - - + - - - 

36 (Heckely) - - - - + - + - - - 

37 Garra gotyla gotyla (Gray) + - - + + - - - - - VU 

38 Garra lamta (Ham.) 

Crossocheilus latius latius 

+ - - + + - - - - - VU 

39 (Ham.) - - - + + - - - - - VU 

40 Psilorhynchus balitora (Ham.) - - - - + - - - - - 



43 Botia dario (Ham.) - - - - + - - - - - VU 

44 Botia almorhe Gray - - - - + - - - - - 




+ - - + + - - - - - 

47 (McClell.) - - - + + - - - - - 

48 Schistura beavani Gunther + - - + + - - - - - 

49 Schistura savona (Ham.) - - - + + - - - - - 

50 Schistura denisonii (Jerdon.) - - - - + - - - - -



- - - - + - - - - - VU 

52 (McClell.) - - - - - - - - - - 



55 Rita rita (Ham.) - - - - - - - - - - 

56 Clupisoma garua (Ham.) - - - - + - - - - - 





- - - - + - - - - - 

60 (Day) 


- - - + + - + - - - 

61 (McClell.) + - - - + - + - - - 

62 Glyptothorax telchitta (Ham.) - - - - + - + - - - VU 

63 Glyptothorax conirostris (Steind.) - - - + + - + - + + 

64 Glyptothorax cavia (Ham.) - - - + + - + - - - EN 

65 Glyptothorax trilineatis Blyth + - - - + - + - - - 

66 Glyptothorax kashmirensis Hora - - - - + - + - - - 



- - - - + - + - - - 

68 (McClell.) - - - + + - + - - - VU 


70 Channa gachna (Ham.) 

Mastacembelus armatus 

- - - - - - - - - - 

71 (Lacep.) - - - - - - - - - - 


73 Glyptothorax alaknandi - - - - + - - - - - 




SL. 


Asiganga 

-III 

Balganga 

-II 

Bharon Ghati 

(I,II) including 

Harsil 

Bhilangana 

-IIA 

Bhilangana 

-IIB 

Bhilangana 

-IIC 

Bhyunder 

ganga 



+ - + - - - - - - - 

2 Richardson - - - - - - - - - - 

3 Tor tor (Ham.) - + - - - - - - - - EN 

4 Tor putitora (Ham.) - + - + + + - - - + EN 



- + - - - - - - - - 

6 (McClell.) - - - - - - - - - - 

7 Labeo dyocheilus (McClell.) - + - - - - - - - + 

8 Labeo dero (Ham.) - + - - - - - - - + 

9 Labeo boga (Ham.) - - - - - - - - - - 

10 Labeo bata (Ham.) - - - - - - - - - - 

11 Chagunius chagunio (Ham.) - + - - - - - - - - EN 







18 Barilius bendelisis (Ham.) - + - - - - - - - + 

19 Barilius shacra (Ham.) - + - - - - - - - - 

20 Barilius barna (Ham.) - + - - - - - - - + 

21 Barilius barila (Ham.) - + - - - - - - - + 

22 Barilius vagra (Ham.) - + - - - - - - - + 

23 Raiamas bola (Ham.) - - - - - - - - - - 

Birahi 

Ganga 

-I 

Birahi 

Ganga 

-II 

Bowla 

Nand 

prayag 

NBFGR 

2009






29 Schizothorax richardsonii (Gray) + + + + + + - + + + VU 

30 Schizothorax plagiostomus Heckel - + - + + + - + + + 

31 Schizothorax progastus (McClell.) - + - - - - - - - + 



- + - - - - - - - - 

33 (Heckel) 


- + - - - - - - - - 

34 (Heckel) 


- + - - - - - - - + 

35 (Heckel) 


- + - - - - - - - + 

36 (Heckely) - + - - - - - + + - 

37 Garra gotyla gotyla (Gray) - + - - - - - - - - VU 

38 Garra lamta (Ham.) - + - + + + - - - - VU 

39 Crossocheilus latius latius (Ham.) - + - - - - - - - - VU 

40 Psilorhynchus balitora (Ham.) - - - - - - - - - - 



43 Botia dario (Ham.) - - - - - - - - - - VU 

44 Botia almorhe Gray - - - - - - - - - - 


46 Schistura rupicola (McClell.) - + - + + + - - - - 

47 Paraschistura montanus (McClell.) - + - + + + - - - - 

48 Schistura beavani Gunther - + - - - - - - - - 

49 Schistura savona (Ham.) - + - + + + - - - - 

50 Schistura denisonii (Jerdon.) - + - + + + - - - -



- + - - - - - - - - VU 

52 (McClell.) - - - - - - - - - - 



55 Rita rita (Ham.) - - - - - - - - - - 

56 Clupisoma garua (Ham.) - + - - - - - - - - 





- + - - - - - - - - 

60 (Day) 


- + - + + + - + + + 

61 (McClell.) - + - + + + - + + + 

62 Glyptothorax telchitta (Ham.) - + - - - - - + + - VU 

63 Glyptothorax conirostris (Steind.) + + - - - - - + + - 

64 Glyptothorax cavia (Ham.) - + - - - - - + + + EN 

65 Glyptothorax trilineatis Blyth - + - - - - - + + + 

66 Glyptothorax kashmirensis Hora - - - - - - - - - - 

67 Glyptothorax brevipinnis Hora - + - + + + - + + + 

68 Pseudecheneis sulcatus (McClell.) - + - - - - - + + + VU 









SL. 

NO Name of the Fish Species Devsari Devali 

Gohana 

Tal 

Jadh 

Ganga Jalandharigad 

Jelam 

Tamak 

Jhala 

koti Kakoragad Kaldigad Karmoli 



+ - - - + - - - + - 

2 Richardson - - - - - - - - - - 

3 Tor tor (Ham.) - - - - - - - - - - EN 

4 Tor putitora (Ham.) + + - - - - - - - - EN 

5 Tor chelinoides (McClell.) + - - - - - - - - - 

6 Neolissochilus hexastrichus (McClell.) - - - - - - - - - - 

7 Labeo dyocheilus (McClell.) - + - - - - - - - - 

8 Labeo dero (Ham.) - - - - - - - - - - 

9 Labeo boga (Ham.) - - - - - - - - - - 

10 Labeo bata (Ham.) - - - - - - - - - - 

11 Chagunius chagunio (Ham.) - - - - - - - - - - EN 





16 Puntius sarana (Ham.) + - - - - - - - - - VU 


18 Barilius bendelisis (Ham.) + + - - - - - - - - 

19 Barilius shacra (Ham.) - - - - - - - - - - 

20 Barilius barna (Ham.) + + - - - - - - - - 

21 Barilius barila (Ham.) + - - - - - - - - - 

22 Barilius vagra (Ham.) + + - - + - - - - - 

23 Raiamas bola (Ham.) - - - - - - - - - - 





NBFGR 

2009


29 Schizothorax richardsonii (Gray) + + + - + - + - - - VU 

30 Schizothorax plagiostomus Heckel + + + - - - + - - - 

31 Schizothorax progastus (McClell.) + + - - - - - - - - 



- - - - - - - - - - 

33 (Heckel) 


- - - - - - - - - - 

34 (Heckel) 


- + - - - - - - - - 

35 (Heckel) 


- + - - - - - - - - 

36 (Heckely) - - + - - - - - - - 

37 Garra gotyla gotyla (Gray) + - - - + - + - - - VU 

38 Garra lamta (Ham.) - - - - - - - - - - VU 

39 Crossocheilus latius latius (Ham.) - - - - - - - - - - VU 

40 Psilorhynchus balitora (Ham.) - - - - - - - - - - 



43 Botia dario (Ham.) - - - - - - - - - - VU 

44 Botia almorhe Gray - - - - - - - - - - 


46 Schistura rupicola (McClell.) + - - - - - + - - - 

47 Paraschistura montanus (McClell.) - - - - - - + - - - 

48 Schistura beavani Gunther - - - - + - - - - - 

49 Schistura savona (Ham.) - - - - - - - - - - 

50 Schistura denisonii (Jerdon.) - - - - - - - - - - 

51 Nemacheilus multifasciatus Day - - - - - - - - - - VU 

52 Nemacheilus scaturigina (McClell.) - - - - - - - - - - 


54 Mystus tengara (Ham.) - - - - - - - - - -

55 Rita rita (Ham.) - - - - - - - - - - 

56 Clupisoma garua (Ham.) - - - - - - - - - - 



59 Parachiloganis hodgarti (Hora) - - - - - - - - - - 

60 Glyptothorax madraspatanum (Day) - - + - - - - - - - 

61 Glyptothorax pectinopterus (McClell.) + + + - - - + - - - 

62 Glyptothorax telchitta (Ham.) + - + - - - - - - - VU 

63 Glyptothorax conirostris (Steind.) - - + - - - - - - - 

64 Glyptothorax cavia (Ham.) + + + - - - - - - - EN 

65 Glyptothorax trilineatis Blyth - + + - - - - - - - 

66 Glyptothorax kashmirensis Hora - - - - - - - - - - 

67 Glyptothorax brevipinnis Hora - + + - - - - - - - 

68 Pseudecheneis sulcatus (McClell.) - + + - - - - - - - VU 









SL. 


Khirao 

ganga 

Kotbudha 

kedar 

Kotlibhel IA 

(Bhagirathi) 

Kotlibhel 

IB 

(Alaknanda) 

Kotlibhel 

II 

Lata 

Tapovan Limchagad 

Malari 

Jelam Melkhet 

Nandprayag 

Langasu 



- - - - - - - - + - 

2 Richardson - - - - - - - - - - 

3 Tor tor (Ham.) - - + + + - - - - - EN 

4 Tor putitora (Ham.) - + + + + - - - + + EN 



- - + + + - - - + - 

6 (McClell.) - - + + - - - - - - 

7 Labeo dyocheilus (McClell.) - - + + + - - - - + 

8 Labeo dero (Ham.) - - + + + - - - - + 

9 Labeo boga (Ham.) - - - + + - - - - - 

10 Labeo bata (Ham.) - - - + + - - - - - 

11 Chagunius chagunio (Ham.) - + + + + - - - - - EN 

12 Puntius ticto (Ham.) - - - - + - - - - - 

13 Puntius conchonius (Ham.) - - - - + - - - - - 

14 Puntius sophoue (Ham.) - - - - + - - - - - 

15 Puntius chola (Ham.) - - - - + - - - - - VU 

16 Puntius sarana (Ham.) - - - - + - - - + - VU 


18 Barilius bendelisis (Ham.) - + + + + - - - + + 

19 Barilius shacra (Ham.) - + + + - - - - - - 

20 Barilius barna (Ham.) - + + + + - - - + + 

21 Barilius barila (Ham.) - + + + + - - - + + 

22 Barilius vagra (Ham.) - + + + + - - - + + 

23 Raiamas bola (Ham.) - - + + - - - - - - 

24 Danio (Brachydanio) rerio - - - - + - - - - - 

NBFGR 

2009

25 

(Ham.) 

Devario aequipinnatus 

(McClell.) - - - - - - - - - - 

26 Devario devario (McClell.) - - - - + - - - - - 


28 Rasbora daniconius (Ham.) 

Schizothorax richardsonii 

- - - - + - - - - - 

29 (Gray) 


- + + + + - - - + + VU 

30 Heckel 


- + + + + - - - + + 

31 (McClell.) - - + + + - - - + + 



- - + + - - - - - - 

33 (Heckel) 


- - + + - - - - - - 

34 (Heckel) 


- - + + + - - - - + 

35 (Heckel) 


- - + + + - - - - + 

36 (Heckely) - + + + - - - - - - 

37 Garra gotyla gotyla (Gray) - + + + + - - - + - VU 



- - + + + - - - - - VU 

39 (Ham.) - - + + + - - - - - VU 

40 Psilorhynchus balitora (Ham.) - - + + + - - - - - 


42 Lepidocephalus guntea (Ham.) - - - - + - - - - - 

43 Botia dario (Ham.) - - + + + - - - - - VU 

44 Botia almorhe Gray - - + + + - - - - - 

45 Acanthacobitis botia (Ham.) - - - - + - - - - - 

46 Schistura rupicola (McClell.) - + + + + - - - + - 

47 Paraschistura montanus - + + + + - - - - -

(McClell.) 

48 Schistura beavani Gunther - - + + + - - - - - 

49 Schistura savona (Ham.) - - + + + - - - - - 

50 Schistura denisonii (Jerdon.) - - + + + - - - - - 



- + + + + - - - - - VU 

52 (McClell.) - - - - + - - - - - 



55 Rita rita (Ham.) - - - - + - - - - - 

56 Clupisoma garua (Ham.) - + + + + - - - - - 

57 Amblyceps mangois (Ham.) - - - - + - - - - - EN 

58 Bagarius bagarius (Ham.) - - - - + - - - - - VU 



- + + + + - - - - - 

60 (Day) 


- + + + + - - - - + 

61 (McClell.) - + + + + - - - + + 

62 Glyptothorax telchitta (Ham.) 

Glyptothorax conirostris 

- - + + + - - - + - VU 

63 (Steind.) - - + + + - - - - - 

64 Glyptothorax cavia (Ham.) - + + + + - - - + + EN 

65 Glyptothorax trilineatis Blyth - + + + + - - - - + 

66 Glyptothorax kashmirensis Hora - - - + + - - - - - 



- - + + + - - - - + 

68 (McClell.) - + + + + - - - - + VU 




- - - - - - - - - - 

71 (Lacep.) - - + + - - - - - - 

72 Trichogaster fasciatus (Schn.) - - - - - - - - - -

73 Glyptothorax alaknandi - - - + + - - - - - 

74 Glyptothorax garhwali - - - + + - - - - - 


76 Ctenopharyngodon idella - - - - - - - - - - 

SL. 


Pala 

Maneri 

Pilangad 

-II 

Rama 

bara Rishiganga I 

Rishiganga 

II Siyangad Suwarigad Tamak Lata 

Tehri 

stage- 

II Urgam-II 



+ + - - - - - - - - 

2 Richardson - - - - - - - - - - 

3 Tor tor (Ham.) - - - - - - - - + - EN 

4 Tor putitora (Ham.) - - - - - - - - + - EN 



- - - - - - - - + - 

6 (McClell.) - - - - - - - - - - 

7 Labeo dyocheilus (McClell.) - - - - - - - - + - 

8 Labeo dero (Ham.) - - - - - - - - + - 

9 Labeo boga (Ham.) - - - - - - - - - - 

10 Labeo bata (Ham.) - - - - - - - - - - 

11 Chagunius chagunio (Ham.) - - - - - - - - + - EN 







18 Barilius bendelisis (Ham.) + + - - - - + - + - 

19 Barilius shacra (Ham.) - - - - - - - - + - 

20 Barilius barna (Ham.) - - - - - - - - + - 

NBFGR 

2009

21 Barilius barila (Ham.) - - - - - - - - + - 

22 Barilius vagra (Ham.) - - - - - - - - + - 

23 Raiamas bola (Ham.) - - - - - - - - + - 








+ + - - - - + - + + VU 

30 Heckel 


- - - - - - - - - - 

31 (McClell.) - - - - - - - - - - 



- - - - - - - - - - 

33 (Heckel) 


- - - - - - - - - - 

34 (Heckel) 


- - - - - - - - - - 

35 (Heckel) 


- - - - - - - - - - 

36 (Heckely) - - - - - - - - + - 

37 Garra gotyla gotyla (Gray) + + - - - - + - + - VU 



- - - - - - - - + - VU 

39 (Ham.) - - - - - - - - + - VU 

40 Psilorhynchus balitora (Ham.) - - - - - - - - + - 



43 Botia dario (Ham.) - - - - - - - - + - VU 

44 Botia almorhe Gray - - - - - - - - + - 

45 Acanthacobitis botia (Ham.) - - - - - - - - - -



+ + - - - - - - + - 

47 (McClell.) - - - - - - - - + - 

48 Schistura beavani Gunther - - - - - - - - + - 

49 Schistura savona (Ham.) - - - - - - - - + - 

50 Schistura denisonii (Jerdon.) - - - - - - - - + - 



- - - - - - - - + - VU 

52 (McClell.) - - - - - - - - - - 



55 Rita rita (Ham.) - - - - - - - - - - 

56 Clupisoma garua (Ham.) - - - - - - - - + - 





- - - - - - - - + - 

60 (Day) 


- - - - - - - - + - 

61 (McClell.) + + - - - - - - + - 

62 Glyptothorax telchitta (Ham.) - - - - - - - - + - VU 

63 Glyptothorax conirostris (Steind.) - - - - - - - - + - 

64 Glyptothorax cavia (Ham.) - - - - - - - - + - EN 

65 Glyptothorax trilineatis Blyth - - - - - - - - + - 

66 Glyptothorax kashmirensis Hora - - - - - - - - + - 



- - - - - - - - + - 

68 (McClell.) - - - - - - - - + - VU 




- - - - - - - - - - 

71 (Lacep.) - - - - - - - - - -




75 Cyprinus carpio carpio - - - - - - - - + - 

76 Ctenopharyngodon idella - - - - - - - - + -

Distribution of birds in the sub-basins of Alaknanda and Bhagirathi basins 

Appendix 5.5 

S.No. Common Name 

Sub‐basins 

Scientific Name 

B‐I B‐II ASI B‐III B‐IV BHI BAL A‐I MAN A‐II PIN NAN BG RG DG BYU A‐III GAN 

1 Black‐faced Warbler Abroscopus schisticeps 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

2 Shikra Accipiter badius 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 

3 Goshawk Accipiter gentilis 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

4 Eurasian Sparrowhawk Accipiter nisus 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

5 Crested Goshawk Accipiter trivirgatus 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

6 Jungle Myna Acridotheres fuscus 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

7 Common Myna Acridotheres tristis 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

8 Black‐throated Tit Aegithalos concinnus 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

9 White‐throated Tit Aegithalos niveogularis 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

10 Common iroa Aegithina tiphia 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 

11 Cinereous Vulture Aegypius monachus 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

12 Mrs Gould Sunbird Aethopyga gouldiae 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

13 Fire‐tailed Sunbird Aethopyga ignicauda 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

14 Green‐tailed Sunbird Aethopyga nipalensis 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

15 Black‐throated Sunbird Aethopyga saturata 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 

16 Crimson Sunbird Aethopyga siparaja 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 

17 Common Kingfisher Alcedo atthis 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 

18 White‐browed Fulvetta Alcippe vinipectus 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

19 Northern Pintail Anas acuta 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20 Gadwall Anas strepera 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

21 Tawny Pipit Anthus campestris 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

22 Olive‐backed Pipit Anthus hodgsoni 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

23 Rosy Pipit Anthus roseatus 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

24 Upland Pipit Anthus sylvanus 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

25 Tree Pipit Anthus trivialis 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

26 House Swift Apus affinis 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

27 Common Swift Apus apus 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

28 Fork‐tailed Swift Apus pacificus 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

29 Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 

30 Steppe eagle Aquila nipalensis 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

31 Hill Partridge Arborophila torqueola 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

32 Eurasian Skylark Atauda aruensis 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

33 Spotted Owlet Athene barma 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 

34 Spotted Bush Warbler Bradypterus thoracicus 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

35 Eurasian Eagle Owl Bubo bubo 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

36 Spot‐bellied eagle Owl Bubo nipalensis 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 

37 Great Hornbill Buceros bicornis 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

38 White‐eyed Buzzard Butastur teesa 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 

39 Upland Buzzard Buteo hemilasius 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

40 Longlegged Buzzard Buteo rufinus 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

41 Grey‐bellied Cuckoo Cacomantis passerinus 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

42 Sand Lark Calandrella raytal 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 

43 Red‐brown Finch Callacanthis burtoni 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

44 Indian Nightjar Caprimulgus asiaticus 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 

45 Large‐tailed Nightjar Caprimulgus macrurus 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 

46 Grey Nightjar Caprimulugus indicus 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

47 European Goldfinch Carduelis carduelis 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

48 Yellow‐breasted Greenfinch Carduelis spinoides 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

49 Common Rose Finch Carpodacus erythrinus 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

50 Dark‐breasted Rosefinch Carpodacus nipalensis 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

51 Beautiful Rosefinch Carpodacus pulcherrimus 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

52 Pink‐browed Rosefinch Carpodacus rhodochorus 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

53 Spot‐winged Rosefinch Carpodacus rhodopeplus 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

54 White‐browed Rosefinch Carpodacus thura 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

55 Cheer Pheasant Catreus wallichii 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 

56 Rufous Woodpecker Celeus brachyurus 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 

57 Greater Coucal Centropus sinensis 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

58 Fire‐capped Tit Cephalopyrus flammiceps 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

59 Eurasian Treecreeper Certhia familiaris 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

60 Bar‐tailed Treecreeper Certhia himalayana 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

61 Rusty‐flanked Treecreeper Certhia nipalensis 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

62 Pied Kingfisher Ceryle rudis 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 

63 Grey‐sided Bush Warbler Cettia brunnifrons 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

64 Aberrant Bush Warbler Cettia flavolivacea 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

65 Chestnut‐crowned Bush Warbler Cettia major 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

66 White‐capped Redstart Chaimarrornis leucocephalus 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

67 Emerald Dove Chalcophaps indica 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 

68 Orange‐bellied Leafbird Chloropsis hardwickii 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

69 Yellow‐eyed Babbler Chrysomma sinense 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 

70 Brown Dipper Cinclus pallasii 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

71 Hen Harrier Circus cyaneus 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

72 Red‐Billed Blue Magpie Cissa erythrorhyncha 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 

73 Yellow‐billed Blue Magpie Cissa flavirostris 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

74 Pied Cuckoo Clamator coromandus 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

75 Himalayan Swiftlet Collocalia brevirostris 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

76 Speckled Wood Pigeon Columba hodgsonii 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

77 Snow Pigeon Columba leuconota 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

78 Rock Pigeon Columba livia 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

79 Hill Pigeon Columba rupestris 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0

80 Oriental Magpie Robin Copsychus saularis 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

81 Indian Roller Coracias benghalensis 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 

82 Large Cuckooshrike Coracina macei 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 

83 Black‐winged Cuckoo Shrike Coracina melaschistos 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

84 Raven Corvus corax 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

85 Large‐billed Crow Corvus macrorhynchos 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

86 House Crow Corvus splendens 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 

87 Common Quail Coturnix coturnix 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 

88 Eurasian Cuckoo Cuculus canorus 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

89 Indian Cuckoo Cuculus micropterus 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

90 Lesser Cuckoo Cuculus poliocephalus 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

91 Oriental Cuckoo Cuculus saturatos 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

92 Large Hawk Cuckoo Cuculus sparveroides 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

93 Grey‐headed Canary Flycatcher Culicicapa ceylonensis 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

94 Blue Throated Flycatcher Cyornis rubeculoides 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

95 Asian House Martin Delichon dasypus 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

96 Nepal House Martin Delichon nipalensis 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

97 Northern House Martin Delicon urbica 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

98 Grey Treepie Dendrocitta formosae 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

99 Indian Treepie Dendrocitta vagabunda 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

100 Brown‐fronted Woodpecker Dendrocopos auriceps 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

101 Grey Capped Woodpecker Dendrocopos canicapillus 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 

102 Fluvorus‐breasted Woodpecker Dendrocopos macei 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

103 Yellow crowned Woodpecker Dendrocopos mahrattensis 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 

104 Himalyan Woodpecker Dendrocopus himalayensis 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

105 Rufous‐bellied Woodpecker Dendrocopus hyperythrus 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

106 Thick‐billed Flower pecker Dicaeum agile 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

107 Pale‐billed Flower pecker Dicaeum erythrorhynchos 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

108 Fire‐breasted Flowerpecker Dicaeum ignipectus 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

109 Bronzed Drongo Dicrurus aeneus 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 

110 Spangled Drongo Dicrurus hottentottus 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

111 Ashy Drongo Dicrurus leucophaeus 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

112 Black Drongo Dicrurus macrocercus 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

113 Lesser Racket‐tailed Drongo Dicrurus remifer 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

114 Himalayan Flameback Dinopium shorii 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 

115 Tawny ‐bellied Babbler Dumetia hyperythra 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

116 Rock Bunting Emberiza cia 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

117 Pine Bunting Emberiza leucocephalus 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

118 Little Bunting Emberiza pusilla 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

119 Reed Bunting Emberiza schoeniclus 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

120 White‐capped Bunting Emberiza stewarti 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

121 Black‐backed Forktail Enicurus immaculatus 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1

122 Spotted Forktail Enicurus maculatus 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

123 Slaty‐backed Forktail Enicurus schistaceus 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 

124 Little Forktail Enicurus scouleri 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

125 Ashy‐crowned Sparrow Lark Eremopterix grisea 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 

126 Asian Koel Eudynamys scolopacea 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 

127 Verditer Flycatcher Eumyias thalassina 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

128 Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus calidus 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

129 Common Kestrel Falco tinnunculus 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

130 Red‐throated Flycatcher Ficedula (parva) parva 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 

131 Rufous‐gorgeted Flycatcher Ficedula strophiata 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

132 Ultramarine Flycatcher Ficedula superciliaris 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

133 Slaty‐blue Flycatcher Ficedula tricolor 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

134 Black Francolin Francolinus francolinus 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

135 Chaffinch Fringilla coelebs 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

136 Red Spurfowl Galloperdix spadicea 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 

137 Red Junglefowl Gallus gallus 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

138 White‐throated Laughingthrush Garrulax albogularis 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

139 Chestnut‐crowned Laughingthrush Garrulax erythrocephalus 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

140 White crested Laughing Thrush Garrulax leucolophus 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 

141 Streaked Laughingthrush Garrulax lineatus 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

142 Spotted Laughingthrush Garrulax ocellanutus 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

143 Greater‐neckalced Laughingthrush Garrulax pectoralis 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 

144 Rufous‐gorgeted Laughing Thrush Garrulax rufogularis 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

145 Striated Laughingthrush Garrulax striatus 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

146 Variegated Laughingthrush Garrulax variegatus 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

147 Eurasian Jay Garrulus glandarius 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

148 Black‐headed Jay Garrulus lanceolatus 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

149 Asian‐barred Owlet Glaucidium cuculoides 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

150 Jungle Owlet Glaucidium radiatum 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

151 Grandala Grandala coelicolor 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

152 Lammergeier Gypaetus barbatus 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

153 Indian White‐backed Vulture Gyps bengalensis 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

154 Eurasian Griffon Gyps fulvus 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

155 Himalayan Griffon Gyps himalayensis 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

156 Scarlet Finch Haematospiza sipahi 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

157 White‐throated Kingfisher Halycon smyrnensis 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

158 Crested Treeswift Hemiprocne coronata 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 

159 Bar‐winged Flycatcher Shrike Hemipus picatus 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 

160 Rufous Sibia Heterophasia capistrata 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

161 Booted Hawk Eagle Hieraateus bennatus 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

162 Commom Hawk Cuckoo Hierococyx varius 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 

163 White Throated Niddletail Hirundapus caudacutus 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

164 Dusky Crag Martin Hirundo concolor 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 

165 Red‐rumped Swallow Hirundo daurica 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

166 Streak Throated Swallow Hirundo fluvicola 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

167 Eurasian Crag Martin Hirundo rupestris 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

168 Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 

169 White‐bellied Redstart Hodgsonius phaenicuroides 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

170 Black Bulbul Hypsipetes leucocephalus 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

171 Black Eagle Ictinaetus malayensis 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

172 Yellow‐rumped Honeyguide Indicator xanthonotus 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

173 Brown Shrike Lanius cristatus 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

174 Great Grey Shrike Lanius excubitor 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

175 Long‐tailed Shrike Lanius schach 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

176 Red‐billed Leiothrix Leiothrix lutea 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

177 Snow Partridge Lerwa lerwa 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

178 Plain Mountain Finch Leucosticte nemoricola 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

179 Black‐headed Munia Lonchura malacca 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

180 Scaly‐breasted Munia Lonchura punctulata 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

181 White‐rumped Munia Lonchura striata 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 

182 Himalayan Monal Lophophorus impejanus 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

183 Kalij Pheasant Lophura leucomelanos 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

184 White‐tailed Rubby Throat Luscinia pectoralis 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

185 Crested Kingfisher Megaceryle lugubris 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

186 Blue‐throated Barbet Megalaima asiatica 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

187 Copper‐smith Barbet Megalaima haemacephala 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 

188 Lineated Barbet Megalaima lineata 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

189 Great Barbet Megalaima virens 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

190 Brown‐headed Barbet Megalaima zeylanica 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 

191 Crested Bunting Melophus lathami 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

192 Chestnut‐headed Bee‐eater Merops leschenaulti 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 

193 Green Bee‐eater Merops orientalis 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

194 Blue tailed Bee‐eater Merops philippinus 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 

195 Black Kite Milvus migrans 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

196 Bar‐throated Minla Minla strigula 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

197 Blue‐capped Rock Thrush Monticola cinclorhynchus 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

198 Chestnut‐bellied Rock Thrush Monticola rufiventris 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

199 White Wagtail Motacilla alba 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

200 Grey Wagtail Motacilla cinerea 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

201 Yellow Wagtail Motacilla flava beema 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

202 Asian brown Flycatcher Muscicapa dauurica 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 

203 Rusty‐tailed Flycatcher Muscicapa ruficauda 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

204 Dark‐sided Flycatcher Muscicapa sibrica 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

205 Collared Grosbeak Mycerobas affinis 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0

206 White‐winged Grosbeak Mycerobas carnipes 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

207 Black‐and‐yellow Grosbeak Mycerobas icterioides 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 

208 Spot‐winged Grosbeak Mycerobas melanozanthos 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

209 Blue Whistling Thrush Myiophonus caeruleus 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

210 Purple Sunbird Nectarinia asiatica 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

211 Egyptian Vulture Neophron percnopterus 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

212 Small Niltava Niltava macgrigoriae 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

213 Rufous‐bellied Niltava Niltava sundara 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

214 Brown Hawk Owl Ninox scutulata 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 

215 Spotted Nutcracker Nucifraga caryocatactes 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

216 Blue‐beared Bee‐eater Nyctyornis athertoni 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 

217 Indian Grey Hornbill Ocyceros birostris 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 

218 Eurasian Golden Oriole Oriolus orilus 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

219 Maroon Oriole Oriolus traillii 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

220 Black Hooded Oriole Oriolus xanthornus 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 

221 Common Tailorbird Orthotomus sutorius 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

222 Collared Scops Owl Otus bakkamoena 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 

223 Mountain Scops Owl Otus spilocephalus 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

224 Coal Tit Parus ater 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

225 Grey‐crested Tit Parus dichrous 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

226 Great Tit Parus major 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

227 Spot‐winged Tit Parus melanolophus 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

228 Green‐backed Tit Parus monticolus 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

229 Rufous‐vented Tit Parus rubidiventris 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

230 Rufous‐naped Tit Parus rufonuchalis 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

231 Black‐lored Tit Parus xanthogenys 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

232 House Sparrow Passer domesticus 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

233 Eurasian Sparrow Passer montanus 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

234 Russet Sparrow Passer rutilans 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

235 Indian Peafowl Pavo cristatus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 

236 Puff‐throated Babbler Pellorueum ruficeps 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

237 Jungle Bush Quail Perdicula asiatica 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 

238 Small Minivet Pericrocotus cinnamoneus 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 

239 Long‐tailed Minivet Pericrocotus ethologus 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

240 Scarlet Minivet Pericrocotus flammeus 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

241 Oriental Honey‐Buzzard Pernis ptilorhynchus 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 

242 Chestnut Shouldered Petronia Petronia xanthocollis 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 

243 Sirkeer Malkoha Phaenicophaceus leschenaultii 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 

244 Great Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

245 Blue‐capped Redstart Phoenicurus caeruleocephala 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

246 Blue‐fronted Redstart Phoenicurus frontalis 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

247 Black Redstart Phoenicurus ochrurus 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0

248 Tickell's Leaf Warbler Phylloscopus affinis 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

249 Yellow‐vented Warbler Phylloscopus cantator 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

250 Common Chiff‐chaff Phylloscopus collybita 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 

251 Sulphur‐bellied Warbler Phylloscopus griseolus 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 

252 Ashy‐throated Warbler Phylloscopus maculipennis 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

253 Large‐billed Leaf Warbler Phylloscopus magnirostris 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

254 Plain Leaf Warbler Phylloscopus neglectus 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

255 Western Crowned Warbler Phylloscopus occipitalis 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

256 Lemon‐rumped Warbler Phylloscopus proregulus 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

257 Buff‐barred Leaf Warbler Phylloscopus pulcher 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

258 Blyth's Leaf Warbler Phylloscopus reguloides 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

259 Brooks's Leaf Warbler Phylloscopus subviridis 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

260 Greenish Warbler Phylloscopus trochiloides 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

261 Speckled Piculet Picumnus innominatus 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 

262 Grey‐headed Woodpecker Picus canus 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

263 Lesser Yellownape Picus chlorolophus 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

264 Greater Yellownape Picus flavinucha 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

265 Scaly‐bellied Woodpecker Picus squamatus 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

266 Streak‐throated Woodpecker Picus xanthopygaeus 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 

267 Indian Pita Pitta brachyura 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 

268 Scaly‐breasted Wren Babbler Pnoepyga albiventer 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

269 Baya Beaver Polceusphilippinus 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 

270 Rusty‐cheeked Scimitar Babbler Pomatorhinus erythrogenys 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

271 White‐browned Scimilta Babbler Pomatorhinus schisticeps 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 

272 Grey‐cromed Prinia Prinia cinereocapilla 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 

273 Brown‐hill warbler Prinia ciniger 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

274 Grey Breasted Prinia Prinia hodgsonii 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 

275 Ashy Prinia Prinia socialis 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 

276 Plain Prinia Prinia subflava 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 

277 Jungle Prinia Prinia sylvatica 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 

278 Alpine Accentor Prunella collaris 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

279 Altai Accentor Prunella himalayana 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

280 Robin accentor Prunella ruberculoides 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

281 Rufous‐breasted Accentor Prunella strophiata 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

282 Plum‐headed Parakeet Psittacula cyanocephala 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 

283 Alexandrine Parakeet Psittacula eupatria 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 

284 Slaty‐headed Parakeet Psittacula himalayana 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

285 Rose‐ringed Parakeet Psittacula krameri 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 

286 Black‐headed Shrike‐Babbler Pteruthius rufiventer 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

287 Koklass Pheasant Pucrasia macrolopha 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

288 Red‐vented Bulbul Pycnonotus cafer 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

289 Red‐whiskered Bulbul Pycnonotus jocosus 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

290 Himalayan Bulbul Pycnonotus leucogenys 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

291 Black‐crested Bulbul Pycnonotus melanicterus 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 

292 Yellow‐billed Chough Pyrrhocorax graculus 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

293 Red‐billed Chough Pyrrhocorax pyrrhocorax 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

294 Red‐headed Bullfinch Pyrrhula erythrocephala 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

295 White‐throated Fintail Rhipidura albicollis 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 

296 Yellow‐bellied Fantail Rhipidura hypoxantha 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

297 Plain Martin Riparia paludicola 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

298 Sand Martin Riparia riparia 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

299 Red‐headed Vulture Sarcogyps calvus 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

300 Spot‐winged Starling Saroglossa spiloptera 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 

301 Pied Bushchat Saxicola caprata 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

302 Grey Bushchat Saxicola ferreus 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

303 Common Stonechat Saxicola torquatus 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

304 Eurasian Woodcock Scolopax rusticola 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

305 White‐spectacled Warbler Seicercus affinis 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

306 Golden‐spectacled Warbler Seicercus burkii 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

307 Grey‐hooded Warbler Seicercus xanthoschistos 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

308 Fire‐fronted Serin Serinus pusilus 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

309 Chestnut‐bellied Nuthatch Sitta castanea 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 

310 Velvet‐fronted Nuthatch Sitta frontalis 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 

311 White‐tailed Nuthatch Sitta himalayensis 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

312 White‐cheeked Nuthatch Sitta leucopsis 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

313 Crested Serpent‐Eagle Spilornis klossi 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

314 Changeable Hawk Eagle Spizaetus cirrhatus 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

315 Mountain Hawk Eagle Spizaetus nipalensis 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

316 Black‐chinned Babbler Stachyris pyrrhops 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

317 Spotted Dove Streptopelia chinensis 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

318 Eurasian Collared Dove Streptopelia dacaocto 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

319 Oriental Turtle Dove Streptopelia orientalis 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

320 Laughing Dove Streptopelia senegalensis 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 

321 Red‐collared Dove Streptopelia tranquebarica 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 

322 Tawny Owl Strix aluco 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

323 Asian Pied Starling Sturnus contra 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 

324 Chestnut ‐tailed Starling Sturnus malabaricus 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 

325 Brahminy Starling Sturnus pagodarum 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 

326 Common Starling Sturnus vulgaris 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 

327 Drongo Cuckoo Surniculus lugubris 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 

328 Yellow‐browed Tit Sylviparus modestus 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

329 Alpine Swift Tachymarptis melba 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

330 Golden Bush Robin Tarsiger chrysaeus 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

331 Orange‐flanked Bush Robin Tarsiger cyanurus 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0

332 White‐browed Bush Robin Tarsiger indicus 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

333 Asian Paradise‐Flycatcher Terpsiphone paradisi 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 

334 Chestnut‐headed Tesia Tesia castaneocoronata 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

335 Himalayan Snowcock Tetraogallus himalayensis 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

336 Wallcreeper Tichodroma muraria 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

337 Western Tragopan Tragopan melanocephalus 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

338 Pin‐tailed Green Pigeon Treron apicauda 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 

339 Yellow‐footed Green Pigeon Treron phoenicoptera 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 

340 Wedge‐tailed Green pigeon Treron sphenura 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

341 Winter Wren Trogolodytes trogolodytes 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

342 Common babbler Turdoides caudarus 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 

343 Large Grey Babbler Turdoides malcohni 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 

344 Jungle Babbler Turdoides striatus 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 

345 White‐collared Blackbird Turdus albocinctus 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

346 Grey‐winged Blackbird Turdus boulboul 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

347 Eurasian Blackbird Turdus merula 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

348 Chestnut Thrush Turdus rubrocanus 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

349 Dark‐throated Thrush Turdus ruficollis atrogularis 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

350 Tickell's Thrush Turdus unicolor 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

351 Mistle Thrush Turdus viscivorus 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

352 Yellow‐legged Button Quail Turnix tanki 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 

353 Common Hoopoe Upupa epops 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

354 Red‐wattled Lapwing Vanellus cinerus 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

355 River Lapwing Vanellus duvaucelii 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

356 Whiskered Yuhina Yuhina flavicollis 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

357 Stripe‐throated Yuhina Yuhina gularis 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

358 Black‐chinned Yuhina Yuhina nigrimenta 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 

359 White‐bellied Yuhina Yuhina zantholeuca 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

360 Small‐billed Mountain Thrush Zoothera dauma 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

361 Plain‐backed Thrush Zoothera mollissima 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

362 Long‐billed Thrush Zoothera monticola 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

363 Pied Thrush Zoothera wardii 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

364 Oriental White‐eye Zosterops palpebrosus 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

Abb: B‐I: Bhagirathi I; B‐II: Bhagirathi II; ASI: Asiganga; B‐III: Bhagirathi III; B‐IV: Bhagirathi IV; BHI: Bhilangana; BAL: Balganga; A‐I: Alaknanda I; MAN: Mandakini; A‐II Alaknanda II; PIN: Pindar; NAN: Nandakini; BG: Birahi Ganga; RG: 

Rishi Ganga; DG: Dhauli Ganga; BYU: Bhyundar Ganga; A‐III: Alaknanda III; and GAN: Ganga Basin.

Distribution of mammals in the sub-basins of Alaknanda and Bhagirathi basins 

Appendix 5.6 

S.no MAMMAALS B-I B-II ASI B-III B-IV BHI BAL A-I MAN A-II PIN NAN BG RG DG BYU A-III GAN 

1 Hodgson's brown-toothed shrew 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

2 Himalayan white-toothed shrew 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

3 White toothed shrew 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

4 Rhesus macaque 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

5 Common langur 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

6 Golden jackal 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 

7 Red fox 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

8 Asiatic black bear 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

9 Himalayan brown bear 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

10 Himalayan Weasal 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

11 Himalayan yellow throated marten 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

12 Beech marten 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

13 Large Indian Civet 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

14 Small Indian Civet 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

15 Himalayan masked palm civet 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

16 Leopard cat 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

17 Jungle cat 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

18 Common leopard 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

19 Snow leopard 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

20 Wild pig 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

21 Himalayan musk deer 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

22 Barking deer 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

23 Sambar 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

24 Himalayan goral 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

25 Serow 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

26 Himalayan tahr 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

27 Red giant flying squirrel 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0

Distribution of mammals in the sub-basins of Alaknanda and Bhagirathi basins 

Appendix 5.6 

28 Parti-coloured Flying squirrel 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

29 Royle's mountain vole 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

30 Wood mouse 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

31 Crested porcupine 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

32 

Himalayan mouse hare 

1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

33 

Smooth-coated Otter 

0 ? ? ? ? ? ? 1 ? ? ? ? ? 0 0 0 0 ? 

34 

Blue Sheep 

1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

35 Tibetan wolf 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

Abb: B-I: Bhagirathi I; B-II: Bhagirathi II; ASI: Asiganga; B-III: Bhagirathi III; B-IV: Bhagirathi IV; BHI: Bhilangana; BAL: Balganga; A-I: Alaknanda I; MAN: 

Mandakini; A-II Alaknanda II; PIN: Pindar; NAN: Nandakini; BG: Birahi Ganga; RG: Rishi Ganga; DG: Dhauli Ganga; BYU: Bhyundar Ganga; A-III: Alaknanda III; 

and GAN: Ganga Basin.

Distribution of mammals in the zones of influence of hydroelectric projects of Alaknanda and Bhagirathi basins 

SN 

O NAME_OF_PR 

HBT 

S 

HWT 

S 

WT 

S 

R 

M 

C 

L 

G 

J 

R 

F 

AB 

B 

HB 

B 

H 

W 

YT 

M 

B 

M 

LI 

C 

SI 

C 

MP 

C 

L 

C 

J 

C 

C 

L 

S 

L 

W 

P 

HM 

D 

B 

D 

S 

M 

H 

G 

S 

E 

H 

T 

GF 

S 

PF 

S 

RM 

V 

W 

M 

C 

P 

HM 

H 

Appendix 5.7 

1 Alaknanda √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 

2 Alaknanda-II √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 

3 Bhyundar ganga √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 

4 Birahi Ganga √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ ? 

5 Birahi Ganga-I √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 

6 Birahi Ganga-II √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 

7 Bowla Nandprayag √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ ? 

8 Debal √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ ? 

9 Devali √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ ? 

10 Devsari √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ ? 

11 Gangani √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ ? 

12 Gohan tal √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 

13 Jelam Tamak √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 

14 Jummagad √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 

15 Kakoragad √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 

16 Kaliganaga √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 

17 Kaliganga-I √ √ √ √ √ 

18 Kaliganga-II √ √ √ √ √ √ 

19 Khirao ganga √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 

20 Kotli Bhel 1 B √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ ? 

21 Kotli Bhel 2 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 

22 Lata Tapovan √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 

23 Madhmaheshwar √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 

24 Malari Jelam √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 

25 Melkhet 

Nandprayag 

√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 

26 Langasu √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ ? 

27 Phata Byung √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 

28 Rajwakti √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ ? 

29 Rambara √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 

30 Rishiganga I √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 

31 Rishiganga II √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 

32 Singoli Bhatwari √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ ? 

33 Srinagar √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 

34 Tamak Lata 

Tapovan 

√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 

35 Vishnugad √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 

36 Urgam √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 

37 Urgam-II √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 

38 Vanala √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 

SC 

O 

B 

S 

T 

W

39 

Vishnugad 

Pipalkoti √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 

40 Vishnuprayag √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 

41 Agunda Thati √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ ? 

42 Asiganga I √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 

43 Asiganga II √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 

44 Asiganga III √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 

45 Balganga II √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 

46 Bharoghati √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 

47 Bhilangana √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ ? 

48 Bhilangana II A √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 

49 Bhilangana II B √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ ? 

50 Bhilangana II C √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ ? 

51 Bhilangana III √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 

52 Jalandharigad √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 

53 Jhalakoti √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 

54 Kaldigad √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 

55 Karmoli √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 

56 Kot budhakedar √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ ? 

57 Koteshwar √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ ? 

58 Kotli Bhel 1A √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ ? 

59 Limchagad √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 

60 Lohari nagpala √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 

61 Maneri Bhali I √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 

62 Maneri bhali II √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 

63 Jadhganga √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 

64 Pala Maneri √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 

65 Pilangad √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 

66 Pilangad‐II √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 

67 Siyangad √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 

68 Suwari gad √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 

69 Tehri stage I √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ ? 

70 Tehri stage II √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ ? 

Abb: HBTS: Hodgson's brown‐toothed shrew; HWTS: Himalayan white‐toothed shrew; WTS: White toothed shrew; RM: Rhesus macaque; CL: Common langur; GJ: Golden jackal; RF: Red fox; ABB: Asiatic black bear; HBB: Himalayan 

brown bear; HW: Himalayan Weasal; YTM: Himalayan yellow throated marten; BM: Beech marten; LIC: Large Indian Civet; SIC: Small Indian Civet; MPC: Himalayan masked palm civet; LC: Leopard cat; JC: Jungle cat; CL: Common 

leopard; SL: Snow leopard; WP: Wild pig; HMD: Himalayan musk deer; BD: Barking deer; SM: Sambar; HG: Himalayan goral; SE: Serow; HT: Himalayan tahr; GFS: Red giant flying squirrel; PFS: Parti‐coloured Flying squirrel; RMV: Royle's 

mountain vole; WM: Wood mouse; CP: Crested porcupine; HMH: Himalayan mouse hare; SCO: Smooth‐coated Otter; BS: Blue Sheep; and TW: Tibetan wolf.

Floristic composition of all HEP sites in the Alaknanda & Bhagirathi basins. 

S.No. 

Project site 

GPS location 

Lati. Longi. 

Forest type 

Dominant species RET/ Endemic Species. Medicinal Plant 

1 

2 

3 

Kotlibhel IA HE 

Project 

Kotlibhel IB HE 

Project 

Kotlibhel II HE 

Project 

30 0 10’12” 

30 0 11’1.2” 

30 0 3’52” 

78 0 35’40” 

78 0 37’39” 

78 0 29’59” 

Himalayan 

subtropical 

scrub 

Himalayan 

subtropical 

scrub 

Moist Siwalik 

sal forests 

Acacia catechu (L.f.) Willd., 

Anogeissus latifolia (Roxb. Ex Dc) 

Wallich ex Guill. & Perr., 

Holoptelea integrifolia (Roxb.) 

Planch., Lannea coromandelica 

(Houtt.) Merr., Pinus roxburghii 

Sarg. (L.f.) Willd. 

Acacia catechu (L.f.) Willd, Aegle 

marmelos (L.) Corr., Anogeisus 

latifolia (Roxb. Ex Dc) Wallich ex 

Guill. & Perr. Dalbergia sissoo 

Roxb., Diospyros montana Roxb., 

Haldina cordifolia (Roxb.) Rid 

sdale., Mallotus philippensis 

(Lam.) muell. 

Shorea robusta Gaertn. Tectona 

grandis L.f., Holoptelea integrifolia 

(Roxb.) Planch., Lannea 

coromandelica (Houtt.) Merr., 

Mallotus phillippensis (Lam.) muell. 

& Pinus roxburghii Sarg. (L.f.) Willd 

etc. 

i 

Catamixis baccharoides 

Thomson. 

Appendix. 5.8 


Mallotus phillippensis (Lam.) muell., 

Syzygium cumini (L.) Skeels., 

Diospyros montana Roxb., Aegle 

marmelos (L.) Corr., Adhatoda 

zeylanica Smith, Asparagus 

adscendens (L.) Corr., Cannabis 

sativa L., Colebrookia oppositifolia 

J.E. Smith., Murraya koenigii (L.) 

Spreng., Woodfordia fruticosa (L.) 

Kurz. 

Terminalia chebula Retz., Terminalia 

bellirica (Gaertn.) Roxb., Terminalia 

alata Heyhecx Roth., Aegle 

marmelos (L.) Corr, Haldina 

cordifolia (Roxb.) Rid sdale., Bidens 

pilosa L., Chenopodium album L. 

Diospyros montana Roxb., 

Adhatoda vasica Nees., Cassia tora 

L., Desmodium laxiflorum DC., 

Pogostemon benghalense (Burm.f.) 

Kuntz., Reinwardtia indica Dumert., 

Ageratum conyzoides L., 

Amaranthus viridis L., Bupleurum 

falcatum L.

S.No. 

4 

5 

6 

Project site 

Visnugad 

Pipalkoti HE 

Project 

Alaknanda HE 

Poject. 

Srinagar HE 

Project. 

GPS location 

Lati. Longi. 

30 0 30’50” 

30 0 43’24” 

30 0 14’0” 

79 0 29’30” 

79 0 29’42” 

78 0 50’0” 

Forest type 

Banj oak 

forests 

Western 

mixed conifer 

forests 

Himalayan 

Chir Pine 

Forests 


Albizia lebbeck (L.) Benth., Alnus 

nepalensis D.Don, Bombax ceiba 

L., Cupressus torulosa D.Don, 

Ficus palmata Forssk, Pinus 

roxburghii Sarg. (L.f.) Willd, 

Populus ciliata Wallich ex Royle, 

Quercus leucotrichophora Cams. 

Populus ciliata Wallich ex Royle., 

Salix disperma Roxb. ex D.Don, 

Abies pindrow Royle., Hippophae 

salicifolia L.,Cedrus deodara 

(Roxb. ex Lambert.) G,Don., Pinus 

wallichiana A.B. Jackson., Taxus 

baccata L., Betula alnoides Buch.- 

Ham ex D.Don 

Aegle marmelos (L.) Corr, Lannea 

cormondelica (Houtt.) Merr, 

Mallotus philippensis (Lam.) muell, 

Syzygium cumini (L.) Skeels, 

Dalbergia sissoo Roxb.. Bauhinia 

purpurea L., Acacia catechu 

(L.P.)Willd. 

ii 

Bergenia ligulata (Wallich) 

Engl., Hedychium 

spicatum Buch-Ham ex 

J.E.Sm., Thalictrum 

foliolosum DC. 

Allium stracheyi Baker., 

Hedysarum microcalyx 

Baker., Aconitum 

heterophyllum Wallich., 

Carum carvi L.,Epilobium 

latifolium L., Dactylorhiza 

hatagirea (D.Don) Soo. 

Aegle marmelos (L.) Corr., Digitalis 

purpurea L., Emblica officinalis 

Gaertn., Ficus palmata Forrsk., 

Sapindus mukorossi Gaerth., 

Ocimum basilicum L., Adhatoda 

vasica Nees. Bergenia ciliata 

(Wallich) Engl., Hedychium 

spicatum Buch-Ham. Ex J.E Sm., 

Centella asiatica (L.) Urban. 

Aconitum heterophyllum Wallich., 

Asparagus filicinus Buch-Ham ex 

D.Don., Berberis aristata DC., 

Carum carvi L., Delphinium 

denudatum Wallich ex Hook.f., 

Hedychium spicatum Buch-Ham Ex 

J.Esm., Juniperus indica 

Bertol.,Prinsepia utilis Royle, Viola 

biflora L. 

Azadirachta indica A. Juss., Cassia 

fistula L., Mallotus philippensis 

(Lam) Muell., Sapindus mukorossi 

Gaertn., Terminalia bellirica 

(Gaertn) Roxb., Terminalia alata 

Heyne ex Roth. , Terminalia 

chebula Retz., Asparagus 

adscendens Roxb., Berberis 

asiatica Roxb. ex DC., Sida 

cordifolia L., Ageratum conyzoides 

L., Ajuga bracteosa Wallich ex 

Benth., Argemone mexicana L.,

S.No. 

7 

8 

9. 

Project site 

Devsari HE 

project. 

Nandprayag HE 

project. 

Jhelum – Tamak 

HE Project. 

GPS location 

Lati. Longi. 

30 0 2’35” 

30 0 19’30” 

30 0 38’45” 

79 0 34’17” 

79 0 18’20” 

79 0 49’57” 

Forest type 

Himalayan 

Chir Pine 

Forests 

Himalayan 

Chir Pine 

Forests 

Low-level blue 

pine forest 


Pinus roxburghii Sarg. (L.f.) Willd., 

Quercus leucotrichophora 

A.camus., Toona ciliata M.Roem., 

Terminalia alata, Lyonia ovalifolia 

(Wallich) Drude., Alnus nepalensis 

D.Don, Rhus wallichii Hook.f. 

Pinus roxburghii Sarg. (L.f.) Willd., 

Sapium insigne (Royle) Kurz., 

Sygium cumini (L.) Skeels, Melia 

azederach L., Albizia lebbeck (L.) 

Benth. 

Populus ciliata Wall. ex Royle, 

Pinus wallichiana A.B Jackson, 

Cupressus torulosa D.Don, Prunus 

nepalensis (Ser.) Stend., Pyrus 

malus L., Salix wallichiana Roxb. 

ex D.Don, Cedrus deodara (Roxb. 

ex Lambert) G.Don. 

iii 

Datura stramonium L, Ocimum 

sanctum L, Solanum nigrum L, 

Verbascum thapsus L. 

Datisca cannabina L. Buddleia asiatica Lour., 

Cinnamomum tamala Nees., 

Mallotus philippensis (Lam) Muell. 

Spondias pinnata (L.f.) Kurz., 

Artemisia nilagirica (C.B.Clarke), 

Aspargus adscendens Roxb., 

Berberis asiatica Roxb ex DC., , 

Indigofera cassioides Rottl. ex DC., 

Juniperus communis L., Woodfordia 

fruticosa (L.) Kurz., Xanthoxylum 

armatum DC., Anaphalis adnata 

DC., Conyza aegyptiaca (L.) Aiton., 

Verbascum thapus L. 



D.Don, Arenaria curvifolia 

Majumdar, Saussurea 

costus (Falc.) Lipch., 

Taxus baccata L., 

Arenaria ferruginea Duthie 

Agave americana L., Adhatoda 

zeylanica J.E. Smith, Artemisia 

niligirica (C.B.Clarke) Pamp., 

Verbascum thapus L., Bergenia 

ciliata (Haw.) Sternb., Cannabis 

sativa L., Rubus ellipticus Smith. 

Aconitum heterophyllum Wall., 

Aconitum balfouri Stapf., Berberis 

aristata DC., Echinops cornigerus 

DC., Fagopyrum ecsulentum 

Monech., Jasminum humile L., 

Rosa macrophylla Lindl., 

Hippophae salicifolia., Viola

S.No. 

10. 

11 

Project site 

Malari-Jhelum 

HE Project. 

Pala Maneri HE 

project 

GPS location 

Lati. Longi. 

30 0 40’54” 

30 0 54’50” 

79 0 53’4.5” 

78 0 40’50” 

Forest type 

Low-level blue 

pine forest 

Dry temperate 

conifer forests 


Abies pindrow Royle, Cedrus 

deodara (Roxb. ex lambert.) 

G.Don, Pinus wallichiana A.B 

Jackson, Taxus baccata L., Picea 

smithiana Wall. 

Alnus nepalensis D.Don., Betula 

alnoides Buch.-Ham.ex D.Don., 

Cedrus deodara (Roxb. ex 

lambert.) G.Don., Cuppresus 

torulosa D.Don., Dalbergia sericea 

G.Don., Juglans regia L., Lyonia 

ovalifolia (Wall.) Drude. Pinus 

roxburghii Sarg. (L.P.) Willd, 


Prunus cerasoides D.Don., 


A.Camus., Rhododendron 

iv 

ex Williams., 

Berberis petiolaris Wall. 

ex G.Don., Calamagrostis 

garhwalensis C.E Hubb. & 

Bor., Carex 

nandadeviensis Ghildyal. 








ex Williams. , 

Berberis petiolaris Wallich 

ex G.Don., Calamagrostis 


Bor., Carex 

nandadeviensis Ghildyal 

Caragana sukiensis 

Schn., Datisca cannabina 

L., Picrorhiza kurrooa 

Royle ex Benth. 

betonicifolia L., Picrorhiza kurrooa 

Royle, 

Aconitum heterophyllum Wall. 

Aconitum balfouri Stapf., Allium 

humile Kunth., Bergenia ciliata 

(Haw.) Sternb. Carum carvi L., 

Centella asiatica (L.) Urban., 

Picrorhiza kurrooa Royle., 

Nardostachys grandiflora DC. 

Celtis australis L., Flacourtia indica 

(Burm.P.) Merr., Rhus chinensis 

Mill., Toona ciliata M.Roem., 

Artemisia nilagirica (C.B.Clarke) 

Pamp., Berberis asiatica Roxb. ex 

DC., Berbesis aristata DC., Urtica 

dioica L., Bidens pilosa Guet. Hon 

Linn., Dicliptera roxburghiana 

Nees., Geranium nepalense 

Sweet., Oxalis corniculata L., 

Rumex nepalensis Spreng., Viola 

pilosa Blume.

S.No. 

12 

13 

Project site 

Singoli- Bhatwari 

HE Project. 

Assiganga I HE 

project 

GPS location 

Lati. Longi. 

30 0 30’17” 

30 0 48’37” 

79 0 5’22” 

78 0 27’5” 

Forest type 

Moist 

temperate 

deciduous 

forests 

Banj oak 

forests 


arboreum Smith., Rhus wallichii 

Hook. F., Toona serrata.(Royle) 

M.Roen. 

Alnus nepalensis D.Don., Albizia 

chinensis (Osbeck) Merr., Bombax 

ceiba L., Casearia greveolens 

Dalz., Malotus philippensis (Lam.) 

muell., Neolitsea pallens (D.Don) 

Momyyama & Hara., Rhus wallichii 

Hook. F., Salix disperma Roxb. ex 

D.Don., Sapium insigne (Royle) 

Kurz. 

Pinus roxburghii Sarg. (L.P.) Willd., 

Rhododendron arboreum Smith., 

Quercus leocotrichophora 

A.Camus., Eupatorium 

adenophorum Spreng., Anaphalis 

adnata DC., Sonchus asper (L.) 

Hill, Berberis aristata DC., 

Colebrookia oppositifolia 

J.E.Smith., Arachne cordifolia 

(Decne.) Hurus., Parthenium 

hysterophorus L., Girardinia 

diversifolia (Link) Friis, Cannabis 

sativa L., Carissa opaca Stapf ex 

Haines, Desmodium microphyllum 

(Thunb.) DC. 

v 

Acorus calamus L. Achyranthes aspera L., Acorus 

calamus L., Bauhinia variegata L., 

Bergenia ciliata (Haw) Sternb., 

BerberIs aristata DC., Centella 

asiatica (L.) Urban., Cinnamomum 

zeylanicum Nees., Cissampelos 

pariera L., Cuscuta reflexa Roxb., 

Dioscorea deltoidea Wall. ex 

Griseb., Ficus relegiosa L., Lyonia 

ovalifolia (Wall.) Drude., Mallotus 

philippensis (Lam.) muell. 

Acer caesium Wallich ex 

D.Don, Aconitum 

hetrophyllum Wallich., 

Allium stacheyi Baker., 


Arnebia benthamii (Wall. 

ex D. Don) 

Pyrus pashia Buch-Ham ex D.Don, 

Anaphalus adnata DC., Asparagus 

adscendens Roxb., Barleria cristata 

L., Berberis lycium Royle., Berberis 

aristata DC., Cannabis sativa L., 

Rhamnus virgatus Roxb., Indigofera 

atropurpurea Buch.-Ham. ex 

Homem., Prinsepia utilis Royle, 

Asparagus racemosa Willd., 

Desmodium microphyllum (Thunb.) 

DC., Geranium ocellatum 

Cambess., Ajuga bracteosa 

Maxim., Ageratum haustonianum 

Mill., Viola canascens Wall.

S.No. 

14 

15 

Project site 

Assiganga II 

Assiganga III 

GPS location 

Lati. Longi. 

30 0 47’40” 

30 0 46’56” 

78 0 26’40” 

78 0 27’12” 

Forest type 

Banj oak 

forests 

Banj oak 

forests 




A.Camus., Celtis australis L., 

Juglans regia L., Toona ciliata 

M.Roem, , Cannabis sativa L., 


J.E.Smith., Rubus ellipticus Smith, 

Prinsepia utilis Royle., Cotoneaster 

bacillaris Wall. ex Lindl. 


Rhododendron arboreum Smith, 


A.Camus., Eupatorium adoratum 

L., Anaphalis adnata DC., Sonchus 

asper (L.) Hill., Berberis aristata 

DC., Colebrookia oppositifolia 

J.E.Smith., Cynodon dactylon (L.) 

Pers., Arachne cardifolia (Decne.) 

Hurus., Parthenium hysterophorus 

L., Girardinia diversifolia (Link) 

Friis, Cannabis sativa L. 

vi 



hetrophyllum Wall., Allium 

stacheyi Baker. Picrorhiza 

kurrooa Royle. Arnebia 

benthamii (Wall. ex D. 

Don) 




stacheyi Baker. Picrorhiza 

kurrooa Royle. Arnebia 

benthamii (Wall. ex D. 

Don) 

Asparagus adscendens Roxb., 

Barleria cristata L., Desmodium 

elegans DC., Euphorbia 

hirtaL.,,Geranium ocellatum 

Cambess.,,Anaphalis adnata DC., 

Bidens pilosa L., Viola canescens 

Wallich., Reinwardtia indica 

Dumort. 


J.E.Smith., Cannabis sativa L., 

Berberis aristata DC., Rhamnus 

virgatus Roxb., Prinsepia utilis 

Royle, Inula cuspidata (DC.) Clarke. 

Asparagus racemosa Willd. 

Geranium ocellatum Cambess. 

Bidens pilosa L., Ajuga bracteosa 

Wall. ex Benth., Sonchus asper (L.) 

Hill., Rumex hastatus D.Don.

S.No. 

16 

17 

18 

19 

Project site 

Kaldigad HEP 

Maneri Bhali I 

Maneri Bhali II 

Phata-Byung HE 

Project 

GPS location 

Lati. Longi. 

30 0 50’27 

30 0 44’16” 

30 0 42’36” 

30 0 37’35” 

78 0 2839” 

78 0 32’22” 

78 0 24’7” 

79 0 0’28” 

Forest type 

Western 

mixed conifer 

forests 

Himlayan Chir 

Pine forets 

Himlayan Chir 

Pine forets 

Banj oak 

forests 



lambert.) G.Don, Pinus roxburghii 

Sarg. (L.P.) Willd., Picea smithiana 

Wall., Pinus wallichiana A.B 

Jackson, Prunus cerasoides 

D.Don., Rhododendrum arboreum 

Smith, Juniperus communis L., 

Quercus semicarpifolia Smith, 

Abies pindrow Royle. 


Toona ciliata M.Roem., Celtis 

australis L., Grewia optiva JR. 

Drumm ex Burrett., Alnus 

nepalensis D.Don, Populus ciliata 

Wallich ex Royle. 

Lannea cormendelica (Houtt.) 

Merr., Toona serata ( Royle.) 

M.Roem, Bauhinia variegata L., 

Mallotus philippiensis (Lam.) 

muell., Ficus palmta Forrsk., 

Murraya koenigii (L.) Spreng. 

Alnus nepalensis D.Don, Ilex 

dipyrena Wall., Neolitsea pallens 

(D.Don) Momiyama & Hara., 


A.Camus., Lyonia ovalifolia 

(Wallich) Drude., Pyrus pashia 

Buch-Ham. Ex D.Don., Sapium 

insigne (Royle) Kurz., Berberis 

aristata DC., Desmodium triflorum 

vii 




stacheyi Baker., 



ex D. Don) 

Anaphalis adnata DC., Asparagus 

adscendens Roxb., Barleria cristata 

L., Origanum vulgare L., Geranium 

ocellatum Cambess, Rumex 

hastatus D.Don, Sonchus asper ( 

L.) Hill., Viola canescens Wall. 

Datisca cannabina L. Casia fistula L., Sapindus 

mukorossi Garten, Terminalia 

chebula Retz., Hippophae salicifolia 

D.Don, Juglanse regia L., Pyrus 

pashia Buch-Ham ex D.Don. 

Haldina cordifolia (Roxb.) Hook.f. 

ex Brandis., Diospyros montana 

Roxb., Erythrina variegata L., Ficus 

palmata Forrsk., Mallotus 

philippensis (Lam) Muell., Moringa 

oleifera Lam. 

Acorus calamus L. Achyranthes aspera L., Bauhinia 

variegata L., Bergenia ciliatae 

(Haw.) Sternb., Berberis chitria 

Edwards., Centella asiatica (L.) 

Urban., Cissampelos pariera L., 

Cuscuta reflexa Roxb., Cirsium 

wallichii DC., Geranium 

wallichianum D.Don ex Sweet., 

Lyonia ovalifolia (Wallich) Drude.,

S.No. 

20 

21 

Project site 

Bhilangana HEP 

Bhilangana III 

HEP 

GPS location 

Lati. Longi. 

30 0 26’7” 

30 0 33’7” 

78 0 39’30” 

78 0 48’26” 

Forest type 

Himlayana 

Chir Pine 

forests 

Himlayana 

Chir Pine 

forests 


(L.) DC., Rhamnus purpura Edgew. Oxalis corniculata L., Zanthoxylum 

aramatum DC. 

Acacia catechu (L.F.) Willd., Albizia 

lebbeck (L.) Benth, Toona ciliata 

M.Roem., Ficus palmata Forrsk., 

Grewia optiva JR. Drumm ex 

Burrett., Mallotus phillippensis 

(Lam.) muell., Pinus roxburghii 

Sarg. (L.P.) Willd. Salix wallichiana 

Andersson, Sapium insigne (Royle) 

Kurz., Syzygium cumini (L.) Skeels, 

Woodfordia fruticosa (L.) Kurz. 

Ricinus communis L., Rhus 

parviflora Roxb., Euphorbia 

royleana Boiss. 

Acacia catechu (L.P.) Willd, Aegle 

marmelos (L.) Corr., Bombex ceiba 

L., Dalbergia sissoo Roxb., Ficus 

palmata L., Grewia optiva J.R. 

Drumm. Ex Burrett., Lannea 

coromendelica (Houtt.) Merr., 

Mallotus phillippensis (Lam.) 

muell., Melia azedarach L., Pinus 

roxburghii Sarg. (L.P.) Willd., 


Syzium cumini (L.) Skeels. 

viii 

Swertia chirayita (Roxb.) H.Karst., 

Pyrus pashia Buch-Ham ex D.Don, 

Centella asiatica (L.) 

Urban,Berberis aristata 

DC.,.,Zanthoxylum armatum DC., 

Emblica officinalis Gaertn, 

Calotropis procera (Ait) R.Br., 

Juglans regia L., 

Litsea glutinosa (Lour) Robins. 

Berberis aristata DC., Carrisa 

opaca,,Zanthoxylum armatum 

L.,Clematis montana Buch.-Ham ex 

DC. , Emblica officinalis Gaertn, 

Calotropis procera (Ait.) R.Br., 

Juglans regia L.

S.No. 

22. 

23 

24 

Project site 

Lohari –Nagpala 

HEP 

Tehri Stage I 


GPS location 

Lati. Longi. 

30 0 58’16” 

30 0 23’20” 

30 0 23’20” 

78 0 42’0” 

78 0 28’51” 

78 0 28’51” 

Forest type 

Western 

mixed conifer 

forests 

Himalayan 

subtropical 

scrub 

Himalayan 

subtropical 

scrub 




lambert.) G.Don, Taxus baccata L., 

Alnus nepalensis D.Don, Quercus 

leucotricophora, Ilex dipyrena 

(Wallich) Hook.f., Myrica esculenta 

Buch.-Ham ex D.Don, Sapium 

insigne (Royle) Kurz. 


Toona ciliata M. Roem, Delbergia 

sissoo Roxb.,, Bombax ceiba L., 

Lannea coromandelica (Houtt.) 

Merr., Mallotus philippensis (Lam.) 

muell., Mangifera indica, Sapium 

insigne (Royle) Kurz., Syzygium 

cumini (L.) Skeels. 


Cedrela toona Rottler, Delbergia 

sissoo Roxb., Bombex ceiba L., 

Lannea coromandelica (Houtt.) 

Merr., Grevillea robusta, Mallotus 

philippensis (Lam.) muell., 

Mangifera indica, Sapium insign 

(Royle) Kurz., Syzium cumini (L.) 

Skeels etc 

ix 


Schn., Lilium polyphyllum 

D. Don ex Royle. 

Berberis aristata DC., Pyrus pashia 

Buch-Ham ex D.Don, Berberis 

asiatica, Prinsepia utilis Royle,Viola 

biflora L., Asparagus filicinus Buch- 

Ham ex D.Don., Juglans regia L. 


Berberis lycium Royle., 

Zanthoxylum armatum DC.,Acacia 

catechu (L.f.) Willd., Calotropis 

procera (Ait) R.Br., Pyrus pashia 

Buch-Ham ex D.Don, Prunus 

persica (L.) Batsch., 

Apluda mutica L., Swertia chirayita 

(Roxb.) H.Karst., Lawsonia inermis 

L., Berberis lyceum Royle., 

Zanthoxylum armatum DC., Acacia 

catechu (L.f.) Willd., Calotropis 

procera (Ait) R.Br., Pyrus pashia 

Buch-Ham ex D.Don, Prunus 

persica (L.) Batsch., Lantana 

camera L.

S.No. 

25 

26 

27 

Project site 

Koteshwar 

Bhaironghati 

HEP 

Badrinath II 

GPS location 

Lati. Longi. 

30 0 16’0” 

31 0 1’2” 

30 0 43’91” 

78 0 30’0” 

78 0 42’52” 

79 0 29’48” 

Forest type 

Himalayan 

subtropical 

scrub 

Deodar 

forests 

Himalayan 

temperate 

parkland 



Mallotus philippensis (Lam.) muell., 

Celtis australis L., Lannea 


Moringa oleifera Lam., Pinus 



Syzygium cumini (L.) Skeels, Ficus 

benghalensis L., Ficus religiosa L., 

Ficus palmata Forssk., Delbergia 

sissoo Roxb., Bombax ceiba L. 



lambert.) G.Don, Prunus cornuta 

(Wall ex Royle.) Steud., Abies 

pindrow Royle., Picea smithiana 

Wallich, Betula utilis D.Don. 

Populus ciliate Wall ex Royle, Salix 

disperma Roxb. ex D.Don, Abies 

pindrow Royle., Hippophae 

salicifolia L.,Cedrus deodara 

(Roxb. ex lambert.) G.Don, Pinus 

wallichiana A.B Jackson, Taxus 

baccata L., Betula alnoides Buch.- 

Ham ex D.Don. 

x 

Lilium polyphyllum D. Don 

ex Royle, Aconitum 

heterophyllum Wall. 

Allium stracheyi Baker, 


Baker, Aconitum 

heterophyllum Wall., 

Carum carvi L., Epilobium 

latifolium L. 

Litsea glutinosa (Lour) Robins., 


Berberis chitria Edwards., Ricinus 

communis L., Calotropis procera 

(Ait) R.Br., Murraya koenigii (L.) 

Spreng. 


Rheum webbianun Royle., Swertia 

chirayita (Roxb.ex Fleming.), 

Berberis asiatica Roxb. ex DC., 

Prinsepia utilis Royle, Viola biflora 

L., Aspargus filicinus Buch.-Ham. 

ex Roxb. 


Aspargus filicinus Buch.-Ham. ex 

Roxb, Berberis aristata DC.,Carum 

carvi L., Delphinum denudatum 

Wall. ex Hook.f., Hedychium 

spicatum Buch.-Ham ex J.E.Sm., 

Prinsepia utilis Royle.,Viola biflora 

L.

S.No. 

28 

29. 

Project site 

Vishnuprayag 

HEP 

Lata Tapovan 

HEP 

GPS location 

Lati. Longi. 

30 0 32’0” 

30 0 31’30” 

79 0 28’0” 

79 0 43’30” 

Forest type 

Western 

mixed conifer 

forests 

Banj oak 

forests 


Asculus indica (Wall. ex camb.) 

Hook., Alnus nepalensis D.Don, 


lambert.) G.Don, Celtis australis L., 

Lyonia ovalifolia (Wall.) Drude., 

Pinus wallichiana, Populus ciliata 

Wall. ex Royle, Pyrus pashia 

Buch-Ham ex D.Don, Quercus 

semicarpifolia Smith., Salix 

wallichiana Anderss., Pyrus malus 

L. 

Quericus leucotricophora 

A.Camus, Betula alnoides Buch.- 

Ham ex D.Don, Carpinus viminea 

Lindl., Lindera pulcherrima (Nees) 

Benth ex Hook.f., Lyonia ovalifolia 

(Wall.) Drude., Rhododendron 

arboreum Smith, Cotoneaster 

obtusus Wall. ex Lindl., Myrsine 

africana Linn. , Hedera nepalensis 

xi 


Brandis, Allium stacheyi 

Baker, 

Picrorhiza kurrooa Royle 

ex Benth. 

Aconitum heterophyllum 

Wallich., Picrorhiza 

kurrooa Royle., Allium 

humile Kunth. 

Adenocaulon himalaicum Edgew. , 

Agave Americana L., Agrimonia 

pilosa Ledeb. Anaphalis contrata 

(D.Don) Hook.f., Anemone vitifolia 

Buch.-Ham. ex DC., Aquilegia 

pubiflora Wall. ex Royle., Arctium 

lapa L., Arisaema concinnum 

Schott. , Barleria crista L., Bergenia 

ciliata (Haw.)Sternb., Bupleurum 

falcatum L., Circium verutum 

(D.Don) Spreng., Cynoglossum 

lanceolatum Forssk., Delphinium 

danudatum Wall. ex Hook.f., 


Griseb., Girardiana diversifolia 

(Link) Friis., Jasminum humile L., 

Mentha longifolia (L.) Huds, 

Selinum vaginatum (Edgew) 

C.B.Clarke., Swertia angustifolia 

Buch.-Ham. ex D.Don, Thymus 

linearis Benth, Verbascum thapus 

L., Zanthoxylum armatum DC. 


Swertia chirayita (Roxb.ex 

Fleming.), Picrorhiza kurrooa 

Royle., Angelica glauca Edgew, 

Rheum webbianum Royle., 

Dactylorhiza hatagirea (D.Don) 

Soo., Rheum australe D.Don, 

Allium humile kunth, Nardostachys 

grandiflora DC., Bergenia ciliata

S.No. 

30 

Project site 

Tapovan 

vishnugad HEP 

GPS location 

Lati. Longi. 

30 0 29’30” 

79 0 37’30” 

Forest type 

Banj oak 

forets 


K.Koch., Vitis lanata Roxb., 

Taxillus vestitus (Wall.) Danser, 

Pyrus malus L. 


A.Camus, Betula alnoides Buch.- 


Lindl., Lindera pulcherrima (Nees) 

Benth ex Hook.f., Lyonia ovalifolia 

(Wall.) Drude., Rhododendron 

arboreum Smith, Cotoneaster 

obtusus Wall. ex Lindl., Myrsine 

africana Linn. , Hedera nepalensis 

K.Koch., Vitis lanata Roxb., 

Taxillus vestitus (Wallich) 

Danser,Pyrus malus L. 

xii 


Wall., Arnebia benthamii 

(Wallich ex D.Don) 

Jhonston Picrorhiza 

kurrooa Royle., Allium 

humile Kunth. 

(Haw.) Sternb., Megacarpaea 

polyandra Benth., Aconitum 

balfourii Stapf., Hippophae 

salicifolia L., Arnebia benthamii 

(Wallich ex D.Don) Jonston, 

Zanthoxylum armatum DC., 

Carum carvi L., Centella asiatica 

(L.) Urban., Asparagus racemosus 

Willd. 



Fleming.), Picrorhiza kurrooa 

Royle., Angelica glauca Edgew, , 

Rheum webbianum Royle., 

Dactylorhiza hatagirea (D.Don) 

Soo., Rheum australe D.Don, 

Allium humile kunth, Nardostachys 

grandiflora DC., Bergenia ciliata 

(Haw.) Sternb., Megacarpaea 

polyandra Benth., Aconitum 

balfourii Stapf., Hippophae 

salicifolia D.Don., Berberis lycium 

Royle., Arnebia benthamii (Wallich 

ex D.Don) Jhonston, Zanthoxylum 

armatum DC., Carum carvi L., 

Centella asiatica (L.) Urban., 

Asparagus racemosus Willd.

S.No. 

31 

32 

33 

Project site 

Ram Bara HEP 

Bowla 

Nandprayag HEP 

GPS location 

Lati. Longi. 

30 0 41’42” 

30 0 24’24” 

79 0 3’20” 

79 0 22’48” 

Agundathati HEP 30 0 36’6” 78 0 37’22” 

Forest type 

Banj oak 

forests 

Himalayan 

Chir pine 

forests 

Himlaayan 

Chir pine 

forests 



leucotrichophora A.Camus., 

Carpinus viminea Lindl., Ilex 

dipyrena Wall., Litsea monopetala 

(Roxb.) Pers., Neolitsea pallens 

(D.Don) momiyama & Hara., 


Myrica esculenta Buch.-Ham. ex 

D.Don. 

Alnus nepalensis D.Don, Pinus 


Quercus semecarpifolia Smith., 

Salix wallichiana Anderss., 

Aesculus indica (Wall. ex camb.) 

Hook., Celtis australis L. , Lyonia 

ovalifolia (Wall.) Drude., Pyrus 

pashia Buch-Ham. Ex D.Don, 

Mallotus phillippensis (Lam.) muell. 

Acacia catechu (L.P.)Willd , Aegle 

marmelos (L.) Corr. , Bombex 

ceiba L., Dalbergia sissoo Roxb., 

Ficus palmata L. ,Grewia optiva 

J.R. Drumm. Ex Burrett., Lannea 


Mallotus philipinensis (Lam.) 


xiii 


Wallich., Allium stracheyi 

Baker, Picrorhiza 

kurrooa Royle. 



Dactylorrhiza hatagirea (D.Don) 

Soo., Nardostachys jatamansi DC., 


Podophyllum hexandrum Royle., 


Fleming.), Bergenia ciliata (Haw.) 

Sternb., Geranium wallichianum 

D.Don ex Sweet., etc. 

Agrimonia pilosa Ledeb., Anaphalis 

contorta (D.Don) Hook.f., Bergenia 

ciliata (Haw.) Sternb., Bupleurum 

falcatum L., Cirsium verutum 

(D.Don) spreng., Delphinium 

denudatum Wall. ex Hook.f., 


Griseb., Girardinia diversifolia 

(Link)Friis., Jasminum humile L., 

Mentha longifolia (L.) Huds., 

Thymus linearis Benth., 

Verbascum thapus L., Zanthoxylum 

armatum DC. 

Potentilla fulgens Wall. ex Hook., 

Datura stramonium L., Solanum 

nigrum L., Sanicula europaea L., 

Pimpinella diversifolia DC., Galium 

rotundifolium L., Artemisia parviflora 

D.Don, Anaphalis triplinervis Sims 

ex clarke, Colebrookea oppositifolia 

Sm., Leucas lanata Wall. ex

S.No. 

34 

35 

Project site 

GPS location 

Lati. Longi. 

Debal HEP 30 0 3’0” 79 0 33’0” 

Jummagad HEP 30 0 40’0” 79 0 50’0” 

Forest type 

Himalayan 

chir pine 

forests 

Western 

mixed conifer 

forests 





Pinus roxburghii Sarg., Celtis 

australis L., Bombax ceiba L., 


A.Camus, Juglans regia L., Toona 

ciliata M. Roem, Bauhinia variegata 

L., Pyrus pashia Buch-Ham ex 

D.Don., Rhus wallichii Hook.f. 


A.Camus, Betula alnoides Buch- 

Ham ex D.Don. Carpinus viminea 

Wall. ex Lindl., Lindera pulcherrima 

(Nees) Hook.f., Lyonia ovalifolia 

(Wall.) Drude, Rhododendron 

arboreum Sm., Taxillus vestitus 

(Wall.) Danser, Populus ciliata 

Wall. ex Royle, Pinus wallichiana 

A.B.Jack, Cupressus torulosa 

D.Don, Prunus nepalensis Ser., 

Pyrus malus L., Cedrus deodara 

(Roxb.ex Lamb.) G.Don 

xiv 

Benth., Achryanthes aspera L., 

Cautleya spicata (Sm.) Baker. 

Datisca cannabina L. Artemisia absinthium L., Berberis 

asiatica Roxb.ex DC, Rumex 

hastatus D.Don, Buddleia asiatica, 

Cinnamomum tamala (Buch-ham) 

T.Nees & Ebrrm., Mallotus 

philippensis (Lam.) muell, Spondias 

pinnata L.f.Kurz., Artemisia 

nilagirica L., Asparagus 

adscendens Roxb., Eupatorium 

adenophorum Hort.Berol ex Kunth., 


fruticosa (L.) Kurz., Zanthoxylum 


(D.Don) Hook.f., Verbascum thapus 

L. 


Allium humile Kunth, 

Nardostachys grandiflora 

DC, Arenaria curvifolia 

Majumdar, Arenaria 

ferruginea Duthie ex 

Williams, 

Calamagrostis 

garhwalensis C.E. Hubb 

ex Bor. 



Picrorhiza kurrooa Royle, Angelica 

glauca Edgew, Rheum 

webbianum Royle, Dactylorhiza 

hatagirea (D.Don) Soo, Rheum 

australe D.Don., Allium humile 

Kunth, Saussurea costus (Falc.) 

Lipsch, Nardostachys grandiflora 

DC. , Bergenia ciliata (Haw.) 

Sternb., Megacarpaea polyandra 

Benth ex Madden, Aconitum 

balfourii Stapf, Hippophae

S.No. 

36 

37 

Project site 

GPS location 

Lati. Longi. 

Pilang Gad HEP 30 0 46’0” 78 0 38’0” 

Rajwakti HEP 30 0 18’25” 79 0 21’0” 

Forest type 

Himalayan 

Chir forests 

Himalayan 

Chir Pine 

forests 


Pinus roxburghii Sarg., Toona 

ciliata M.Roem., Celtis australis L., 


Burrett., Alnus nepalensis D.Don, 

Populus ciliata Wallich ex Royle, 

Rhododendron companulatum D. 

Don 




Burrett, Mallotus phillippensis 

(Lam.) muell, Bombax ceiba L., 

Dalbergia sissoo DC., Bauhinia 

varigata L., Sapium insigne (Royle) 

Trimen, Syzygium cumini (L.) 

Skeels., Melia azederach L., 

xv 

salicifolia D.Don, Arnebia 

benthamii (Wallich ex D.Don) 

Jonston, , Zanthoxylum armatum 

DC., Carum carvi L., Centella 

asiatica (L.) Urban. Asparagus 

racemosus Willd. Berberis aristata 

DC, Echinops cornigerus DC., 

Fagopyrum esculentum Moench, 

Jasminum humile L., Rosa 

macrophylla Lindl. 

Datisca cannabina L. Achyranthus aspera Linn, Centella 

asiatica (Linn.) Urban., Artemisia 

nilagirica (Clarke) Pamp., Berberis 

asiatica Roxb.ex DC, Viburnum 

cotinifolium D. Don, Eupatorium 

odoratum L., Casia fistula L., 

Sapindus mukorossi Garten, 

Terminalia chebula Retz., 

Hippophae salicifolia D.Don, 

Juglanse regia L., Geranium 

nepalense Sw., Leucas aspera 

(Willd) Link. 

Agave Americana L., Colebrookia 

oppositifolia D.Don, Adhatoda 

zeylanica Medik, Artemisia 

nilagirica (Clarke) Pamp, 



sativa L., Rubus ellipticus Sm., 


Hort.Berol ex Kunth.

S.No. 

38 

39 

Project site 

GPS location 

Lati. Longi. 

Urgam HEP 30 0 34’30” 79 0 30’7” 

Vanala HEP 30 0 16’0” 79 0 25’0” 

Forest type 

Banj oak 

forests 

Himalayan 

Chir Pine 

forests 


Albizia lebbeck (L.) Benth. 

Alnus nepalensis D.Don, Lyonia 

ovalifolia (Wall.) Drude, Juglans 

regia L., Pinus roxburghii Sarg. 

(L.P.) Willd., Quercus 

leucotricophora A.Camus, Celtis 

australis L., Moringa oleifera Lam., 

Pyrus pashia Buch-Ham ex 

D.Don., Prunus persica, Ficus 

roxburghii, Toona ciliata M.Roem, 

Rhus wallichii Hook.f., Cupressus 

torulosa D.Don, Rhododendron 

arboreum D.Don 


Alnus nepalensis D.Don, Myrica 

esculenta Buch-Ham ex D.Don, 

Juglanse regia L., Toona ciliata 

M.Roem, Celtis australis L., 



Burrett, Bombax ceiba L., Bauhinia 

variegata L., Sapium insigne 

(Royle) Trimen, Syzygium cumini 

(L.) Skeels., Melia azederach L., 

Albizia lebbeck L. Benth. 

xvi 

Picrorhiza kurrooa Royle. Artemisia nilagirica (Clarke) Pamp., 


Rumex hastatus D.Don, 


T.Nees & Ebrrm., Mallotus 

philippensis (Lam.) muell, Spondias 

pinnata L.f.Kurz., Artemisia 

nilagirica L., Asparagus 

adscendens Roxb., Eupatorium 

adenophorum Hort.Berol ex Kunth., 

Indigofera cassioides DC, 


fruticosa (L.) Kurz. Zanthoxylum 


(D.Don) Hook.f. 

Colebrookia oppositifolia D.Don, 

Adhatoda zeylanica Medik, 

Artemisia nilagirica (Clarke) Pamp, 



sativa L., Rubus ellipticus Sm.

S.No. 

40 

41 

Project site 

Birahi Ganga 

HEP 

GPS location 

Lati. Longi. 

30 0 34’35” 79 0 23’56” 

Kail Ganga HEP 30 0 5’30” 79 0 36’30” 

Forest type 

Himalayan 

Chir pine 

forests 

Himalayan 

Chir pine 

forests 


Pinus roxburghii Sarg., Alnus 

nepalensis D.Don, Toona ciliata 

M.Roem, Quericus leucotricophora 

A.Camus, Celtis australis L., 

Mallotus philippensis (Lam.) 

muell.,Grewia optiva JR. Drumm 

ex Burrett, Bombax ceiba L., 

Bauhinia variegata L., Sapium 

insigne (Royle) Trimen, Pyrus 

pashia Buch-Ham ex D.Don, 

Juglans regia L., Albizia procera 

(Roxb.) Benth., Ficus roxburghii 

Steud. 


australis L., Prunus persica (L.) 

Stokes, Bombex ceiba L., 


A.Camus, Juglans regia L., 

Toona ciliata M.Roem, Bauhinia 

variegta L.,Pyrus pashia Buch- 

Ham ex D.Don, Rhus wallichii 

Hook.f. 

xvii 

Berberis aristata DC, Canavis 

sativa L., Colebrokia oppositifolia 

J.E. Smith., Adathoda zeylanica 

J.E. Smith., Berberis asiatica Lour, 

Rumex hasitatus D.Don, Mallotus 

philippensis (Lam) Muell, 

Indigofera cassioides Rottl. ex DC, 

Artemisia nilagirica (Cl.) Pamp., , 

Woodfordia fruticosa (L.) Kurz, 



Datisca cannabina L. Artemisia nilagirica (Clarke) Pamp., 




T.Nees & Ebrrm., Gardenia spinosa 

Thunb., Mallotus philippensis 

(Lam.) muell, Spondias pinnata 

L.f.Kurz., Asparagus adscendens 

Roxb., Eupatorium adenophorum 

Hort.Berol ex Kunth., Juniperous 

communis L., Woodfordia fruticosa 

(L.) Kurz., Zanthoxylum armatum 

DC., Anaphalis adnata (D.Don) 

Hook.f., Conyza aegyptiaca (L.) 

Dryand ex Aiton., Verbascum 

thapus L.

S.No. 

42 

Project site 

GPS location 

Lati. Longi. 

Kali Ganga I HEP 30 0 36’40” 79 0 5’10” 

Forest type 

Banj oak 

forests 



leucotrichophora A.Camus, 

Carpinus viminea Wall. ex lindl., 

Ilex dipyrena Wall., Litsea 

monopetala (Roxb.) Pers., 

Neolitsea pallens (D.Don) Momiy & 

H.Hara, Lyonia ovalifolia (Wall.) 

Drude, Myrica esculenta Buch- 

Ham ex D.Don. 

xviii 


Wall., Allium stracheyi 

Baker, Picrorhiza kurrooa 

Royle., Podophyllum 

hexandrum Royle 

Aconitum heterophyllum Wall. ex 

Royle, Anemone rivularis Buch.- 

Ham., Delphinium vestitum Wall. ex 

Royle, Thalictrum foliolosum DC., 

Paeonia emodi Wall. ex Royle, 

Berberis aristata DC., Berberis 

asiatica Roxb. ex DC., Malva 

verticillata L., Geranium nepalense 

Sw., Geranium wallichianum D.Don 

ex Sw., Oxalis corniculata L., 

Skimmia anquetilia Taylor & Airy 

Shaw, Rosa sericea Lindl., 

Bergenia ciliata (Haw.) Strenb., 

Selinum vaginatum Clarke, Galium 

aparine L., Valeriana hardwickii 

Wall., Valeriana jatamansi Jones., 

Artemisia nilagirica (Cl.) Pamp, 

Jurinea dolomiaea Boiss., 

Taraxacum officinale Weber., 

Gaultheria trichophylla Royle., 

Maharanga emodi (Wall.) DC., 

Verbascum thapsus L., Ajuga 

brachystemon Maxim., Lamium 

album L., Origanum vulgare L., 

Prunella vulgaris L., Salvia hians 

Royle ex Benth., Bistorta affinis (D. 

Don) Greene, Rumex nepalensis 

Spr., Euphorbia pilosa L., 

Hedychium spicatum Buch.-Ham ex 

Sm., Dioscorea deltoidea Wall. ex 

Griseli., Arisaema jacquemontii Bl., 

Adiantum capillus-veneris L.

S.No. 

43 

Project site 

Kali Ganga II 

HEP 

GPS location 

Lati. Longi. 

30 0 35’30” 79 0 4’50” 

Forest type 

Banj oak 

forests 



leucotrichophora A.Camus, 

Carpinus viminea Wall. ex lindl., 

Ilex dipyrena Wall., Litsea 

monopetala (Roxb.) Pers., 


H.Hara, Lyonia ovalifolia (Wall.) 

Drude, Myrica esculenta Buch- 

Ham ex D.Don 

xix 




Royle. Podophyllum 


Aconitum heterophyllum Wall. ex 

Royle, Anemone rivularis Buch.- 

Ham., Delphinium vestitum Wall. ex 

Royle, Thalictrum foliolosum DC., 

Paeonia emodi Wallich ex Royle, 

Berberis aristata DC., Berberis 

asiatica Roxb. ex DC., Malva 

verticillata L., Geranium nepalense 

Sw., Geranium wallichianum D.Don 

ex Sw., Oxalis corniculata L., 

Skimmia anquetilia Taylor & Airy 

Shaw, Rosa sericea Lindl., 

Bergenia ciliata (Haw.) Strenb. 

Selinum vaginatum Clarke, Galium 

aparine L., Valeriana hardwickii 

Wall. Valeriana jatamansi Jones., 

Morina longifolia Wall. ex DC., 

Anaphalis triplinervis (Sims.) Cl., 

Artemisia nilagirica (Cl.) Pamp, 

Jurinea dolomiaea Boiss. 

Taraxacum officinale Weber. 

Gaultheria trichophylla Royle. 

Maharanga emodi (Wall.) DC.,

S.No. 

44 

45 

Project site 

Madmaheshwar 

HEP 

GPS location 

Lati. Longi. 

30 0 32’55” 79 0 6’55” 

Rishi Ganga HEP 30 0 28’55” 79 0 41’53” 

Forest type 

Banj oak 

forests 

Western 

mixed conifer 

forests 


Alnus nepalensis D.Don, Bombax 

ceiba, Casearia graveolens Dalzell, 



H.Hara, Rhus wallichii Hook.f., 

Salix disperma, Sapium, insigne, 

Ilex dipyrena Wall., Quercus 

leucotrichophora A.Camus, Lyonia 

ovalifolia (Wall.) Drude., Pyrus 

pashia Buch-Ham ex D.Don 

etc 

Abies pindrow (Royle ex D.Don) 

Royle, Fraxinus micrantha 

Lingelsh, Pinus wallichiana 

A.B.Jacks, Taxus baccata L., 

Cedrus deodara (Roxb. ex Lamb.) 

G.Don., Juglans regia L. , Aesculus 

xx 




Royle., Podophyllum 



Wall., Nardostachys 

grandiflora DC., Allium 

humile Kunth. 

Verbascum thapsus L., Ajuga 

brachystemon Maxim., Lamium 

album L., Origanum vulgare L., 

Prunella vulgaris L., Salvia hians 

Royle ex Benth., Bistorta affinis (D. 

Don) Greene, Rumex nepalensis 

Spr., Euphorbia pilosa L., 

Hedychium spicatum Buch.-Ham ex 

Sm., Dioscorea deltoidea Wall. ex 

Griseli., Arisaema jacquemontii Bl., 

Adiantum capillus-veneris L. 

Achyranthes aspera L., Bergenia 

ciliata (Haw.) Sternb., Berberis 

aristata DC., Centella asiatica (L.) 

Urb., Cinnamomum zeylanica 

Breyn, Cissampelos pareira L., 

Desmodium triflorum (L.) DC, 

Rhamnus purpureus Jepson. 

Cuscuta reflexa Roxb., Dioscorea 

deltoidea Wall. ex Griseb., 

Thysanolaena latifolia (Roxb. ex 

Hornem) Honda, Verbascum 

Thapsus L., Hippophae salicifolia 

D.Don, Dioscorea esculenta (Lour) 

Burkill., 

Achyranthes aspera L., Aconitum 

balfourii Stapf, Aconitum 

heterophyllum Wall. ex Royle, 

Aesculus indica (Wall. ex 

Cambess.) Hook. Allium cepa L., 

Allium humile Kunth. Allium sativum

S.No. 

46 

Project site 

GPS location 

Lati. Longi. 

Balganga II HEP 30 0 29’0” 78 0 37’30” 

Forest type 

Himalayan 

Chir pine 

forests 


indica (Wall. ex camb.) Hook., 

Betula utilis D.Don, Quercus 

floribunda L. ex A.camus, Quercus 

semecarpifolica Sm, Picea 

Smithiana (Wall.) Boiss., 

Cupressus torulosa D.Don, 

Caspinus viminea Wall. ex Lindl, 

Corylus jacquemontii Decne. 

Acacia catechu Willd., Aegle 

marmelous (L) Correa., Bombex 

ceiba L., Toona ciliata M.Roem ., 

Dalbergia sissoo DC., Eucalyptus 

globulus Labill.., Ficus cunea Buch- 

Ham ex Roxb., Emblica officinalis 

Gaertn, Grevellia robusta A.Cunn 

ex R.Br., Mallotus philipinensis 

(Lam.) muell., Pinus roxburghii 

Sarg. (L.P.) Willd., Sapium insigne 

(Royle) Kurz., Salix wallichiana 

Andersson, Prunus cerasoides 

Buch-Ham ex D.Don, Syzygium 

cumini (L.) Skeels. 

xxi 

L., Angelica glauca Edgew. 

Arisaema tortuosum (Wall.) Schott., 

Arnebia benthamii (Wall. ex G. 

Don) I.M. Johnst., Asparagus 

racemosus Willd., Berberis aristata 

DC., Berberis lycium Royle., 

Bergenia ciliata Sternb., Carum 

carvi L., Centella asiatica (L.) Urb., 


Hook. f. & Thomson., Hippophae 

rhamnoides L., Picrorhiza kurrooa 

Royle ex Benth., Rheum australe D. 

Don., Podophyllum hexandrum 

Royle., Zanthoxylum armatum DC. 


Solanum nigrum L., Sanicula 

europaea L., Pimpinella diversifolia 

DC., Galium rotundifolium L., 

Artemisia parviflora D.Don, 

Anaphalis triplinervis Sims ex 

clarke, Leucas lanata Wall. ex 

Benth., Achryanthes aspera L., 

Cautleya spicata (Sm.) Baker.

S.No. 

47 

48 

Project site 

Bhilangana II A 

HEP 

Bhilangana II B 

HEP 

GPS location 

Lati. Longi. 

30 0 31’37” 

30 0 29’30” 

78 0 44’52” 

78 0 43’15” 

Forest type 

Himalayan 

Chir pine 

forests 

Himalayan 

Chir pine 

forests 







coromendelica (Houtt.) Merr. 

Mallotus philippensis (Lam.) Muell., 

Pinus roxburghii Sarg. (L.P.) Willd. 

Sapium insigne (Royle) Kurz. 


Acacia catechu (L.P.)Willd, Aegle 

marmelos (L.) Corr., Bombex ceiba 

L., Dalbergia sissoo Roxb., Ficus 

palmata L., Grewia optiva J.R. 

Drumm. Ex Burrett., Lannea 






Syzygium cumini (L.) Skeels. 

xxii 


Centella asiatica (L.) Urban, 

Berberis aristata DC., Zanthoxylum 

armatum DC., Emblica officinalis 

Gaertn , Calotropis procera (Ait) 

R.Br., Juglans regia L., Abrus 

precatorius L., Pyrus pashia Buch- 

Ham ex D.Don, Litsea glutinosa 

(Lour) Robins., Zanthoxylum 

armatum L., 

Apluda mutica L., Swertia chirayita 

(Roxb.) H.Karst., Centella asiatica 

(L.) Urban, Berberis aristata 

DC.,Melia azedarach L., 


Emblica officinalis Gaertn, 

Calotropis procera (Ait) R.Br., 

Juglans regia L., Abrus precatorius 

L., Lawsonia inermis L., Pyrus 

pashia Buch-Ham ex D.Don, Litsea 

glutinosa (Lour) Robins., Carrisa 

opaca, Melia azedarach L., 

Zanthoxylum armatum L., Clematis 

Montana Buch.-Ham ex DC.

S.No. 

49 

50 

Project site 

Bhilangana II C 

HEP 

Bhyundar ganga 

HEP 

GPS location 

Lati. Longi. 

30 0 23’24” 

78 0 36’36” 

30 0 38’53” 79 0 34’50” 

Forest type 

Himalayan 

Chir pine 

forests 

Moist 

temperate 

deciduous 

forests 










roxburghii Sarg., Sapium insigne 


Skeels. 

Aesculus indica (Wall. ex Camb.) 

Hook., Alnus nepalensis D.Don, 


lambert.) G.Don, Celtis australis L., 


Pinus wallichiana, Populus ciliata 

Wall. ex Royle, Pyrus pashia 

Buch-Ham ex D.Don, Quercus 

semecarpifolia Smith., Salix 

wallichiana Andersson., Pyrus 

malus L. 

xxiii 


Brandis, Allium stacheyi 

Baker, 


ex Benth., Epipogium 

aphyllum (Schm.) Swartz. 


Centella asiatica (L.) Urban, 

Berberis aristata DC.,Melia 

azedarach L., Zanthoxylum 

armatum DC., Emblica officinalis 

Gaertn, Calotropis procera (Ait) 

R.Br., Juglans regia L., Pyrus 

pashia Buch-Ham ex D.Don,Litsea 

glutinosa (Lour) Robins., 

Zanthoxylum armatum L., 

Adenocaulon himalaicum Edgew., 

Agrimonia pilosa Ledeb., Anaphalis 

contrata (D.Don) Hook.f., Anemone 

vitifolia Buch.-Ham. ex DC., 

Aquilegia pubiflora Wallich ex 

Royle., Arctium lapa L., Arisaema 

concinnum Schott. , Barleria crista 

L., Bergenia ciliata (Haw.)Sternb., 

Bupleurum falcatum L., Delphinium 

denudatum Wall. ex Hook.f., 


Griseb. Girardinia diversifolia (Link) 

Friis., Mentha longifolia (L.) Huds, 

Selinum vaginatum (Edgew) 

C.B.Clarke., Swertia angustifolia 

Buch.-Ham. ex D.Don, Thymus 

linearis Benth, Verbascum thapus 

L., Zanthoxylum armatum DC.

S.No. 

51 

52 

Project site 

Birahi Ganga I 

HEP 

Birahi Ganga II 

HEP 

GPS location 

Lati. Longi. 

30 0 22’30” 79 0 30’0” 

30 0 22’30” 79 0 30’0” 

Forest type 

Himalayan 

Chir pine 

forests 

Himalayan 

Chir pine 

forests 







muell., Grewia optiva JR. Drumm 






(Roxb.) Benth., Ficus roxburghii 

Steud. 







Burrett, Bombax ceiba L., Bauhinia 


(Royle) Trimen, Pyrus pashia 

Buch-Ham ex D.Don, Juglans regia 

L., Albizia procera (Roxb.) Benth., 

Ficus roxburghii Steud. 

xxiv 

Berberis aristata DC, Cannabis 

sativa L., Adathoda zeylanica J.E. 

Smith., Berberis asiatica Lour, 


Artemisia nilagirica (Cl.) Pamp., 




Berberis aristata DC, Canabis 



Mallotus philippensis (Lam) Muell, 




Hort.Berol ex Kunth , Woodfordia 

fruticosa (L.) Kurz, Zanthoxylum 


DC., Verbascum thapus L.

S.No. 

53 

54 

55 

Project site 

GPS location 

Lati. Longi. 

Dewali HEP 30 0 18’0” 79 0 20’0” 

Gohana Tal HEP 30 0 22’39” 79 0 24’38” 

Jadh Ganga HEP 31 0 2’18” 78 0 53’17” 

Forest type 

Himalayan 

Chir pine 

forests 

Himalayan 

Chir pine 

forests 

Deodar 

forests 



ciliata M.Roem, Celtis australis L., 




Dalbergia sissoo DC., Bauhinia 


(Royle) Trimen, Syzygium cumini 

(L.) Skeels, Albizia lebbeck L. 

Benth. 





Mallotus philippnensis (Lam.) 







(Roxb.) Benth. Ficus roxburghii 

Steud. 


lambert.) G.Don, Pinus wallichiana 

A.B Jackson, Juniperus 

semiglobosa Regel., Abelia triflora 

R.Br. ex Wall., Prunus cornuta 

(Wall. ex Royle) Steud., Populus 

ciliata Wall. ex Royle, Acer 

acuminatum Wall. ex D.Don 

xxv 



heterophyllum Wall. 

Adhatoda zeylanica Medik, 

Artemisia nilagirica (Clarke) Pamp, 



sativa L.,Rubus ellipticus Sm. 

Berberis aristata DC, Cannabis 



Mallotus philippensis (Lam) Muell, 





Anaphalis adnata DC., Verbascum 

thapus L. 

Ribes alpestre Wall. ex D.Don, 

Rosa macrophylla L., Viburnum 

cotinifolium D.Don, Thalictrum 

foetidum L., Mirabilis himalaica 

(Edgew) Heimerl., Veronica 

stewartii Pennell., Impatiens 

brachycentra Kar. & Kir., Arenaria 

serpyllifolia L., Arabidopsis

S.No. 

56 

57 

Project site 

GPS location 

Lati. Longi. 

Jalandrigad HEP 31 0 2’51” 78 0 45’5” 

Jhalakoti HEP 30 0 38’53” 78 0 38’10” 

Forest type 

Deodar 

forests 

Himalayan 

Chir Pine 

forests 



lambert.) G.Don, Prunus cornuta 

(Wall ex Royle.)Steud., Betula utilis 

D.Don, Pinus wallichiana A.B 

Jackson, Populus ciliata Wall. ex 

Royle, etc 

Acacia catechu Willd., Bombex 

ceiba L., Celtis australis L., 

Dalbergia sissoo DC., Grewia 

oppositifolia Roxb. ex DC., Lannea 



muell., Moringa oleifera Lam., 

Buch-Ham ex D.Don, Pinus 



Syzygium cumini (L.) Skeels. 

xxvi 



heterophyllum Wall. . 

himalaica (Edgew.) O.E.Schulz., 

Arisaema flavum (Forssk.) Schoot., 

Salvia nubicola Wall. ex Sweet., 

Ocimum basilicum Linn., Geranium 

nepalense Sw., Swertia ciliata (G. 

Don) Burtt, Convolvulus arvensis 

L., Viburnum cotonifolium D. Don, 

Cleome viscosa Linn, Berberis 

asiatica Roxb.ex DC., Berberis 

lycium Royle, Taraxacum afficinale 

W. ex W etc. 


Convolvulus arvensis L., 

Taraxacum afficinale Weber. 






Anaphalis triplinervis Sims ex 

clarke, Leucas lanata Wallich ex 

Benth., Cyathula tomentosa (Roth.) 

Moq., Achryanthes aspera L., 

Cautleya spicata (Sm.) Baker, 

Avena barbata Pott ex Link.

S.No. 

58 

59 

Project site 

GPS location 

Lati. Longi. 

Kakoragad HEP 31 0 3’32” 78 0 46’20” 

Karmoli HEP 31 0 6’4” 78 0 58’5” 

Forest type 

Western 

mixed conifer 

forests 

Western 

mixed conifer 

forests 


Pinus roxburghii Sarg., Cedrus 


G.Don, Prunus cornuta (Wall ex 

Royle.) Steud., Abies pindrow 

Royle., Picea smithiana Wall., 

Quercus leucotriphora A.Camus., 

Betula utilis D.Don. 

Abies pindrow Royle, Cedrus 


G.Don, Pinus wallichiana A.B 

Jackson, Taxus baccata L., Picea 

smithiana Wallich. Populus ciliata 

Wall. ex Royle, Acer acuminatum 

Wall. ex D.Don etc 

xxvii 





Schn. 



heterophyllum Wallich. 


Geranium nepalense Sw., Swertia 

ciliata (G. Don) Burtt, Convolvulus 

arvensis L., Viburnum cotinifolium 

D. Don, Cannabis sativa Linn, 

Berberis asiatica Roxb.ex DC., 

Berberis lycium Royle, Taraxacum 

afficinale Weber. 

Ribes alpestre Wall. ex Decne, 

Rosa macrophylla Lindl. , Viburnum 

cotinifolium D.Don, Thalictrum 

foetidum L. , Mirabilis himalaica 

(Edgew) Heimerl., Arabidopsis 

himalaica (Edgew.) O.E.Schulz., 

Arisaema flavum (Forssk.) Schoot. 



Swertia ciliata (G. Don) Burtt, 

Convolvulus arvensis L., Viburnum 

cotonifolium D. Don, Berberis 

asiatica Roxb.ex DC., Berberis 

lycium Royle, Taraxacum afficinale 

Weber.

S.No. 

60 

Project site 

Khiron ganga 

HEP 

GPS location 

Lati. Longi. 

30 0 41’2.5” 79 0 29’27” 

Forest type 

Western 

mixed conifer 

forests 



Taxus baccata L., Acer villosum 

C.Presl., Pinus wallichiana 

A.B.Jacks, Abies pindrow (Royle 

ex D.Don) Royle, Cedrus deodara 

(Roxb. ex Lamb.) G.Don, Salix 

lindleyana Wall. ex Andersson, 

Hippophae salicifolia D.Don, 

Rhododendron arboreum Sm., 

Rhododendron campanulatum 

D.Don, Lyonia ovalifolia (Wall.) 

Drude. 

xxviii 

Allium humile Kunth, 



Baker., Aconitum 

heterophyllum Wallich., 

Carum carvi L.,Epilobium 

latifolium L., 


Origanum vulgare L., Berberis 

asiatica Roxb. ex D.Don, Prunella 

vulgaris L., Plantago major L., 

Prinsepia utilis Royle, Taraxcum 

officinale F.H. Wigg, Artemesia 

vestita Wall. ex Besser., Viola 

serpens Wall., Thalictrum 

foliolosum DC., Orobanche 

epithymum DC., Hippophae 

salicifolia D.Don, Paris polyphylla 

Sm., Swertia ciliata (D.Don ex 

G.Don, Allium humile Kunth, 

Trigonella emodi Benth, Dioscorea 

bulbifera L., Thymus linearis Benth, 

Ajuga bracteosa Wall. ex Benth, 

Syringa emodi Wall. ex Royle., 

Parnassia nubicola Wall. ex Royle, 

Rheum moorcroftianum Royle, 

Podophyllum hexandrum Royle, 

Jurinea dolomaea Boiss, Arnebia 

benthamii (Wall. ex G.Don) Johnst., 

Polygonum vacciinifolium Wall. ex 

Meisn.

S.No. 

61 

62 

63 

Project site 

Kot budakedar 

HEP 

GPS location 

Lati. Longi. 

30 0 35’13” 78 0 38’3” 

Limcha Gad HEP 30 0 55’31” 78 0 41’28” 

Melkhet HEP 30 0 1’23” 79 0 2’20” 

Forest type 

Himalayan 

Chir pine 

forests 

Western 

mixed conifer 

forests 

Himalayn Chir 

pine forests 


Celtis australis L., Dalbergia sissoo 

DC., Ficus benghalensis L., Grewia 

oppositifolia Roxb. ex DC., 


muell., Moringa oleifera Lam., 

Buch-Ham ex D.Don, Pinus 

roxburghii Sarg., Sapium insigne 


Skeels. 



lambert.) G.Don, Taxus baccata 

L., Alnus nepalensis D.Don, 


A.Camus, Ilex dipyrena Wall.. 

Myrica esculenta Buch.-Ham ex 

D.Don, 


australis L., Prunus persica (L.) 

Stokes, Bombax ceiba L., Melia 

azadirach L., Quercus 

leucotricophora A.Camus, Juglans 

regia L., Toona ciliata M.Roem, 

Bauhinia variegta L.,Pyrus pashia 

Buch-Ham ex D.Don, Rhus 

wallichii Hook.f. 

xxix 


ex Royle. 

Datisca cannabina L., 

Berberis osmastonii Dunn. 






Colebrookea oppositifolia Sm., 

Leucas lanata Wall. ex Benth., 

Achryanthes aspera L., Cautleya 

spicata (Sm.) Baker. 

Berberis aristata DC. Pyrus pashia 

Buch-Ham ex D.Don, Berberis 

asiatica Roxb. ex DC., Prinsepia 

utilis Royle, Aspargus filicinus 

Buch-Ham ex D.Don, Juglans regia 

L. Hippophae salicifolia D.Don. 

Artemisia nilagirica (Clarke) Pamp. 



T.Nees & Ebrrm., Asparagus 

adscendens Roxb., Juniperous 

communis L., Woodfordia fruticosa 

(L.) Kurz., Zanthoxylum armatum 

DC., Anaphalis adnata (D.Don) 

Hook.f., Verbascum thapus L.

S.No. 

64 

65 

Project site 

Pilang Gad II 

HEP 

Rishi Ganga I 

HEP 

GPS location 

Lati. Longi. 

30 0 45’55” 78 0 39’55” 

30 0 27’37” 79 0 46’26” 

Forest type 

Himalayan 

Chir forests 

Western 

mixed conifer 

forests 





Burrett., Alnus nepalensis D.Don, 


Rhododendron companulatum D. 

Don. 






G.Don., Juglans regia L., Aesculus 



floribunda Lindl ex A.camus, 

Quercus semecarpifolica Sm, 

Picea smithiana (Wall.) Boiss., 

Corylus jacquemontii Decne. 

xxx 

Datisca cannabina L. Barleria cristata L, Achyranthus 

aspera Linn, Centella asiatica 

(Linn.) Urban., Artemisia nilagirica 

(Clarke) Pamp., Berberis asiatica 

Roxb.ex DC, Viburnum 

cotonifolium D. Don, Sapindus 

mukorossi Garten, Terminalia 

chebula Retz. , Hippophae 

salicifolia D.Don, Juglanse regia L., 

Geranium nepalense Sw. 


Wall. Nardostachys 

grandiflora DC, Allium 

humile Kunth. 

Aconitum balfourii Stapf, Aconitum 


Allium humile Kunth., Angelica 

glauca Edgew., Arisaema 

tortuosum (Wall.) Schott., Arnebia 

benthamii (Wall. ex G. Don) I.M. 

Johnst., Asparagus racemosus 

Willd., Berberis aristata DC., 

Berberis lycium Royle., Bergenia 

ciliata Sternb., Carum carvi L., 

Centella asiatica (L.) Urb., 


Hook. f. & Thomson., Picrorhiza 

kurrooa Royle ex Benth., Rheum 

australe D. Don., Podophyllum 

hexandrum Royle., Zanthoxylum 

armatum DC.

S.No. 

66 

67 

Project site 

Rishi Ganga II 

HEP 

GPS location 

Lati. Longi. 

30 0 28’3” 79 0 43’50” 

Siyangad HEP 31 0 1’50” 78 0 41’50” 

Forest type 

Western 

mixed conifer 

forests 

Western 

mixed conifer 

forests 







G.Don., Juglans regia L., Aesculus 



floribunda Lindl ex A.camus, 

Quercus semecarpifolica Sm., 

Picea Smithiana (Wall.) Boiss. 

Pinus roxburghii Sarg., Cedrus 


G.Don, Prunus cornuta (Wall ex 

Royle.) Steud., Abies pindrow 

Royle., Picea smithiana Wall., 

Quercus leucotriphora A.Camus., 

Betula utilis D.Don, Rhododendron 

companulatum D. Don. 

xxxi 


Kunth, Nardostachys 

grandiflora DC, Allium 

humile Kunth. 





ex D. Don) Johnston, 

Allium stacheyi Baker 

Aconitum balfourii Stapf, Aconitum 


Allium humile Kunth., Angelica 

glauca Edgew., Arisaema 

tortuosum (Wall.) Schott., Arnebia 

benthamii (Wall. ex G. Don) 

Johnst., Asparagus racemosus 

Willd., Berberis aristata DC., 

Berberis lycium Royle., Bergenia 

ciliata Sternb., Carum carvi L., 

Centella asiatica (L.) Urb., 


Hook. f. & Thomson., Picrorhiza 

kurrooa Royle ex Benth., Rheum 

australe D. Don., Podophyllum 

hexandrum Royle., Zanthoxylum 

armatum DC. 


Geranium nepalense Sw., Swertia 

ciliata (G. Don) Burtt, Convolvulus 

arvensis L., Viburnum cotonifolium 

D. Don, Cannabis sativa Linn, 

Berberis asiatica Roxb.ex DC., 

Berberis lycium Royle, Taraxacum 

afficinale W. ex W.

S.No. 

68 

69 

Project site 

GPS location 

Lati. Longi. 

Suwari Gad HEP 30 0 51’0” 78 0 37’0” 

Urgam II HEP 30 0 32’56” 79 0 28’40” 

Forest type 

Western 

mixed conifer 

forests 

Banj oak 

forests 


Alnus nepalensis D.Don, Betula 

alnoides Buch.-Ham.ex D.Don, 


lambert.) G.Don, Juglans regia L., 

Lyonia ovalifolia (Wall.) Drude. 

Pinus roxburghii Sarg., Populus 

ciliata Wall. ex Royle, Prunus 

cerasoides D.Don, Quercus 

leucotrichophora A.Camus., 

Rhododendron arboreum Smith, 

Rhus wallichii Hook. f., Toona 

serrata.(Royle) M.Roen. 

Alnus nepalensis D.Don, Lyonia 

ovalifolia (Wall.) Drude, Juglans 

regia L., Pinus roxburghii Sarg., 


A.Camus, Celtis australis L., Pyrus 

pashia Buch-Ham ex D.Don., 

Prunus persica, Ficus roxburghii, 

Toona ciliata M.Roem, Rhus 

wallich Hook.f., Rhododendron 

arboreum D.Don. 

xxxii 

Datisca cannabina L., 


ex Benth. 


ex Benth. 

Artemisia nilagirica (C.B.Clarke) 

Pamp., Berberis asiatica Roxb. ex 

DC., Berbesis aristata DC., Urtica 

dioica L., Geranium nepalense 

Sweet., Oxalis corniculata L., 

Rumex nepalensis Spreng., Viola 

pilosa Blume. 

Artemisia nilagirica (Clarke) Pamp. 




T.Nees & Ebrrm., Artemisia 

niligirica L., Asparagus adscendens 

Roxb., Indigofera cassioides DC, 

Woodfordia fruticosa (L.) Kurz., 


Anaphalis adnata (D.Don) Hook.f., 

Verbascum thapus L.

S.No. 

70 

Project site 

GPS location 

Lati. Longi. 

Tamak Lata HEP 30 0 23’20” 79 0 47’0” 

Forest type 

Western 

mixed conifer 

forests 



A.Camus, Betula alnoides Buch- 


Wall. ex Lindl., Lindera pulcherrima 

(Nees) Hook.f., Lyonia ovalifolia 

(Wall.) Drude, Rhododendron 

arboreum D.Don, Cotoneaster 

obtusus Wall. ex Lindl, Myrsine 

africana L., Hedera nepalensis 

K.Koch, Vitis lanata Roxb., Taxillus 

vestitus (Wall.) Denser, Populus 

ciliata Wall. ex Royle, Pinus 

wallichiana A.B.Jacks, Pyrus malus 

L., Salix wallichiana Andersson, 

Cedrus deodara (Roxb. ex. Lamb) 

G.Don. 

xxxiii 








ex Williams., 

Berberis petiolaris Wallich 

ex G.Don. Calamagrostis 


Bor., Carex 

nandadeviensis Ghildyal 

Aconitum heterophyllum wall., 

Swertia chirayita Buch -Ham ex 

Wall., Picrorhiza kurrooa Royle., 

Angelica glauca Edgew, Rheum 

webbianum Royle, Dactylorhiza 

hatagirea (D.Don) Soo., Rheum 

australe D.Don, Allium humile 

Kunth., Nardostachys grandiflora 

DC., Bergenia ciliata (Haw.) 

Sternb., Megacarpaea polyandra 

Benth ex Madden., Aconitum 

balfourii Stapf, Arnebia 

benthamii (Wall. ex G.Don) Johnst., 


Carum carvi L., Centella asiatica 

(L.) Urban, Asparagus racemosus 

Willd., Berberis aristata DC. 

Echinops cornigerus DC. , 

Fagopyrum esculentum Monech., 

Rosa macrophylla L.

UNESCO WORLD HERITAGE CENTRE, PARIS 

Appendix – 6.1 

Statement of Outstanding Universal Value of Nanda Devi and Valley of Flowers World Heritage 

Sites,Uttarakhand , India 

Brief synthesis 

The Nanda Devi and Valley of Flowers National Parks are exceptionally beautiful and naturally well 

protected high-altitude West Himalayan landscapes with biodiversity rich alpine, tree line, subalpine 

and temperate habitats. Both the parks have high aesthetic value that has been acknowledged by 

renowned explorers, mountaineers and botanists in literature for over a century and in Hindu mythology 

since ages. The Valley of Flowers National Park with its gentle landscape, breath-takingly beautiful 

meadows of alpine flowers and ease of access contrast the rugged, inaccessible, high mountain 

wilderness of the inner basin of Nanda Devi National Park. With the exception of well regulated 

community-based eco tourism to small portions of these two parks, there are no anthropogenic 

pressures in these parks since 1983. Therefore, these parks act as control sites for the maintenance of 

natural process and are of high significance in long-term ecological monitoring in the Himalaya. 

Both the parks have high diversity and density of flora and fauna of the west Himalayan bio-geographic 

zone. The Nanda Devi National Park park holds significant populations of flora and fauna, many of 

which have global conservation significance such as the Snow leopard, mountain ungulates and 

galliformes. The abundance estimates for wild ungulates, galliformes and carnivores inside the Nanda 

Devi National Park are higher when compared to similar protected areas in the western Himalaya. The 

high diversity of floral species in Valley of Flowers National Park reflects the valley’s location within a 

transition zone between the Zanskar and Greater Himalayan ranges, and between the Eastern and 

Western Himalayan flora. A number of plant species are internationally threatened; several have not 

been recorded from elsewhere in the Himalaya. These two parks and the surrounding buffer zones form 

the Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve, a large landscape of 6,407 Km 2 encompassing a wide range of 

elevation and habitats, that support significant populations of mountain ungulates and galliformes that 

are prey to carnivores including the Snow leopard. The entire area lies within the Western Himalayan 

Endemic Bird Area. 

Criteria 

Criteria (vii): ‘contain superlative natural phenomena and areas of exceptional natural beauty 

and aesthetic importance’ 

The Nanda Devi west peak (7,817 m) that is revered as a sacred mountain by the local people and its 

surrounding group of mountains which is now the Nanda Devi National Park are well recognised by 

mountaineers and explorers world over for their exceptional natural beauty due to the several high 

mountain peaks, glaciers, moraines, and alpine meadows. The Nanda Devi National Park has an array 

of challenging high mountain peaks that provide a range of beauty and challenge based on the 

approach, elevation and ascent. The Valley of Flowers is an outstandingly beautiful high-altitude 

Himalayan valley that has been acknowledged as such by renowned explorers, mountaineers and 

botanists in literature for over a century and in Hindu mythology for much longer. Its ‘gentle’ landscape, 

breath-takingly beautiful meadows of alpine flowers and ease of access complement the rugged, 

mountain wilderness for which the inner basin of Nanda Devi National Park is renowned.

Criterion (x): ‘contain the most important and significant natural habitats for in situ conservation 

of biological diversity, including those containing threatened species of outstanding universal 

value from the point of view of science and conservation’ 

The Nanda Devi National Park comprises of the Rishi Ganga Basin that has a rim of high Himalayan 

peaks and wide range of high altitude habitats from temperate forests to glacial moraines which had 

remained naturally protected for centuries until its exploration in 1933. This park holds significant 

populations of flora and fauna, many of which have global conservation significance such as the Snow 

leopard, mountain ungulates and galliformes. The abundance estimates for wild ungulates, galliformes 

and carnivores inside the Nanda Devi National Park are higher when compared to similar protected 

areas in the western Himalaya. The Valley of Flowers is internationally important on account of its 

diverse alpine flora, representative of the West Himalaya biogeographic zone. The rich diversity of 

species reflects the valley’s location within a transition zone between the Zanskar and Great Himalaya 

ranges to the north and south, respectively, and between the Eastern and Western Himalaya flora. A 

number of plant species are internationally threatened, several have not been recorded from elsewhere 

in Uttaranchal and two have not been recorded in Nanda Devi National Park . The diversity of 

threatened species of medicinal plants is higher than has been recorded in other Indian Himalayan 

protected areas. The entire Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve lies within the Western Himalayas Endemic 

Bird Area (EBA). Seven restricted-range bird species are endemic to this part of the EBA. 

Integrity 

The Nanda Devi and Valley of Flowers National Parks are naturally well protected due to their 

remoteness and limited access. Both the parks were unexplored until the 1930s and have not been 

subjected to anthropogenic pressures since 1983 with the exception of limited community based 

ecotourism to small portions of the parks. Therefore, both the parks contain relatively undisturbed 

natural habitats that now act as control sites for the continuance of natural processes. The integrity of 

this property is further enhanced by the fact that both the parks form the core zones of the Nanda Devi 

Biosphere Reserve and are encircled by a large buffer zone of 5142.86 km 2 . The Kedarnath Wildlife 

Sanctuary and the Reserved Forest Divisions located west, south and east of the Biosphere Reserve 

provide additional buffer to this Biosphere Reserve. The local communities residing in the buffer zones 

of the Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve actively participate in the conservation programmes of the Forest 

Department. 

Management and Protection Requirements Necessary to Maintain OUV 

The Nanda Devi and Valley of Flowers National Parks are naturally well protected and therefore the 

State Forest Department ensures the protection of these parks by regular monitoring of the limited 

routes that provide access to these parks. Both the parks are subjected to very low levels of human 

use, only community based eco-tourism that is regulated and facilitated by the park management. 

There is no livestock grazing inside these parks since 1983. Mountaineering and adventure based 

activities inside Nanda Devi National Park has been banned since 1983 due to garbage accumulation 

and environmental degradation by such activities in the past. The status of flora, fauna and their 

habitats inside Nanda Devi National Park has been monitored through scientific expeditions carried out 

once in every 10 years since 1993. Results of the surveys and time series analysis of remote sensing 

data indicate substantial improvement in the status of flora, fauna and their habitats inside Nanda Devi 

National Park. Similarly, studies and annual surveys in Valley of Flowers National Park indicate the 

maintenance of the status of the flora, fauna and habitats. Both the National Parks and the Reserved

Forests in the buffer zone of the Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve are well protected and managed as 

per wildlife management and working plans respectively. 

The long-term integrity of the Nanda Devi and Valley of Flowers National Parks would depend on the 

maintenance of the high levels of protection and current low levels of anthropogenic pressures inside 

the parks. Regular monitoring of the status of wildlife and their habitats in these parks is critical and 

needs to be continued. Tourist or Pilgrim management and developmental activities such as hydro 

power projects and infrastructure in the buffer zone of the Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve are the 

existing and potential threats that need to be addressed.

Project wise derivation of impact potential values for different sub-basin 

Sub-basin/Projects River Type 

Capacity 

(MW) 

Status 

River 

Length 

Affected 

(score) 

Forest 

Area 

Loss 

(score) 

Total 


Potential 

Score 


Potential 

Value 

(%) 

ALAKNANDA I 3 2 5 50 M 

Srinagar Alaknanda Storage 330 Under-Construction 1 1 2 20 L 

Kotlibhel IB Alaknanda Storage 320 Proposed 2 1 3 30 M 

ALAKNANDA II 3 1 4 40 M 

Bowla Nandprayag Alaknanda ROR 300 Proposed 2 1 3 30 M 

Vishnugad Pipalkoti Alaknanda Storage 444 Under-Construction 2 1 3 30 M 

Nandprayag langasu Alaknanda ROR 100 Proposed 1 1 2 20 L 

Urgam II Kalpganga ROR 3.8 Proposed 1 1 2 20 L 

Urgam Kalpganga ROR 3 Commissioned 1 1 2 20 L 

ALAKNANDA III 

3 1 4 40 M 

Alaknanda Alaknanda ROR 30 Proposed 1 1 2 20 L 

Vishnuprayag Alaknanda ROR 400 Commissioned 3 1 4 40 M 

Khirao Ganga Khirao Ganga ROR 4 Proposed 1 1 2 20 L 

Badrinath II Rishi Ganga ROR 1.25 Commissioned 1 1 2 20 L 

BHYUNDAR GANGA 

Bhyundar Ganga 

BIRAHIGANGA 

Bhyundar 

Ganga 

Appendix 6.2 

Category 

1 1 2 20 L 

ROR 24.3 Proposed 1 1 2 20 L 

5 1 6 60 H

Birahi Ganga I Birahi ganga ROR 24 Proposed 2 1 3 30 M 

Birahi Ganga II Birahi ganga ROR 24 Proposed 1 1 2 20 L 

Gohana Tal Birahi ganga ROR 50 Proposed 3 1 4 40 M 

Birahi Ganga Birahi ganga ROR 7.3 Commissioned 1 1 2 20 L 

DHAULIGANGA 

5 1 6 60 H 

Tamak Lata Dhauli ganga ROR 250 Proposed 2 1 3 30 M 

Lata Tapovan Dhauli Ganga ROR 170 Proposed 1 1 2 20 L 

Tapovan Vishnugad Dhauli Ganga ROR 520 Under-Construction 2 1 3 30 M 

Malari Jelam Dhauli Ganga ROR 114 Proposed 1 1 2 20 L 

Jelam Tamak Dhauli Ganga ROR 126 Proposed 1 1 2 20 L 

Jummagad Jummagad ROR 1.2 Commissioned 2 1 3 30 M 

MANDAKINI 

3 1 4 40 M 

Madhmaheshwar Mandakini ROR 10 Under-Construction 1 1 2 20 L 

Phata Byung Mandakini Storage 76 Under-Construction 1 1 2 20 L 

Ram bara Mandakini ROR 24 Proposed 1 1 2 20 L 

Singoli Bhatwari Mandakini ROR 99 Under-Construction 1 1 2 20 L 

Kali Ganga I Kaliganga ROR 4 Under-Construction 1 1 2 20 L 

Kaliganga II Kaliganga ROR 6 Under-Construction 1 1 2 20 L 

NANDAKINI 

3 1 4 40 M 

Dewali Nandakini ROR 13 Proposed 2 1 3 30 M 

Rajwakti Nandakini ROR 3.6 Commissioned 1 1 2 20 L 

Vanala Nandakini ROR 15 Commissioned 1 1 2 20 L 

PINDAR 

2 1 3 30 M 

Melkhet Pinder ROR 15 Proposed 1 1 2 20 L 

Devsari Pinder Storage 252 Proposed 2 1 3 30 M

Kail Ganga Kail Ganga ROR 5 Under-Construction 1 1 2 20 L 

Debal Kail Ganga ROR 5 Commissioned 1 1 2 20 L 

RISHIGANGA 

2 1 3 30 M 

Rishi Ganga I Rishi Ganga Storage 70 Proposed 1 1 2 20 L 

Rishi Ganga Rishi Ganga ROR 13.2 Under-construction 1 1 2 20 L 

Rishi Ganga II Rishi ganga Storage 35 Proposed 1 1 2 20 L 

ASIGANGA 

2 1 3 30 M 

Asiganga I Asiganga ROR 4.5 Under-Construction 1 1 2 20 L 

Asiganga II Asiganga ROR 4.5 Under-Construction 1 1 2 20 L 

Asiganga III Asiganga ROR 9 Proposed 2 1 3 30 M 

Kaldigad Kaldigad ROR 9 Under-Construction 1 1 2 20 L 

BALGANGA 

2 1 3 30 M 

Bal Ganga II Bal ganga ROR 7 Proposed 1 1 2 20 L 

Jhala koti Bal ganga ROR 12.5 Proposed 1 1 2 20 L 

Kot Budha Kedar Bal ganga ROR 6 Commissioned 1 1 2 20 L 

Agunda Thati 

Dharam 

ganga 

ROR 3 Commissioned 1 1 2 20 L 

BHAGIRATHI II 

3 1 4 40 M 

Bharon Ghati Bhagirathi ROR 381 Proposed 2 1 3 30 M 

Loahri Nagpala Bhagirathi ROR 600 Under-Construction 2 1 3 30 M 

Pala Maneri Bhagirathi Storage 480 Proposed 2 1 3 30 M 

Maneri Bhali I Bhagirathi ROR 90 Commissioned 2 1 3 30 M 

Jalandharigad Jalandharigad ROR 24 Proposed 2 1 3 30 M 

Limcha Gad Limcha gad ROR 3.5 Proposed 2 1 3 30 M 

Suwari Gad Suwari gad ROR 2 Proposed 2 1 3 30 M

Siyangad Siyangad ROR 11.5 Proposed 2 1 3 30 M 

Kakoragad Kakoragad ROR 12.5 Proposed 1 1 2 20 L 

Pilangad II Pilangad ROR 4 Proposed 1 1 2 20 L 

Pilangad Pilangad ROR 2.25 Commissioned 1 1 2 20 L 

BHAGIRATHI III 

4 5 9 90 VH 

Maneri Bhali II 

Tehri Stage 1 

Bhagirathi ROR 304 Commissioned 2 1 3 30 M 

(Its impacts are majorly in 

this sub-basin) 

Bhagirathi Storage 1000 Commissioned 3 5 8 80 VH 

BHAGIRATHI IV 

5 1 6 60 H 

Koteshwar Bhagirathi Storage 400 Commissioned 3 1 4 40 M 

Kotlibhel IA Bhagirathi Storage 195 Proposed 3 1 4 40 M 

Tehri Stage 1 Bhagirathi Storage 1000 Despite of its location, it impacts majorly the Bhagirathi III sub-basin 

BHILANGANA 

2 1 3 30 M 

Bhilangana III Bhilangana ROR 24 Commissioned 1 1 2 20 L 

Bhilangana IIA Bhilangana ROR 24 Proposed 1 1 2 20 L 

Bhilangana IIB Bhilangana ROR 24 Proposed 1 1 2 20 L 

Bhilangana IIC Bhilangana ROR 21 Proposed 1 1 2 20 L 

Bhilangana Bhilangana ROR 22.5 Commissioned 1 1 2 20 L 

BHAGIRATHI I 

2 1 3 30 M 

Karmoli Jadhganga Storage 140 Proposed 2 1 3 30 M 

Jadh Ganga Jadhganga Storage 50 Proposed 1 1 2 20 L 

GANGA 

5 1 6 60 H 

Kotlibhel II Ganga Storage 530 Proposed 5 1 6 60 H

Rev Fish Biol Fisheries 

DOI 10.1007/s11160-011-9218-6 

RESEARCH PAPER 

Freshwater fish biodiversity in the River Ganga (India): 

changing pattern, threats and conservation perspectives 

U. K. Sarkar • A. K. Pathak • R. K. Sinha • 

K. Sivakumar • A. K. Pandian • A. Pandey • 

V. K. Dubey • W. S. Lakra 

Received: 7 September 2010 / Accepted: 26 April 2011 

Ó Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011 

Abstract The river Ganges is the largest river in 

India and the fifth longest in the world. Although, many 

studies on fish ecology and systematic have been 

conducted largely to improve fisheries but fish diversity 

and their distribution pattern from conservation 

point of view have never been adequately addressed in 

the Ganges. In this connection, current distribution and 

abundance of freshwater fishes of river Ganges was 

studied and assessed from April 2007 to March 2009. 

We documented and described 143 freshwater fish 

species in the all stretches of the river which is higher 

than what was reported earlier. Some species were 

observed with shift in their distribution ranges. First 

time, a total of 10 exotic fishes, including Pterygoplichthys 

anisitsi, which has never been reported from 

U. K. Sarkar (&) A. K. Pathak A. K. Pandian 

A. Pandey V. K. Dubey W. S. Lakra 

National Bureau of Fish Genetic Resources, Canal Ring 

Road, Dilkusha P.O., Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh 226002, 

India 

e-mail: usarkar1@rediffmail.com; 

uksarkar1@nbfgr.res.in 

R. K. Sinha 

Department of Zoology, Patna University, Patna, 

Bihar, India 

K. Sivakumar 

Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, India 

Present Address: 

W. S. Lakra 

Central Institute of Fisheries Education, Mumbai, India 

India found in the Ganges. Alterations of the hydrological 

pattern due to various types of hydro projects 

was seems to be the largest threat to fishes of Ganges. 

Indiscriminate and illegal fishing, pollution, water 

abstraction, siltation and invasion of exotic species are 

also threatening the fish diversity in the Ganges and as 

many as 29 species are listed under threatened 

category. The study advocates a need to identify 

critical fish habitats in the Ganga basin to declare them 

as conservation reserves to mitigate the loss of fish 

diversity from this mighty large river. 

Keywords River Ganges Freshwater 

fish diversity Distribution Abundance 

Conservation issues India 

Introduction 

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 and Abery 2007). River 

conservation and management activities in most 

countries including India suffer from inadequate 

123

knowledge of the constituent biota. Therefore, 

research is being pursued globally to develop conservation 

planning to protect freshwater biodiversity 

(Pusey et al. 2010; Margules and 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 km 2 area and it is the fifth largest in the 

world (Welcomme 1985). The River originates from 

ice-cave ‘Gaumukh’ (30°55 0 N/70°7 0 E) in the Garhwal 

Himalaya at an altitude of 4,100 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 m 3 /s. Extreme variation in flow exists 

within the catchment area, to the extent that the mean 

maximum flow of the river Ganges is 468.7 9 10 9 m 3 

which is 25.2% of India’s total water resources and a 

vast amount of sediment (1,625 9 10 6 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 2007a; Payne et al. 

2004). Moreover, twenty nine freshwater fish species 

as recorded in this study from river Ganges have been 

recently listed as threatened under vulnerable and 

endangered categories (Lakra et al. 2010). Therefore, 

conservation and restoration of river have become 

vital for the overall development and nutritional and 

livelihood security of the Indo-Gangetic region. 

Although, studies on the fish fauna of the river 

Ganges and its tributaries have been made by several 

authors and information was mostly reported on the 

systematic, biogeographical and ecological aspects 

(e.g., Hamilton 1822; Hora 1929; Day 1875–1878, 

1889; Krishnamurti et al. 1991; Bilgrami and Datta 

Munshi 1985; Srivastava 1980; Revenga and Mock 

2000; Sinha 2006; Payne et al. 2004; Sarkar et al. 

2010) but these information are still inadequate to 

address the critical issues related to the conservation 

of fishes in the Ganges. In this connection, this study 

was carried out (1) to determine the current pattern of 

freshwater fish biodiversity, distribution and abundance; 

(2) to review the threats to fish diversity; and 

123 

(3) to make recommendations for fish biodiversity 

conservation and management. 

Materials and methods 


In addition to primary data on fish distribution and 

abundance collected for a period of 3 years, the 

secondary data from different publications and the 

data sources (Payne et al. 2004; Sinha 2007a; Vass 

et al. 2009) have also been used to understand the 

change in distribution pattern of fishes in the Ganges. 

The data on annual fish catches in the river were 

obtained from Vass et al. (2009). The river Ganges 

was divided into three zones i.e., upper zone (Uttarakhand 

State) in Northern Himalayan area, where as 

middle zone (states of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar) and 

lower zone (States of Bihar and West Bengal) in plain 

area of river Ganges to sample and monitor fishes. 

Apart from main stream of the river Ganga, major 

tributaries of the river also sampled for fishes. In each 

zone, the sampling sites were further divided into 

several sub-zones and each sub-zones were sampled 

in all seasons of the year. Different threats faced by 

the fish biodiversity of river Ganges in each sampling 

points were also observed. We also studied status of 

fishes in four wildlife protected areas falling in the 

basin, of which, Rajaji National Park, Jhilmil Conservation 

Reserve falls under upper stretch, Turtle 

sanctuary in the middle stretch and Vikramshila 

Gangetic Dolphin Sanctuary in the lower stretch. The 

detail of the sampling sites of river Ganges is 

presented in Fig. 1. 

In the upper zone (UZ), UZ 1 and UZ 2 cover the 

Bhagirathi River and its streams. UZ 1 consists of 

area between Gangotri and Uttarkashi, and sampling 

points were in Gangotri, Harsil, Ganeshpur and 

Uttarkashi. UZ 2 consists of area from Tehri to 

Devprayag and included the sampling points of 

Bandarkot, Tehri and Devprayag. The zones UZ 3 

and UZ 4 were the river Alaknanda and its streams. 

UZ 3 starts from Phata and up to Karanprayag 

included the sampling sites of Phata, Nao Gaon, 

Nandprayag and Karnaprayag. UZ 4 covers from 

Rudraprayag to Pauri Garhwal included sampling 

points of Rudra prayag, Chamouli and Sri Nagar. UZ 

5 falls outside Himalaya, covering areas from Ajeetpur 

to Lakshar includes Ajeetpur, Raiwala, Kulhal, 

Dehradun, Haridwar and Lakshar.


Fig. 1 River Ganga basin 

map showing study area 

across the stretch 

In the middle zone (MZ), MZ 1 consists of area 

between below Haridwar to Ramsar site (Brijghat to 

Narora) which include the sites Brijghat, Narora. MZ 

2 covers the area between Narora to Kanpur include 

Apsara, Ganga barrage, Tutaghat, Kannauj, Kanpur 

and MZ 3 from Kanpur to Allahabad include 

Dalerganj, Baruaghat, Sadiyapur and Allahabad. 

The stretch between Allahabad to Varanasi is termed 

as MZ 4 contains Varanasi and MZ 5 contains the 

stretch between Varanasi to Patna include Digha 

ghat, Adalat ghat, Ghagha ghat, Gai ghat, Lallupokhar 

ghat. 

Similarly, in the lower zone, LZ 1 covers the 

stretch between Patna to Bhagalpur include Patna, 

Munger and Bhagalpur and LZ 2 contains the stretch 

between Bhagalpur to Rajmahal include Bhagalpur, 

Kahelgaon and Rajmahal., LZ 3 from Rajmahal to 

Farakka include the sampling sites Taltala ghat, 

Farakka and LZ 4 from Farakka to Navdeep include 

Manikchowk, Mushidabad, Raghunathganj, Lalgola, 

Mathurapur, Ahiron, Radha rghat, Nabwadeep and 

LZ 5 from Nabwadeep to Hoogly include the 

sampling sites Triveni ghat, Seraphulighat, Armenianghat 

and Hoogly. 

The sites covered in the upper stretches are 

Raiwala, Aamsera, Vidoon, Banderkot, Uttarkashi, 

Harsil, Phata, Karanprayag, Gangotri, Shimili, 

Naogaon, Duggadda Gad, Khanda gad, Khankara 

gad. The middle zones consists of Brijghat, Narora, 

Apsara, Ganga barrage, Tutaghat at Kanpur; Dalerganj, 

Baruaghat, Sadiyapur at Allahabad and at lower 

zone the sites, Digha ghat, Adalat ghat, Ghagha ghat, 

Gai ghat, Lallupokhar ghat, Kastharny ghat, 

Hanuman ghat, Barari ghat, Kahalgaon, LCT ghat, 

Mahajan toil, Gudara ghat in Bihar and Manikchowk, 

Mathurapur, Farakka, Ahiron, Radharghat, Nabadweep, 

Trivenighat, Seraphulighat, Armenianghat in 

West Bengal were covered. 

Sampling and analysis 

Samples were collected at all sites covering pre rain 

and post rain at daytime (7:00–5:00) during April 

2007 to March 2009. Experimental fishing was carried 

out in all sampling points with help of locally hired 

professional fishermen. Fishes were collected with gill 

nets (mesh 2.5 9 2.5 cm; 3 9 3 cm; 7 9 7 cm; 

length 9 breadth = 75 9 1.3 m; 50 9 1 m), cast 

nets (mesh 0.6 9 0.6 cm), drag nets or locally called 

mahajal (mesh 0.7 9 0.7 mm, L 9 B = 80 9 2.5 m 

with varying mesh sizes) and fry collecting nets 

(indigenous nets using nylon mosquito nets tied with 

the bamboo in both ends. At each site, all gears except 

cast nets were used at least ten times during each 

123

sampling occasion. The cast nets (5.5 m 2 ) were 

operated 20 times at each sites/sub sites covering 

about 100 2 meter of river segment allowing 3–5 min 

settled times in each cast. The relative abundance 

(percentage of catch) of fish across different sites was 

calculated by the following formula. 

Number of samples of particular species 

100=Total number of samples 

Captured fish samples were released after recording 

of data except for a few individuals which needed 

to confirm species identifications in the laboratory. 

The fish diversity indices were calculated following 

formula (Shannon and Wiener 1963). 

H ¼ Xn 

i¼1 

ni 

N 

log 2 ni 

N 

where H = Shannon-Wiener index of diversity; 

ni = total numbers of individuals of species, 

N = total number of individual of all species. A data 

matrix was constructed with presence and absence of 

fish species for each of the sample stations in the 

protected and unprotected areas. Analysis of variance 

was conducted to test the presence of fish species in 

the different sites in river protected and unprotected 

area. Comparisons of mean data of diversity index 

were done using Tukey’s Multiple Comparison Test. 

Statistical calculations were performed using Graph 

pad Prism 5 software package. 

Similarity of the species in all sampling station 

was calculated using Jacquard’s index: 

Sj ¼ j= ðxþyjÞ where Sj is the similarity between any two zones X 

and Y, j the number of species common to both the 

zones X and Y, x the total number of species in zone 

X and y total number of species in zone Y. Similarity 1 

within the sites was generated by using the Estimates 

S (version 8) software. Other analyses were carried 

out using the Statistica package. 2 

1 Colwell (1996). User’s Guide to Estimates- Statistical 

estimation of Species richness and shared species from 

samples. Version 8. User’s guide and application published at 

http://www.viceroy.eeb.uconn.edu/estimates. 

2 StatSoft, Inc. (1999). Electronic Statistics Textbook. Tulsa. 

OK: StatSoft. Web: http://www.statsoft.com/textbook/stathome. 

html. 

123 

All specimens were identified based on the classification 

system of Nelson (2006) and scientific 

names were verified using http://www.fishbase.org. 

The colour, spots if any, maximum size and other 

characters of the fishes caught were recorded in a 

format developed for this purpose. Representative 

specimen (n = 10) of all fishes were preserved in 

10% formaldehyde and transferred to the laboratory 

and stored in glass jars. Fishes were also collected 

from nearby fish market and landing centre associated 

with the river system which was not collected during 

experimental sampling. Taxonomy discrepancies 

were resolved with the latest database. 

Results and discussion 

Pattern of fish diversity 


In India, 2,246 indigenous finfishes have been 

described of which 765 belongs to freshwater (Lakra 

et al. 2009). In the present study a total of 143 species 

belong to 11 orders, 72 genera and 32 families were 

recorded across all the stretches of river Ganges, which 

is about 20% of freshwater fish of the total fishes 

reported in India. This study added three more species 

in the checklist of freshwater fishes of Ganges basin in 

India (Payne et al. 2004; Shrestha1990; Pathak and 

Tyagi 2010;Krishnamurtietal.1991). A list of species 

with present distribution in all the stretch of river 

Ganges is provided in ‘‘Appendix’’. Out of 143 

species, 133 species were native to river Ganges and 

its tributaries and remaining 10 species were exotics. 

The overall species richness of the Ganges basin is 

high (Hamilton 1822; Hora 1929; Venkateswarlu and 

Menon 1979; Day 1875–1878, 1889; Bilgrami and 

Datta Munshi 1985) despite several threats. 

There was no endemic species reported during this 

study although in Asia the most number of endemic 

freshwater finfish species occur in India (De Silva and 

Abery 2007). However, there were reports of few 

endemic species in the upper streams of Ganges 

(Husain 1995; Uniyal 2010) which we could not find. 

High species richness found in orders of Cypriniformes, 

Siluriformes and Perciformes, accounting for 

50.34, 23.07 and 13.99% of the population, respectively. 

The family Cyprinidae (53.47%), Bagridae 

(8.46%) and Channidae (1.47%) were found to be the 

most dominant in the Ganges (Fig. 2a). Studies in


(a) (b) 

Amblycipidae 

Anabantidae 

Anguillidae 

Bagridae 

Balitoridae 

Belonidae 

Belontiidae 

Channidae 

Cichlidae 

Clariidae 

Clupeidae 

Cobitidae 

Cyprinidae 

Engraulidae 

Eristhidae 

Gobiidae 

Hemirampidae 

Heteropneustidae 

Loricaridae 

Mastacembelidae 

Mugilidae 

Nandidae 

Notopteridae 

Pangassidae 

Salmonidae 

Schilbeidae 

Scianidae 

Siluridae 

(c) (d) 

Ambassidae 

Balitoridae 

Bagridae 

Belonidae 

Belontiidae 

Channidae 

Cichlidae 

Clariidae 

Clupeidae 

Cobitidae 

Cyprinidae 

Engraulidae 

Gobiidae 



Mugilidae 

Nandidae 

Notopteridae 

Pangasiidae 

Schilbeidae 

Sciaenidae 

Siluridae 

Fig. 2 Representation of families in River Ganga. a overall, b upper stretch, c middle stretch and d lower stretch 

other Asian rivers have also found the more or less 

similar patterns (De Silva and Abery 2007; Raghavan 

et al. 2008; Sarkar et al. 2010). For instance, many of 

the species found in this river including the Cyprinids 

(e.g., Barilius, Garra, Labeo), Channids (Channa) 

Mastacembelids (Mastacembelus) as well as Notopterids 

are common to Africa as well. Review of 

literature shows that fish species richness in the 

Ganga river basin is low compared to that in other 

Asian rivers as indicated and the species area 

Amblycipidae 

Bagridae 

Balitoridae 

Belonidae 

Channidae 

Clariidae 

Cobitidae 

Cyprinadae 



Salmonidae 

Schilbeidae 

Siluridae 

Sisoridae 

Ambassidae 

Anabantidae 

Anguillidae 

Bagridae 

Balitoridae 

Belontiidae 

Channidae 

Cichlidae 

Clariidae 

Clupeidae 

Cobitidae 

Cyprinidae 

Engraulididae 

Eristhidae 

Gobiidae 

Hemirampidae 


Loricaridae 


Mugilidae 

Nandidae 

Notopteridae 

Pangasiidae 

Schilbeidae 

Sciaenidae 

Siluridae 

Sisoridae 

Synbranchidae 

Tetraodontidae 

relationship could explain this phenomenon, because 

the area of the basin is second larger than those of 

other Asian rivers (Table 1). 

Relative abundance of fishes of river Ganges 

showed dominancy of small sized indigenous species 

such as S. bacilia (19.68%), G. chapra (6.27%) and 

P. ticto (6.12%). However, this trend was reversed for 

the conservation important species like M. vittatus 

(2.33%), R. corsula (1.12%), S. aor (1.11%), S. richardosonii 

(0.74%), P. sarana (0.59%), O. pabda 

123

Table 1 Drainage area, 

freshwater fish species 

number and species density 

of Asian rivers 

Raw data from Kang et al. 

(2009), Fu et al. (2003) 

a 

Present study 

River Drainage 

area (km 2 ) 

(0.51%), S. silondia (0.46%), H. fossilis (0.45%), 

T. ilisha (0.44%), B. bagarius (0.40%), T. putitora 

(0.39%), T. tor (0.28%), C. chitala (0.15%), N. notopterus 

(0.05%) and P. pangasius (0.02%). 

The changes in the distribution pattern and range 

extension of some fishes in the Ganges were observed 

when compared to earlier reports (Payne et al. 2004; 

Shrestha 1990; Pathak and Tyagi 2010; Krishnamurti 

et al. 1991; Hamilton 1822; Hora 1929; Venkateswarlu 

and Menon 1979; Day 1875–1878, 1889; 

Bilgrami and Datta Munshi 1985) and there was a 

reduction in freshwater fish bio-diversity in general 

(Vass et al. 2009) which was mainly due to compartmentalization 

of river stretches largely due to hydro 

projects (Payne et al. 2004). The distribution pattern 

of the fishes of river Ganga basin has been presented 

in ‘‘Appendix’’. A total of 28 species including Catla 

catla, Labeo rohita, Cirrhinus mrigala), B. bagarius, 

C. marulius, C. striata, C. batrachus, C. garua, 

C. latius, G. gotyala, W. attu and some minor carps 

showed long range extension across all the three 

stretches. However, about 62 species had a narrow 

range distribution in the three zones. Fish composition 

of upper and lower zones of Ganges showed a high 

level of dissimilarity as observed in other rivers 

(Anderson et al. 2006) this might be due to difference 

in hydrology and temperature. 

However, the Shannon-Weiner diversity index of 

upper, middle and lower stretches of the river 

indicated a strong relationship with overall species 

richness (Table 2). The minimum fish diversity index 

(3.0) was observed in middle stretch as compared to 

upper (3.05) and lower stretches (3.59) as shown in 

Fig. 3. Overall, the fish community indices across the 

river was low (Table 2) when compared to larger 

123 

Number of 

species 

Yangtze (China) 1,800,000 361 2.01 

Ganges (India) 1,051,540 141,143 a 

1.34 

Mekong 802,900 500 6.00 

Yellow (China) 750,000 150 2.00 

Zhujiang (China) 425,700 296 6.95 

Salween (Burma) 279,720 150 5.36 

Chao Phraya (Thailand) 177,500 222 12.51 

Kapuas (Borneo) 94,480 290 30.69 

Mahakam (Borneo) 93,423 147 15.73 

Species density (number 

of species per 10,000 km 2 ) 

Table 2 Indices of fish community structure of river Ganga 

Sampling 

zones 

No. of 

species 

No. of 

family 


Shannon Weiner 

index (H 0 ) 

Evenness 

(J) 

Upper 

UZ 1 8 4 1.72 0.37 

UZ 2 19 4 2.45 0.43 

UZ 3 10 2 1.86 0.33 

UZ 4 13 3 2.16 0.33 

UZ 5 37 12 2.96 0.45 

Total upper 

Middle 

56 33 3.05 

MZ 1 40 16 1.44 0.19 

MZ 2 33 12 1.53 0.18 

MZ 3 30 14 2.44 0.33 

MZ 4 48 13 3.26 0.47 

MZ 5 64 23 3.27 0.35 

Total middle 

Lower 

92 58 3.0 

LZ 1 59 24 2.97 0.35 

LZ 2 50 19 3.43 0.41 

LZ 3 47 20 2.79 0.33 

LZ 4 43 21 2.35 0.28 

LZ 5 31 18 2.42 0.29 

Total lower 

Total 

95 65 3.59 

UZ1–LZ5 143 32 2.85 0.27 

rivers in the world. Based on Namin and Spurny 

(2004) category, the low Shannon diversity index 

(H = 2.85) indicates that the river Ganges is moderately 

impacted. The low evenness index (0.27) 

across all the stretches may be due to phenomenon 

that river Ganges covers a great variation of latitude


Species richness 

4 

3.5 

3 

2.5 

2 

1.5 

1 

0.5 

0 

UZ1 

Sampling zones 

UZ3 

UZ5 

MZ1 

MZ3 

MZ5 

LZ1 

LZ3 

LZ5 

Fig. 3 Shannon Weiner diversity index across all sampling 

zones of river Ganga 

and altitudes (10,000 ft), which mean that the some 

species are restricted to particular geographical area 

and do not appear in other areas especially, the cold 

water species in upper stretch. 

The ANOVA based on tukey’s test showed 

significant difference (P \ 0.05) between and among 

the sampling zones of all three stretches except 

between zone UZ 1 and UZ 3 where the value of ‘‘P’’ 

was observed high at 95% confidence interval. The 

similarity in species composition across the river is 

shown in Fig. 4. We have recorded more similarity 

was between the sampling zones in upper stretch, 

Fig. 4 Dendrogram 

showing similarity between 

all sites in river Ganga 

while sampling zones of middle and lower stretches 

showed less similarity among themselves. The probable 

reason can be the more evenness in the fish 

community in the sampling zones of upper stretch 

compared to middle and lower stretch. 

Stretch-wise fish diversity 

Upper stretch 

A total of 56 fish species belonging to 32 genera and 

13 families were recorded from all the five zones of 

upper stretch of river Ganges (Table 2). The cyprinidae 

with 33 species and 14 genera was the major 

dominant family (78.97%) and much behind were the 

presence of other families like, Balitoridae (15.58%) 

and Sisoridae (1.22%) as shown in Fig. 2b. Overall, 

the community structure in upper stretch of river 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.). In 

the upper stretch alone, only 4 species including 

S. richardsonii, T. putitora, B. bendelisis and P. chelinoides 

were recorded from all the five sampling 

zones. Restricted distribution was observed for 

123

41 species under the genus Barilius, Nemacheilus and 

Schizothorax species and most of them were 

restricted to upper three zones. There was no record 

of fish above 2400–3000 masl elevation. Surveys in 

Nepal have shown no fish records beyond an altitude 

of 1,650 masl (Shrestha 1978) and 1,800 masl (Jha 

1992). 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) ofthe 

species like golden mahseer (T. putitora, T. tor) and 

snow trouts (Schizothorax species) from some tributaries 

in the upper stretches, 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 range 

between 1,035 and 2,475 kg km -1 year -1 with an 

average of 1,650 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). 

The Shannon-Weiner index within five sub-zones 

of upper stretch varied from 1.72 to 2.96 (Table 2). 

More fish diversity in the lower altitude than higher 

altitudes. However, the evenness index (J 0 ) values 

ranged between 0.33 and 0.45 in all five sub-zones of 

upper Ganges reveals that there was a considerable 

uniformity in the distribution of species in the 

sampling zones. The evenness index was highest in 

the sampling zone UZ 5 and lowest at two sampling 

zones i.e., UZ 3 and UZ 4 (Table 2). 

Middle stretch 

Among the five zones in the middle stretch of river 

Ganges, a total of 92 fish species belonging to 58 

genera and 24 families were recorded (Table 2). The 

number was lower than what was recorded earlier i.e., 

106 species (Hassan et al. 1998; Srivastava 1968, 

1980; Payne et al. 2004). The Cyprinidae with 40 

species and 20 genera was the major dominant family 

(56.10%) followed by, Schilbeidae (10.60% and 

Clupeidae 8.55%) as shown in Fig. 2c. In the stretch 

of Allahabad, a constant declining of all economic 

123 

species observed. For example, major carps catch was 

424.91 tons in 1961–1968 which reduced to 38.58 in 

2001–2006, similarly cat fishes 201.35 in 1961–1968 

to 40.56 2001–2006 (Pathak and Tyagi 2010). 

In the middle stretch, the relative abundance of 

certain threatened species were calculated for E. vacha 

(4.90%) followed C. garua (3.41%), S. aor 

(1.75%) R. corsula (1.40%), B. bagarius (0.78%), 

O. pabda (0.58%), M. tengara (0.52%), C. mrigala 

(0.44%), L. rohita (0.44%), N. notopterus (0.43%) 

and C. chitala (0.08%). This is significantly lower 

when compared to commonly occurring species like 

Salmophasia bacaila (34.39%), Puntius ticto (6.72%) 

and the clupeids Gudusia chapra (8.3%) (Payne and 

Temple 1996). The present distribution pattern of the 

fishes in the middle stretch showed that 15 species 

such as B. bagarius, C. punctatus, C. reba, R. rita, 

S. aor, W. attu and C. garua were common to all the 

five sampling zones. 

The Shannon-Weiner indexes within five sampling 

zones of middle stretch were varied from 1.44 to 3.27 

(Table 2). The highest value was recorded in the 

sampling zone MZ 5 followed by MZ 4, MZ 3, MZ 2 

and lowest in MZ 1. The evenness index (J 0 ) values 

ranged from 0.18 to 0.35, which indicate that there 

was high variation in the distribution of species 

between the sampling zones. The evenness index was 

recorded highest in the sampling zone MZ 4 and 

lowest at MZ 2 (Table 2). 

Lower stretch 


The lower stretch of river that is largely flood plains 

of the Ganges was recorded with 95 fish species 

belonging to 65 genera and 29 families (Table 2). 

Earlier, Bilgrami and Datta Munshi (1985) reported 

89 species in this stretch. The Cyprinidae with 30 

species and 17 genera was the major dominant family 

(45.77%, Fig. 2d) followed by Schilbeidae (11.41%) 

and Bagridae (8.99%). Labeo rohita (8.15) and 

Johnius coiter among Sciaenidae (7.59) were dominated 

in the catch. The relative abundance of 

economically importance species such as R. rita 

(1.60%), T. ilisha (0.82%), C. panctatus (0.79%), 

O. pabo (0.18%), S. silonida (0.57%), P. pangasius 

(0.51%), O. pabo (0.18%) and C. chitala (0.15%) 

were recorded as low except L. rohita (8.15%), 

followed by A. coila (5.95%), M. vittatus (3.85%), 

C. mrigala (2.29%) and L. bata (2.18%).


The rich fish diversity in the lower stretch may be 

attributed to the significant contributions of larger 

numbers of tributaries and presence of protected area. 

A total of 11 species such as A. coila, C. panctatus, 

N. notopterus, L. calbasu, M. cavasius, C. nama, 

P. sophore and N. nandus were recorded from all the 

five sampling zones, however, about 33 including 

A. microlepis, A. bengalansis, M. albus, S. rabdophorus, 

A. gora and E. hara were recorded with 

fragmented distribution. The recent report (Pathak 

and Tyagi 2010) on the fish yield at Patna indicates 

that drastic reduction in the catch of Indian major 

carps (383.2–118 kg km 2 ), large cat fishes 

(373.8–194.48 kg km 2 ). Migratory hilsa has declined 

even more dramatically (234.7–1.38 kg km 2 ). 

The Shannon-Weiner index of fishes in the lower 

stretch ranged from 2.35 to 3.43 (Table 2) withminor 

variations between zones. The value was highest in the 

sampling zone LZ 2 followed by LZ 1, LZ 1, LZ 5 and 

lowest in LZ 4. The considerably low variations within 

sampling zones indicate that the species composition 

were almost uniform in this stretch. The evenness 

index (J 0 ) values mainly ranged from 0.28 to 0.4 also 

revealed considerable uniformity in the distribution of 

species in the sampling zones (Table 2). 

New distribution and biological changes 

In our study, we recorded a number of fish species 

which were never reported in the upper stretch of the 

river and were predominantly available in the lower 

and middle stretches in the 1950s (Menon 1954) were 

recorded from the upper cold-water region. For 

instance, the range extensions of several fish species 

including Mastacembelus armatus and Cyprinus carpio, 

var. specularis was recorded in the upper stretch 

(between Tehri and Rishikesh) and Glossogobius 

giuris, Macrognathus aral, Sperata aor, Clupisoma 

garua, Puntius sarana and Ompok pabda was recorded 

in Haridwar stretch indicating a perceptible shift in 

distribution pattern of fishes (‘‘Appendix’’). Correspondingly, 

species like Glyptothorax brevipinnis and 

G. telchitta, common inhabitants of upland waters were 

also recorded in the middle stretch of river Ganges 

during premonsoon periods confirming the range 

extension of these species towards down stream. 

Additionally, distribution range of Panna microdon 

which inhibits in brackishwater and marine environment 

was extended to upstream of Ganges up to Patna. 

This shift might be due to changes in the hydrology as 

well as increase in water temperature possibly due to 

global warming. Globally, in the recent years it has 

been reported that freshwater fish species could greatly 

change their present-day distribution in response to 

climate change (Mohseni et al. 2003; Chu et al. 2005; 

Buisson et al. 2008) and has now become a serious 

threat to the freshwater diversity (Habit et al. 2006). In 

India, analysis of 30 years’ time series data on river 

Ganges and water bodies in the plains, Vass et al. 

(2009) reported an increase in annual mean minimum 

water temperature in the upper cold-water stretch of the 

river (Haridwar) by 1.5°C (from 13°C during 

1970–1986 to 14.5°C during 1987–2003) and by 

0.2–1.6°C in the aquaculture farms in the lower 

stretches in the Gangetic plains. Possibly, the considerable 

changes in temperature clime has resulted in a 

perceptible biogeographically distribution of the fish 

fauna we reported here. Furthermore, the shrunken 

distribution range of cold water species Schizothorax 

spp. towards the upstream could be considered as a 

warranting situation due to temperature increase. 

Consequently, we also observed that fishes were gravid 

during winter months (November to December) which 

is uncommon and never reported earlier indicating a 

shift in maturity which might also be due to changes in 

hydrology of river system due to numerous numbers of 

hydro projects as well as increase in temperature due to 

climate change (Table 3). It is evident from the 

literature that temperature is an important factor which 

strongly influence the reproductive cycle (Planque and 

Fredou 1999; Svedang et al. 1996), and growth rate in 

fishes (Brander 1995). In another study, Vass et al. 

(2009) also reported that failure in breeding and natural 

spawning of freshwater fishes and stated that the 

reasons might be due to shift in the rainfall patterns and 

also alteration of flow and turbidity of the river water. 

Fish diversity of the protected areas 

India has more than 690 wildlife protected areas, of 

these, four protected areas which are located in the 

river Ganges basin contributes a lot for fish conservation. 

Many fishes might use these protected areas 

for breeding and spawning grounds. Fishing is totally 

prohibited in these areas which resulted high fish 

diversity in these areas with higher size classes. In 

our study, considerable fish diversity was observed in 

the Ganges stretch passing through protected area of 

123

Table 3 List of gravid 

fishes indicating shift in 

maturity stages collected 

from Ganga at different 

sampling sites 

river Ganga basin. A total of 59 species were 

recorded from the Turtle Sanctuary located in the 

middle stretch of river Ganges. Similarly, the Rajaji 

National Park and Jhilmil Conservation Reserve 

located in the upper stretch recorded with 40 and 

41 fish species, respectively. Many cold water fishes 

especially Barilius spp. was observed breeding in 

large numbers in these protected areas. The percentage 

contribution of the fishes of the protected areas to 

the total diversity were 72, 65 and 44% for upper, 

middle and lower stretches, respectively showing that 

protected areas are important for fish conservation in 

the basin. Baird (2006) reported that fish conservation 

zones can benefit fish stocks, especially relatively 

sedentary species, but also highly migratory one and 

concluded that fish sanctuaries can be important tools 

in the context of participatory community-based 

fisheries/co-management programmes. Sarkar et al. 

(2008) reported more species diversity, greater fish 

abundance and relatively larger individuals in a 

protected riverine ecosystem in Northern India. 

Therefore, management strategies of the large rivers 

should also include protected habitats and hence, 

more studies should be encouraged. 

Exotics 

A total of 10 exotic fish species were recorded from the 

river Ganges and distributed in all stretches of Ganges. 

The relative abundance was recorded highest for 

C. carpio (50.14%) followed by O. mosambica 

(25.82%) and C. gariepinus (12.29%). C. carpio was 

distributed in all the stretches of the river. In the upper 

123 

Name of fish species Location Collection 

month 

Length 

(cm) 

stretches alone three species viz., C. carpio (3.02%), 

C. carpio var. specularis (0.14%) and O. mykiss 

(0.27%) were recorded whereas in the middle stretch 7 

species viz., C. gariepinus (0.04%), C. idella (0.22%), 

C. carpio (1.76%), H. nobilis (0.03%), H. molitrix 

(0.01%), O. mossambicus (0.98%) and O. niloticus 

niloticus (0.31%) and in the lower stretch 5 species 

viz., C. carpio (0.21%), H. nobilis (0.02%), H. molitrix 

(0.04%), O. mosambica (0.17%) and Ptrerigoplichthys 

anisitsi (0.01%). All these exotic species were not 

reported earlier from the main channel of the Ganges 

although some species like Ctenopharyngodon idellus, 

Silver carp (Hypophthalmychthys molitrix), Oreochromis 

mossambicus, Thai magur (Clarias gareipinus) 

and Cyprinus carpio have been reported in the 

tributaries of Ganga basin (Bhakta and Bandyopadhyay 

2007; Sarkar et al. 2010). Higher abundance and 

range extension of C. carpio threatening the native 

species. Changes in hydrology especially more reservoir 

types of situation due to barriers across river seems 

to responsible for the flourishing of C. carpio in the 

basin. The stretch wise distribution of exotic fish 

species is shown in ‘‘Appendix’’. 

Structural changes and fishery production 


Weight 

(gm) 

Aspidoparia morar Patna, Munger and 

Bhagalpur 

December 9.5–12.5 15–30 

Eutropiichthys vacha Patna December 24 105 

Mystus tengara Munger January 22 50 

Gudusia chapra Allahabad November 14.2 19.5 

Mystus cavasius Munger January 18 45 

Mystus menoda Munger January 25 125 

Nangra punctata Munger January 7.5 10 

Nandus nandus Allahabad November 11.9 25.6 

Setipinna brevifilis Kahalgaon January 19 38 

Xenentodon cancilla Bhagalpur January 18.5 25 

Rhinomugil corsula Kanpur November 22.0 126.4 

The total annual fishing production in the basin had 

been declined from 85.21 tons during 1959 to 62.48 

tonnes during 2004 (Fig. 5). The dynamics of the 4 

different major fish groups showed that the percentage 

of major carps had decreased from 41.4 to 8.3 tons 

from 1958–1962 to 1996–1997 (Fig. 6). The proportion 

of major carps in the fishery declined from 43.5 to


Fig. 5 The dynamics of 

annual fishery landings in 

the River Ganga during 

1959–2004 (Source: Das 

2007b) 

Landing % 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

Landing in tones 

140 

120 

100 

29% by 1972–1976 and 13% today (Payne et al. 

2004). Significant reductions in catches of around 

1,600 tonnes or 13% over 10 years were found at 

Allahabad. The miscellaneous fish percent increased 

from 27.1% in 1958–1962 to 63.4% by 1996–1997. 

During the same time period the catfish percentage 

increased from 21% to 24.6% (De 1999). The 

anadromous hilsa (Tenualosa ilisha) has also declined 

due to the Farrakah barrage and the inaccessibility of 

the connecting canal. The low fish production of the 

major fish groups in the river Ganges is believed to be 

the recruitment failure of the young ones due to 

degradation (decreased runoff, changes in flow, 

turbidity) of the natural spawning habitat and climate 

change (Das 2007b). In this light, our findings on the 

age structure of Labeo rohita and Tor putitora of river 

Ganges indicated that the number of older individuals 

tended to decrease (Khan and Siddiqui 1973; Sarkar 

et al. 2006) from 1973 to 2006 (Table 4) which is 

might be due to unsustainable exploitation of the 

resources. On the other hand, we noticed that the large 

proportion of younger individuals appears to be 

expanding as compared to older ones. It is evident 

that the ratio of various age groups in a population 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

1959 1964 1969 1974 1979 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004 

Major carps 

Cat fishes 

determines the current reproductive status of the 

population and indicates what may be expected in the 

future. Usually a rapidly expanding population, will 

contain a large proportion of young individuals 

whereas, a declining population will contain a large 

proportion of old individuals and stationary population 

will have a more even distribution of age classes 

(Odum 1971). Therefore, the rapidly expanding 

population of Labeo rohita and Tor putitora in river 

Ganges is nevertheless a stable population. Further, if 

the effects of unsustainable exploitation can be 

countered, these populations may rejuvenate itself. 

Threats 

Years 

58-59 to 61-62 62-63 to 65-66 66-67 to 68-69 73-74 to 76-77 77-78 to 80-81 81-82 to 85-86 89-90 to 94-95 96-97 

Years 

Miscellaneous 

Fig. 6 The dynamics of total annual fishery landings of major fish groups in the River Ganga during 1959–2004. (Source: Das 2007) 

In the Ganga river basin, alterations in fish diversity 

and community structure are mainly due to hydrological 

alterations, dam constructions, over fishing, 

pollution, water diversions, changing land use 

pattern, exotic species invasion, rapid sedimentation, 

deforestation, climatic changes and land erosion etc. 

Assessing impacts and threats directly informs conservation 

strategies, management options and priorities 

for actions (Linke et al. 2007). According to 

123

123 

Table 4 Changes in mean age structure in percentage of Tor putitora and Labeo rohita in river Ganga and its tributaries 

Year Species Author Age 

0? 1? 2? 3? 4? 5? 6? 7? 8? 9? 10? 11? 12? 13? 14? 15? 16? 17? 

1980–1981 T. putitora Nautiyal et al. (2008) 19.6 21.2 11.3 9.8 7.5 6.06 5.3 3.7 3.03 3.03 3.03 – 3.03 – – – 2.27 0.7 

1994–1996 T. putitora Do 18.03 46.7 14.2 6.8 5.2 2.8 3.4 – 1.5 0.02 0.01 0.01 – 0.02 – – 0.01 0.01 

1967–1969 L. rohita Khan and Siddiqui (1973) – 35.7 15.7 8.6 9.1 8.2 7.7 7.4 4.5 1.9 1.2 – – – – – – – 

2000–2004 L. rohita Sarkar et al. (2006) – 62.5 18.9 10.5 6.6 0.14 – – – – – – – – – – – – 


Karr and Chu (1995) freshwater ecosystem conservation 

plans rely mainly on assessing ecological 

integrity of ecosystems, based on the notion that 

ecosystems of high ecological integrity support and 

maintain the full natural range of biological features 

and ecological processes. 

The main ecohydrological alterations are construction 

of dams and barrages on the river, loss of wetlands 

and floodplain habitat and water diversions. Alterations 

of water quantity, seasonal flows and patterns of flow 

variability such as by damming and abstractions, or 

inter-basin transfers (IBTs) have substantial and negative 

consequences for the maintenance of biodiversity in 

many rivers (Arrington and Winemiller 2003; Linfield 

1985; Sinha and Khan 2001; Sinha2007b; Lakra et al. 

2011). A series of barrages and dams have been 

commissioned in the upper segment of river Ganges 

from Rishikesh to Narora (Rao 2001) and the Tehri dam 

constructed in the hills of Uttarakhand has considerably 

reduced the water flow and have shown detrimental 

effects on physical attributes and destruction of feeding, 

spawning, and migration routes of mahseer (Sharma 

2003). In addition, along with mahseer (Tor putitora, 

T. tor) the other migratory species like dwarf goonch 

(Bagarius bagarius), yellowtail catfish (Pangasius 

pangasius), pangas catfish (Silonia silondia), hilsa 

(Tenualosa ilisha) and long whiskered catfish (Sperata 

aor) from the middle and upper stretch is under severe 

threat due to consequences of damming and water 

diversions projects. Vast amount of sediment (mean 

annual 1,625 9 10 6 tons) are transported downstream 

by the river and distributed across the fringing floodplains 

during the period of inundation (July to September) 

which results into sedimentation of fish spawning 

sites affecting their breeding. Due to siltation, use for 

dryland farming and construction of embankments 

wetlands in the Ganges basin are vanishing very fast. 

In addition, more than 150,000 km 2 of the Ganges basin 

is irrigated using some 85,000 m 3 of river water which 

has led to extensive problems of soil salinisation and as a 

result the salt load of the returning irrigation water over 

6.3 million tones of salt are estimated to be added to the 

water annually (CPCB 1984). Large number of industries 

located in the basin discharge enormous amounts of 

toxic wastes to the Ganges. The severe impacts of 

industrial effluents disposed into the river have resulted 

in fish kills reported from time to time (Sunderesan et al. 

1983; Das et al. 2007). Bioaccumulation of heavy 

metals was observed in fishes in the lower stretch of the


river and at Varanasi (Ghosh et al. 1982; Sinha2004). 

The agriculture sector drains about 134.8 million waste 

into the river basin. Similarly, 2,573 tonnes pesticides, 

mainly DDT and BHC-Y are applied annually for pest 

control (Sinha 2007b). The Ganges Basin is reported to 

carry some 200 tonnes of biological oxygen demand 

(BOD) per day gross pollution. However, it is still 

relatively localized and focused on urban centers 

including Hardwar, Kanpur, Varanasi and Diamond 

Harbour near Kolkata. This appears to be related to the 

decline in catch of fisherfolk from 30–40 kg to 15 kg per 

day downstream of the town (Kumra 1995). Our result 

suggests that, dominance of exotics, over exploitation 

and effects of climate change are also posing serious 

threat to native fishes of Ganges. 

Conservation status 

The conservation assessment of fishes of river Ganges 

has been presented in Fig. 6. Of the 143 freshwater fish 

species, about 20% of fish species in Ganges were 

assessed as threatened category following IUCN Red 

List Criteria. More number of threatened fishes found in 

upper stretch (26%) followed by lower (23%) and 

middle (20%; Fig. 7). Distinctly threatened species are 

characteristically those fish belong to very defined 

taxonomic units of restricted geographic range, and 

Fig. 7 Conservation status 

(%) of threatened fish 

species in different zones in 

river Ganga 

Sampling zones 

LZ5 

LZ4 

LZ3 

LZ2 

LZ1 

MZ5 

MZ4 

MZ3 

MZ2 

MZ1 

UZ5 

UZ4 

UZ3 

UZ2 

UZ1 

7.7 

10.53 

12.77 

12.5 

13.56 

16 

17.5 

16.67 

17.5 

18.61 

19.15 

18.75 

appears to be particularly sensitive to one or more 

human threats and those populations or range which 

have undergone a significant decline and seems likely to 

continue (Lakra et al. 2010). 

Conservation and management recommendations 

Current efforts 

India has legislated the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, 

Biological Diversity Act (2002) and Biological Diversity 

Rules (2004), which aimed to conserve and protect 

the biodiversity in the country and also ensure the 

sustainable utilizations. Several protected areas 

declared using the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 

which are directly or indirectly conserving fish diversity 

in the country although none of freshwater fishes listed 

in the Act. Among current conservation efforts, an 

innovative approach has been adopted for the first time 

in the country by NBFGR, Lucknow which involves 

integration of the key stakeholders in the conservation 

exercise by the strategies of declaring a State Fish, and 

16 states have declared State Fish in order to achieve the 

real time conservation benefits. Successful artificial 

propagation of several species like Chitala chitala, 

Ompok pabo, O. pabo, Anabas testudineus, Nandus 

nandus were achieved (Lakra and Sarkar 2009). In 

20 

21.63 

22.59 

5.27 

2.13 

15.39 

6.78 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 

6 

3.04 

12.5 

1.57 

2.13 

Conservation value 

10 

Vulnerable 

Endangered 

10.83 

123

addition, several measures like, in situ conservation, 

habitat fingerprinting, ex-situ conservation and developing 

live gene banks have been implemented to 

conserve the native fish diversity. In this light, in 

Northern India, observations were made in the water 

bodies of the selected wildlife sanctuaries in order to 

conceptualize the need and approach for developing 

freshwater aquatic sanctuaries (FAS) within the protected 

area network (Sarkar et al. 2008). 

Recommendations 

The creation of specially targeted fish protected areas is 

an important step in the conservation of Ganges and its 

biodiversity. We identified the Nayar, Mandal, Saung 

and Kho rivers which are tributaries in the upper stretch 

of river Ganges, are important habitats of fish to breed 

and spawn (Atkore et al. 2011; Anupama and Gusain 

2007; Nautiyal and Lal 1984) which may be declared as 

protected areas in consultation with local communities. 

A proper environment assessment is required before 

taking up any hydro projects in the Ganges. In the 

middle and lower stretches of the river Ganges the 

conservation strategies for fishes must take into account 

the life history traits and habitat requirements of 

migratory species. Biological characters of the many 

species are still unknown and therefore studies are 

needed. Restoring the natural stocks of the species 

should be a priority, which includes ensuring minimum 

flow requirements and revival of lost breeding grounds 

and thereby restoring the failed recruitment process. 

This may be achieved by negotiation with the stakeholders 

so that the required flow and depth of the river is 

maintained. In addition, restoration of floodplain and 

associated wetlands should be a priority for conservation 

because floodplains play an integral part of riverine 

ecosystem. Many floodplains have already lost their 

connection with main channel due to heavy siltation. 

Floodplains serve as breeding and nursery grounds for 

several species. Towards restoring those critical habitats, 

research efforts should be translated into social and 

political actions as early as possible. Efforts should be 

made to check the sediment flow by extensive plantation 

of native trees, shrubs, etc. on the riverbank and 

adjoining catchment area. Effective construction of fish 

passage structure is necessary. Conventional fish ladders 

designed may not be successful because most fishes do 

not jump. In the middle stretch of the river Ganges 

(Allahabad), Hilsa (Tenualosa ilisha), which used to 

123 

form a good share in catches below Allahabad has 

almost disappeared after inception of Farakka barrage 

despite fish ladders were installed. Steps should be taken 

to improve fish pass way so that the fishes may negotiate 

upstream areas. 

Research efforts on generating the life history of 29 

threatened fishes in the river (as listed in ‘‘Appendix’’) is 

necessary for successful conservation. An ecosystem 

approach of fish conservation is a new management of 

fish community in many countries (Frissell 1997;Sarkar 

and Bain 2007). Therefore, information on the role of 

species diversity is the functioning of ecosystems should 

be incorporated into comprehensive environmental 

management policies of the large Indian rivers. 

Conclusions 

Range extension of certain species and reduction in 

ranges of few species is a serious concern in the long 

term conservation of fishes in the Ganges. Moreover, 

higher abundance of exotics, fragmentation and changes 

in the hydrology of river due to hydro projects and 

barriers are major threat to the fishes in the Ganges apart 

from indiscriminate fishing, pollution, poor land use 

pattern. So far, in India fishes are considered as 

commercial product and failed appreciate their ecological 

services which pushed large number of species 

under threatened categories. Fish conservation areas, 

landscape level conservation plan, proper Environment 

Impact Assessment for any developmental activities in 

the basin, habitat restoration plan, species recovery plan 

for certain threatened species in the Ganges etc. may 

help the native fish diversity restore in the Ganges. India 

has recently formed a National River Ganga Basin 

Authority (NRGBA), Chaired by the Honorable Prime 

Minister of India, would certainly help to mitigate the 

threats and conserve the aquatic biodiversity. 

Acknowledgments The authors are grateful to the ICAR 

(Indian Council of Agricultural Research), New Delhi for 

financial support and Director, NBFGR, Lucknow, Director and 

Dean, Wildlife Institute of India for guidance and encouragement. 

We are also thankful to the anonymous reviewer for his valuable 

suggestions to improve this paper. 

Appendix 

See Table 5. 

Rev Fish Biol Fisheries

Table 5 List of freshwater fishes of river Ganga 


Fish species Distribution 

Upper zone Middle zone Lower zone 

UZ1 UZ2 UZ3 UZ4 UZ5 MZ1 MZ2 MZ3 MZ4 MZ5 LZ1 LZ2 LZ3 LZ4 LZ5 

1. Alia coila (Hamilton 1822) * * * * * * * * 

2. Acanthocobitis botia (Hamilton 1822) * * 

3. Amblyceps mangois (Hamilton 1822) d 

* 

4. Amblypharyngodon gora (Hamilton 1822) * * 

5. Amblypharyngodon microlepis (Bleeker 1854) * 

6. Amblypharyngodon mola (Hamilton 1822) * * * * * * 

7. Anabas testudineus (Bloch 1792) * * * * 

8. Anguilla bengalensis (Gray 1831) * 

9. Aspidoparia jaya (Hamilton 1822) * * * 

10. Aspidoparia morar (Hamilton 1822) * * * * * 

11. Bagarius bagarius (Hamilton 1822) e 

* * * * * * * * * * 

12. Bagarius yarrelli (Sykes 1839) d 

* * 

13. Barilius barila (Hamilton 1822) * * * * 

14. Barilius barna (Hamilton 1822) * * 

15. Barilius bendelisis (Hamilton 1807) * * * * * * 

16. Barilius tileo (Hamilton 1822) * 

17. Barilius vagra (Hamilton 1822) * * 

18. Batasio batasio (Hamilton 1822) * 

19. Botia almorhae (Gray 1831) * 

20. Botia dario (Hamilton 1822) e 

* * * * 

21. Botia lohachata (Chaudhuri 1912) * * * 

22. Catla catla (Hamilton 1822) * * * * * * * * 

23. Chagunius chagunio (Hamilton 1822) d 

* * * * 

24. Chanda nama (Hamilton 1822) * * * * * * * 

25. Chanda ranga (Hamilton 1822) * * * 

26. Channa punctatus (Bloch 1793) * * * * * * * * 

27. Channa marulius (Hamilton 1822) * * * * * * * * * 

28. Channa orientalis (Bloch & Schneider 1801) * * 

29. Channa stewartii (Playfair 1867) * 

30. Channa striatus (Bloch 1793) * * * * * * * * * 

123

Table 5 continued 



123 


31. Chela laubuca (Hamilton 1822) * * * 

32. Chela cachius (Hamilton 1822) * 

33. Chitala chitala (Hamilton 1822) d 

* * * * * * * 

34. Cirrhinus mrigala (Hamilton 1822) * * * * * * * * * * 

35. Cirrhinus reba (Hamilton 1822) * * * * * * * * * * 

36. Clarias batrachus (Linnaeus 1758) * * * * * 

37. Clarias gariepinus (Burchell 1822) c 

* 

38. Clupisoma garua (Hamilton 1822) a 

* * * * * * * * 

39. Colisa fasciata (Bloch & Schneider 1801) * * * * 

40. Crossocheilus latius latius (Hamilton 1822) e 

* * * * * 

41. Ctenopharyngodon idella (Valenciennes 1844) c 

* 

42. Cyprinus carpio (Linnaeus 1758) c 

* * * * * * * * 

43. Cyprinus carpio (Var. Specularis) (Lacepède 1803) c 

* 

44. Danio devario (Hamilton 1822) * 

45. Erethistes hara (Hamilton 1822) * 

46. Esomus danricus (Hamilton 1822) * 

47. Eutropiichthys murius (Hamilton 1822) * * * 

48. Eutropiichthys vacha (Hamilton 1822) e 

* * * * * * * * * * 

49. Gagata cenia (Hamilton 1822) * * * * * * 

50. Garra gotyla gotyla (Gray 1830) e 

* * 

* * * * * * * * 

51. Glossogobius giuris (Hamilton 1822) a 


52. Glyptothorax pectinopterus (McClelland 1842) * * 

53. Glyptothorax brevipinnis (Hora 1923) a 

* 

54. Glyptothorax telchitta (Hamilton 1822) a,e 

* * 

55. Gonialosa manmina (Hamilton 1822) e 

* * * * 

56. Gudusia chapra (Hamilton 1822) * * * * * * 

57. Hemibagrus menoda (Hamilton 1822) d 

* 

58. Heteropneustes fossilis (Bloch 1794) e 

* * * * * * * 

* 

59. Hypophthalmichthys molitrix (Valenciennes 1844) c 

* * 

60. Hypophthalmichthys nobilis (Richardson 1845) c






* * 

61. Hyporhamphus limbatus (Valenciennes 1847) b 

62. Johnius coiter (Hamilton 1822) * * * * * * * 

63. Johnius gangeticus (Talwar 1991) * 

64. Labeo angra (Hamilton 1822) * 

65. Labeo gonius (Hamilton 1822) * * * 

66. Labeo bata (Hamilton 1822) * * * * * * * * * * * 

67. Labeo boggat (Sykes 1839) * * 

68. Labeo calbasu (Hamilton 1822) * * * * * * * * * * 

69. Labeo (Bangana) dero (Hamilton 1822) * * 

70. Labeo dyocheilus (McClelland 1839) * * 

71. Labeo fimbriatus (Bloch 1795) * * * 

72. Labeo pangusia (Hamilton 1822) e 

* * * 

73. Labeo rohita (Hamilton 1822) * * * * * * * * * 

74. Lepidocephalichthys guntea (Hamilton 1822) * * * 

75. Macrognathus aral (Bloch and Schneider 1801) a 

* * * * * * 

76. Macrognathus pancalus (Hamilton 1822) * * * * * * * * * 

77. Mastacembelus armatus (Lacepède 1800) a 

* * * * * * * * 

78. Megarasbora elanga (Hamilton 1822) * 

79. Monopterus albus (Zuiew 1793) * 

80. Monopterus cuchia (Hamilton 1822) * * * 

81. Mystus bleekeri (Day 1877) * * * 

82. Mystus cavasius (Hamilton 1822) * * * * * * 

83. Mystus tengara (Hamilton 1822) * * * * * * * 

84. Mystus vittatus (Bloch 1794) * * * 

85. Nandus nandus (Hamilton 1822) * * * * * 

86. Nangra nangra (Hamilton 1822) d 

* 

87. Nangra punctata (Hamilton 1822) * * * 

88. Nemacheilus beavani (Günther 1868) * 

89. Nemacheilus botia (Hamilton 1822) * * * * * * 

90. Nemacheilus corica (Menon 1987) * 

123




123 


91. Nemacheilus montanus (McClelland 1838) * 

92. Nemacheilus mooreh (Sykes 1839) 

93. Nemacheilus rupecola (McClelland 1838) * 

94. Notopterus notopterus (Pallas 1769) * * * * * * * * 

95. Ompok bimaculatus (Bloch 1794) * * * * 

96. Ompok pabda (Hamilton 1822) a,e 

* * * * * * * 

97. Ompok pabo (Hamilton, 1822) d 

* * * * 

98. Oncorhynchus mykiss (Walbaum 1792) c 

* 

99. Oreochromis mossambicus (Peters 1852) c 

* * * * 

100. Oreochromis niloticus niloticus (Linnaeus 1758) c 

* * 

101. Osteobrama cotio (Hamilton 1822) * * * * * * 

102. Pangasius pangasius (Hamilton 1822) e 

* * * * 

* * 

103. Panna microdon (Bleeker 1849) b 

104. Pseudambassis baculis (Hamilton 1822) * * 

105. Pseuedeutropius atherinoides (Bloch 1794) * * 

106. Pterygoplichthys anisitsi (Eigenmann & Kennedy 1903) c 

* 

* * * 

107. Puntius chelynoides (McClelland 1839) * * * * 

108. Puntius chola (Hamilton 1822) e 

109. Puntius conchonius (Hamilton 1822) * * 

110. Puntius amphibious (Valenciennes 1842) * 

111. Puntius binotatus (Valenciennes 1842) * 

112. Puntius puntio (Hamilton 1822) * 

* * * * * * * * 

113. Puntius phutunio (Hamilton 1822) 

114. Puntius sarana (Hamilton 1822) a,e 


115. Puntius sophore (Hamilton 1822) * * * * * * * * 

116. Puntius terio (Hamilton 1822) * 

117. Puntius ticto (Hamilton 1822) * * * * * * * * * 

118. Raiamas bola (Hamilton 1822) * 

119. Rasbora daniconius (Hamilton 1822) * * * * 

120. Rasbora rasbora (Hamilton 1822) *






* * * * * * * * 

121. Rhinomugil corsula (Hamilton 1822) e 

122. Rita rita (Hamilton 1822) * * * * * * * * * 

123. Salmophasia bacaila (Hamilton 1822) * * * * * * * * 

124. Salmophasia phulo (Hamilton 1822) * 

125. Schizothorax curvifrons (Heckel 1838) * 

126. Schizothorax progastus (McClelland 1839) * * * 

127. Schizothorax richardsonii (Gray 1832) e 

* * * * 

128. Schizothorax sinuatus (Heckel 1838) * 

129. Securicula gora (Hamilton 1822) * * 

130. Setipinna brevifilis (Valenciennes 1848) * * 

131. Setipinna phasa (Hamilton 1822) * 

132. Sicamugil cascasia (Hamilton 1822) e 

* * * * * * 

133. Silonia silondia (Hamilton 1822) e 

* * * * * 

134. Sisor rabdophorus (Hamilton 1822) d 

* * 

135. Sperata aor (Hamilton 1822) a,e 

* * * * * * * * * 

136. Sperata seenghala (Sykes 1839) * * * * * * * 

137. Tenualosa ilisha (Hamilton 1822) e 

* * * * * 

138. Tetraodon cutcutia (Hamilton 1822) * * * * * 

139. Tetraodon fluviatilis (Hamilton 1822) * 

140. Tor putitora (Hamilton 1822) d 

* * * * 

141. Tor tor (Hamilton 1822) d 

* * * * * 

142. Wallago attu (Bloch & Schneider 1801) * * * * * * * * * * 

143. Xenentodon cancila (Hamilton 1822) * * * * * * * * * 

a 

New distribution 

b 

Marine species 

c 

Exotic species 

d 

Endangered species 

e 

Vulnerable species 

123

References 

Anderson MJ, Ellingsen KE, McArdle BH (2006) Multivariate 

dispersion as a measure of beta diversity. Ecol Lett 

9:683–693 

Anupama, Gusain OP (2007) Recent catch record of golden 

mahseer Tor putitora (Hamilton) from Garhwal, Himalayas. 

Fish Chimes 27(1):110–111 

Arrington DA, Winemiller KO (2003) Diet changeover in 

sand-beach fish assemblages in a neotropical floodplain 

river. Environ Biol Fish 63:442–459 

Arthington AH, Welcomme RL (1995) The condition of large 

river systems of the world. In: Voigtlander CW (ed) 

Proceedings of the world fisheries congress, chap 4. 

Oxford and IBH Publishing Co Pty Ltd., New Delhi, 

pp 44–75 

Arthington AH, Lorenzen K, Pusey BJ, Abell R, Halls A, 

Winemiller KO, Arrington DA, Baran E (2004) River 

fisheries: ecological basis for management and conservation. 

In: Welcomme R, Petr T (eds) Proceedings of the 

second international symposium on the management of 

large rivers for fisheries volume I. FAO Regional Office 

for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok, Thailand. RAP Publication 

2004/16, pp 21–60 

Atkore VM, Sivakumar K, Johnsingh AJT (2011) Patterns of 

diversity and conservation status of freshwater fishes in 

the tributaries of Ramganga river, in the Shiwaliks of the 

Western Himalaya. Current science vol 100. No 4 

Baird IG (2006) Probarbus jullieni and Probarbus labeamajor: 

the management and conservation of two of the largest 

fish species in the Mekong River in southern Laos. Aquat 

Conserv Mar Freshw Ecosyst 16:517–532 

Bhakta JN, Bandyopadhyay PK (2007) Exotic fish biodiversity 

in Churni river of West Bengal, India. Electron J Biol 

3(1):13–17 

Bilgrami KS, Datta Munshi JS (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 

Biological Diversity Rules (2004) National Biodiversity 

Authority, Chennai, India, pp 31–57 

Brander KM (1995) The effect of temperature on growth of 

Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua L.). ICES J Mar Sci 52:1–10 

Buisson L, Thuiller W, Lek S, Lim P, Grenouillet G (2008) 

Climate change hastens the turnover of stream fish 

assemblages. Glob Chang Biol 14:2232–2248 

Chu C, Mandrak NE, Minns CK (2005) Potential impacts of 

climate change on the distributions of several common 

and rare freshwater fishes in Canada. Divers Distrib 

11:299–310 

Colwell RK (1996) User’s Guide to Estimates- Statistical 

estimation of Species richness and shared species from 

samples. Version 8. User’s guide and application published 

at http://www.viceroy.eeb.uconn.edu/estimates 

CPCB (1984) Basin sub-basin inventory of water pollution. 

The Ganga Basin part I. New Dehli, Central Board for the 

prevention of and control of water pollution CPCB, 

Department of Environment, p 204 

123 


Das MK (2007a) Environment and fish health: a holistic 

assessment of Inland fisheries in India. In: Goswami UC 

(ed) Natural and anthropogenic hazards on fish and fisheries. 

Narendra Publishing House, Delhi, pp 137–151 

Das MK (2007b) Environment and fish health: a holistic 

assessment of Inland fisheries in India. In: Goswami UC 

(ed) Natural and anthropogenic hazards on fish and fisheries. 

Narendra Publishing House, Delhi 

Das MK, Samanta S, Saha PK (2007) Riverine health and 

impact on fisheries in India. Policy Paper No. 01, Central 

Inland Fisheries Research Institute, Barrackpore, Kolkata 

Day F (1875–1878) The fishes of India; being a natural history 

of the fishes known to inhabit the seas and freshwaters of 

India, Burma and Ceylon 

Day F (1889) The Fauna of British India, including Ceylon and 

Burma fishes. Taylor and Francis, London, pp 1548–2509 

De DK (1999) The river Ganga-environment and fishery. 

Summer School on Ecology, Fisheries and Fish stock 

assessment in Indian River. CIFRI, Barrackpore 

De Silva SS, Abery NW (2007) Endemic freshwater finfish of 

Asia: distribution and conservation status. Divers Distrib 

13:172–174 

Dudgeon D, Arthington AH, Gessner MO, Kawabata Z, 

Knowler D, Leveque C, Naiman RJ, Prieur-Richard AH, 

Soto D, Stiassny MLJ (2005) Freshwater biodiversity: 

importance, threats, status, and conservation challenges. 

Biol Rev 8:163–182 

Frissell CA (1997) Ecological principles. In: Williams JE, Wood 

CA, Dombeck MP (eds) Watershed restoration: principles 

and practices. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda 

Fu C, Wu J, Chen J, Wu Q, Lei G (2003) Freshwater fish biodiversity 

in the Yangtze River basin of China: patterns, 

threats and conservation. Biodivers Conserv 12:1649–1685 

Ghosh BB, Mukhopadhya MK, Bagchi MM (1982) Some 

observations on bioaccumulation, toxicity, histopathology 

of some fishes in relation to heavy metal pollution in the 

Hoogly estuary between Nabadwip and Kakdwip. First 

National Environment Cogress. Indian Environmental 

Cogress Assoc. and Dept. of Environ. Govt of India, p 25 

Gopal B (2000) River conservation in the Indian subcontinent. 

In: Boon PJ, Davies BR, Pelts GE (eds) Global perspectives 

on river conservation: science, policy and practice. 

Wiley, London, pp 233–261 

Habit E, Belk MC, Tuckfield RC, Parra O (2006) Response of 

the fish community to human-induced changes in the 

Biobio River in Chile. Freshw Biol 51:1–11 

Hamilton F (1822) An account of the fishes found in the river 

Ganges and its branches. Edinburgh and London 

Hassan SS, Sinha RK, Hassan N, Ahsan I (1998) The current 

seasonal variation in catch diversity and composition of 

fish communities vis-à-vis various factors in the Ganges at 

Patna (India) and strategies for sustainable development. 

J Freshw Biol 10:141–157 

Hora SL (1929) An aid to the study of Hamilton-Buchanan’s 

‘‘Gangetic fishes’’. Mem Indian Mus 9:169–192 

Husain A (1995) Pisces. In: Fauna of Western Himalaya (U.P.) 

Zool. Surv. of India Him. Eco. Series (Part-I), pp 117–150 

Jha PK (1992) Environment and man in Nepal. Know Nepal 

series no. 5. Craftsman Press, Bangkok


Kang B, He D, Perrett L, Wang H, Hu W, Deng W, Wu Y 

(2009) Fish and fisheries in the upper Mekong: current 

assessment of the fish community, threats and conservation. 

Rev Fish Biol Fish. doi:10.1007/s11160-009-9114-5 

Karr JR, Chu EW (1995) Ecological integrity: reclaiming lost 

connections. In: Westra L, Lemons J (eds) Perspective on 

ecological integrity. Kluwer Academic Publ., Netherlands, 

pp 34–48 

Khan RA, Siddiqui AQ (1973) Studies on the age and growth 

of rohu, Labeo rohita (Ham.) from a pond (Moat) and 

rivers Ganga and Yamuna. Proc Indian Natn Sci Acad 

39(5):582–597 

Krishna Murti CR, Bilgrami KS, Das TM, Mathur RP (1991) 

The Ganga, a scientific study. Ganga Project Directorate. 

Northern Book Center, New Delhi 

Kumra VK (1995) Water quality in the River Ganges. In: 

Chapman GP, Thompson M (eds) Water and the quest for 

sustainable development in the Ganges Valley. Mansell 

Publishing Ltd, London, pp 130–140 

Lakra WS, Sarkar UK (2009) Biodiversity of the Native Fish 

Fauna and their conservation. INFISH Souvenir, National 

Fisheries Development Board, Hyderabad, pp 36–43 

Lakra WS, Sarkar UK, Gopalakrishnan A, Pandian AK (2010) 

Threatened freshwater fishes of India. NBFGR publication, 

Lucknow 

Lakra WS, Sarkar UK, Dubey VK, Sani R, Pandey A (2011) River 

interlinking in India: status, issues, prospects and implicationsonaquatic 

ecosystemsand freshwaterfish diversity. Rev 

Fish Biol Fish. doi:10.1007/s11160-011-9199-5 

Lakra WS, Singh AK, Mahanta PC (2009) Fish genetic 

resources. Narendra Publishers, New Delhi 

Linfield RJ (1985) An alternative concept to home range theory 

with respect to populations of appinids in major river 

systems. J Fish Biol 27:187–196 

Linke S, Pressey RL, Bailey RC, Norris RH (2007) Management 

options for river conservation planning: condition 

and conservation re-visited. Freshw Biol 52:918–938 

Lipsey MK, Child MF (2007) Combining the fields of reintroduction 

biology and restoration ecology. Conserv Biol 

21:1387–1388 

Margules RC, Pressey LR (2000) Systematic conservation 

planning. Nature (London) 405:243–253 

Menon AGK (1954) Further observation of the fish fauna of the 

Manipur state. Rec Indian Mus 52:21–26 

Mohseni O, Stefan HG, Eaton JG (2003) Global warming and 

potential changes in fish habitat in US streams. Clim 

Change 59:389–409 

Namin JI, Spurny P (2004) Fish community structure of the 

middle course of the Beeva River Czech. J Animal Sci 

49(1):43–50 

Nautiyal P, Lal MS (1984) Food and feeding habit of fingerlings 

and juveniles of mahseer Tor putitora (Ham.) in 

Nayar River. J Bombay Nat Hist Soc 81:642–646 

Nautiyal P, Lal MS (1985) Fecundity of golden Himalayan mahseer 

Tor putitora. J Bombay Nat Hist Soc 82(2):253–257 

Nautiyal P, Bhatt JP, Rawat VS, Kishor B, Nautiyal R, Singh 

HR (1998) Himalayan Mahseer: magnitude of commercial 

fishery in Garhwal hills. Fish Genet Biodiv Conserv 

5:107–114 

Nautiyal P, Rizvi AF, Dhasmanaa P (2008) Life- history traits 

and decadal trends in the growth parameters of golden 

Mahseer Tor putitora (Hamilton 1822) from the Himalayan 

Stretch of the Ganga River System. Turkish J Fish 

Aquat Sci 8:125–132 

Nelson JS (2006) Fishes of the world, 4th edn. Wiley, New 

York 

Odum EP (1971) Fundamentals of ecology. Sounders College 

Publishing, Philadelphia 

Parameters of Golden Mahseer Tor putitora (Hamilton 1822) 

from the Himalayan Stretch of the Ganga river system. 

Turkish J FishAquat Sci 8:125–132 

Pathak V, Tyagi RK (2010) Riverine ecology and fisheries visà-vis 

hydrodynamic alterations: impacts and remedial 

measures. CIFRI, bulletin no. 161 

Payne AI, Temple SA (1996) River and floodplain fisheries in 

the Ganges Basin. Final Report. DFID Fisheries Management 

Science Programme, MRAG Ltd, London 

Payne AI, Sinha RK, Singh HR, 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 

Planque B, Fredou T (1999) Temperature and recruitment of 

Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua). Can J Fish Aquat Sci 

56:2069–2077 

Pusey BJ, Arthington AH, Stewart-Koster B, Kennard MJ, 

Read MG (2010) Widespread omnivory and low temporal 

and spatial variation in the diet of fishes in a hydrologically 

variable northern Australian river. J Fish Biol 

77:731–753 

Raghavan R, Prasad G, Ali A (2008) Fish fauna of Chalakudy 

River, part of Western Ghats biodiversity hotspot, Kerala, 

India: patterns of distribution, threats and conservation 

needs. Biodiv Conserv 17:3119–3131 

Rao RJ (2001) Biological resources of the Ganga river. Hydrobiologia 

458:159–168 

Revenga C, Mock G (2000) Pilot analysis of global ecosystems: 

freshwater systems and world resources 1998–99. 

World Resources Institute, Washington, DC 

Sarkar UK, Bain MB (2007) Priority habitats for the conservation 

of large river fishes in the Ganges River basin. 

Aquat Conserv Mar Freshw Ecosyt 17:349–359 

Sarkar UK, Deepak PK, Negi RS (2006) Age structure of 

Indian carp Labeo rohita (Hamilton Buchanan) from 

different wild population. Environ Ecol 24(4):803–808 

Sarkar UK, Pathak AK, Lakra WS (2008) Conservation of 

freshwater fish resources of India: new approaches, 

assessment and challenges. Biodiv Conserv 17:2495–2511 

Sarkar UK, Gupta BK, Lakra WS (2010) Biodiversity, ecohydrology, 

threat status and conservation priority of the 

freshwater fishes of river Gomti, a tributary of river Ganga 

(India). Environmentalist 30(1):3–17 

Shannon CE, Wiener W (1963) The mathematical theory of 

communication. University of Illinois Press, Urbana 

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 

Shrestha J (1978) Fish Fauna of Nepal. J Mus Nat Hist 2:33–43 

Shrestha TK (1990) Rare fishes of the Himalayan waters of 

Nepal. J Fish Biol 37:213–216 

123

Singh HR (1988) Bio ecological studies on the mahseer and 

snow trout of Garhwal Himalaya. Final Technical Report, 

ICAR 

Sinha RK (2004) Monitoring of heavy metal load in the River 

Ganga at Varanasi. Final Tech. Rep. Submitted to 

National River Conservation Directorate, MOEF, Govt of 

India, New Delhi 

Sinha RK (2006) The Ganges river dolphin Platanista gangetica. 

J Bombay Nat Hist Soc 103:254–263 

Sinha RK (2007a) Ecological basis for management and conservation 

of riverine fisheries with special reference to the 

Ganga river system. In: Vass et al (eds) River fisheries in 

India: issues and current status, pp 83–97 

Sinha RK (2007b) 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, 

pp 245–261 

Sinha M, Khan MA (2001) Impact of environmental aberrations 

on fisheries of the Ganga (Ganges) river. J Aquat Ecosyst 

Health Manage. Taylor & Francis, USA 4:493–504 

Srivastava GJ (1968) Fishes of Eastern Uttar Pradesh. Vishwavidyalaya 

Prakashan, Varanasi, India 

123 


Srivastava GJ (1980) Fishes of U.P. and Bihar. Vishwavidyalaya 

Prakashan, Varanasi, India 

StatSoft Inc (1999) Electronic Statistics Textbook. Tulsa, OK, Stat- 

Soft. Web: http://www.statsoft.com/textbook/stathome.html 

Sunderesan BB, Subrahmanyam PVR, Bhinde AD (1983) An 

overview of toxic and hazardous waste in India, UNEP 

Industry and Environment (Spec. Issue), pp 70–73 

Svedang H, Neumann E, Wickstrom H (1996) Maturation 

patterns in female Europian eel: age and size at the silver 

eel stage. J Fish Biol 48:342–351 

The Biological Diversity Act (2002) National Biodiversity 

Authority, Chennai, India, pp 1–29 

Uniyal DP (2010) Pisces. Zool. Surv. India. State fauna series 

18(1), Uttarakhand, pp 533–621 

Vass KK, Das MK, Srivastava PK, Dey S (2009) Assessing the 

impact of climate change on inland fisheries in River 

Ganga and its plains in India. Aquat Ecosyst Health 

Manage 12(2):138–151 

Venkateswarlu T, Menon AGK (1979) A list of fishes of the 

river Ganges and its branches. Acta Ichthyologica et 

Piscatotia 9(1):45–70 

Welcomme RL (1985) River fisheries. Food and Agriculture 

Organization, Technical Paper 262. Rome, Italy

Cumulative Environmental Impact Assessment - International Rivers

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?