Request for Rackham International Partnership support for:
A collaborative ecological classification and assessment of Ganga River, India.
Project Summary: We are proposing a collaboration between experienced US and Indian
scientists to work on an assessment of ecological status and future risk for the Ganga River
(Ganges), using GIS-integrated, ecological classification and unit modeling techniques we have
developed for the Great Lakes Basin (Seelbach and Wiley 1997, Seelbach et al. 2001, Wiley et al.
2002). I am planning (with M. Omair) a meeting with our principal Indian collaborators in early
December to discuss preparations for a US-Indian Cooperative Science proposal to NSF and the
Indian Department of Science and Technology (DST), and to begin the process of collaborative
data collection and processing. We also plan to meet with additional potential collaborators at the
Department of Science and Technology, the Ministry of Environment and Forest (Delhi), the
Indian Institute of Technology, Jawaherlal Nehru University (JNU, Delhi); University of
Lucknow, Banares Hindu University (BHU), and Patna University. Our goal is generate enough
interest and preliminary analysis to prepare an NSF proposal for Fall 2003 or Spring 2004. Once
we have a working group well established, we will qualify for NSF travel and international
planning support to help bring the proposal to completion. We believe this collaboration can
provide a unique opportunity for graduate students at the University of Michigan to be involved
in international resource assessment and conservation work, and with external funding the
potential for training students of Indian colleagues here is also high. Our long-term goals include
the comparative study of classification and model-based risk assessment for rivers of the Gangan
and Laurentian basins, and an inter-cultural analysis of the utility and generality of the ecosystem
management paradigm in river conservation work.
Principal US Collaborators:
M.J. Wiley, Associate Professor, School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of
Michigan;
Mohammed Omair, Research Associate II, School of Natural Resources and Environment, University
of Michigan;
Paul.W. Seelbach, Director, Institute for Fisheries Research, MDNR/ SNRE
Bernard Naylor, Professor emeritus, Department of Pathology, UM Medical School;
Sudhakar Reddy, Director, Univ.of Michigan OSEH Environmental Laboratory;
Principal Indian Collaborators:
Dr. Ram Boojh, Director, Center for Environment Education, Lucknow (Ministry of Forestry and Env.)
R. K. Sinha, Professor and Chair, Department of Zoology, Patna University
Introduction & background:
Ecological river classification and assessment
Given the vast number of component tributaries involved, and their natural variability, the
conservation and management of major river systems presents a complex logistical and financial
challenge to resource agencies and other responsible regional stakeholders. River classification
has been proposed as one method of stratifying both sampling and management effort to more
efficiently protect large river ecosystems (Hawkes 1975; Hudson et al. 1992; Maxwell et al. 1995;
USEPA). River ecologists generally agree that local site conditions are the compound product of
landscape and climatic conditions in the upstream catchment, local valley constraints, and unique
ecological properties of the site (Lotspeich 1980; Frissel et al. 1986; Maxwell at al. 1995; Bryce
and Clarke 1996; Imhoff et al. 1996; Hawkins et al. 2000a, 2000b). Comprehensive digital map
themes depicting landscape conditions are typically available; and many site-specific properties
can also be inferred, measured, or modeled from mapped data (for details see review in Seelbach
et al. 2001). Using GIS (Geographical Information System) technology, mapped information
sources can now be integrated into a comprehensive river reach-based ecological classification
system. At present there is a significant research effort underway at UM and elsewhere in the
Midwest to evaluate the explicit linkage of landscape-based modeling and assessment sampling
with GIS-based ecological river classification systems. The goal is to provide an effective and
comprehensive spatial framework for regional ecological assessments of both river status and
future risk (an example of ecological segment classification is shown in Figure 1.). Current,
relevant UM research funding for Wiley, Seelbach, and colleagues is $2.5 million + from Great
Lakes Fisheries Trust and USEPA (note: neither funder will support international travel).
Assessment requires an accurate estimate of observed and expected ecological conditions;
expected condition is generally referred to as the “reference condition”. Reference conditions
(those expected to occur under least impacted condition) serve as benchmarks against which sites
of unknown status (test sites) are judged (Karr et al. 1986; Reynoldson et al. 1997; Wiley et al.
2002). Rarely are there appropriate historical data to provide actual reference conditions for a
specific site. Therefore some form of modeling, either mathematical or geographical
(comparisons with other sites judged to be naturally “similar” but with minimal human impacts)
is usually required (Seelbach et al. 2001; Wiley et al. 2002). The feasibility of statistically
modeling site-specific biological reference conditions from physical properties of the site and it’s
catchment landscape is already well demonstrated (Wright et al. 1997; Davies 1999; Hawkins et
al. 2000a, 2000b; Seelbach et al. 2001; Wiley et al. 2002). The main difficulty constraining
widespread use of modeled reference conditions in large river basin studies is not conceptual but
logistical.
Large, regional ecological assessment programs face an almost infinite number of
physiographically diverse riverine sites. Developing appropriate expectations (reference
condition models) in such as a context is a logistically challenging and expensive proposition. A
promising, pragmatic solution which we have developed in the Great Lakes region is to use a
region-wide river classification system as a simplifying template (Seelbach and Wiley 1997,
Seelbach et al. 2001, Wiley et al. 2002).
Ecological mapping and classification provides a spatial template that can reduce complexity and
provide a smaller set of ecologically-meaningful units for sampling and modeling, while retaining
most of the significant natural ecological variation among stream sites. Retaining the full array of
natural variation is important if reference condition is to be modeled accurately and the risk of
future impairments be realistically assessed (Hawkins et al.2000b). We believe that ecologically
delimited, valley segment scale, river-reach classifications of the type developed and now being
deployed in the upper Midwest (Seelbach et al. 1997; Higgins et al. 1998; Zorn, T., Michigan
DNR, personal communication, Wiley et al. 2002a) provide an ideal classification platform for
the large-scale assessment of river resources (Figures 2 and 3). Because of the diversity and scale
of data required, assessments based on ecological classification and modeling frameworks are
inherently collaborative. Teams of specialists, working with river ecologists (and often with
significant help from local citizens and stakeholder organizations) are required to assemble,
model, and evaluate assessment data.
The Ganga
The Ganga (Ganges) River system drains one of world’s largest, most densely and continuously
occupied watersheds. It is critical to the health, prosperity, and spirituality of millions (actually
1.2 billion) living on the northern alluvial plains of India. Available data suggests that, like all
heavily occupied river basins, the Ganga system suffers from ever-growing ecological stresses,
which threaten natural biological, chemical, hydrological, and geomorphic function (Gopal and
Zutshi 1998, Kumari et al. 2002). While the severity of ecological stress is clear, the diversity and
shear immensity of the Ganga tributary system makes generalization difficult. For example,
metals and bacterial contamination of mainstem rivers is widespread (e.g. Kannan et al. 1994,
Gopal and Zutshi 1998, Singh 2001). But, despite significant problems in water quality, massive
canalization, and extensive water withdrawal, many reaches in the upper and mainstem Ganga
and its tributaries still support a diverse and productive biological community (Gopal and Sah
1993, Kannan et al. 1994, Rao 2001). Based on our own limited collaborative chemical and
biological sampling we believe that the Ganges is in a state similar to many major rivers of
Midwestern North America where large-scale agricultural and industrial activity have had strong
influences on ecosystem integrity. The Ganges and the St. Lawrence (Great Lakes) river basins
are about the same size (~1 million square kilometers) and both have watershed landscapes
dominated by quaternary glacial and alluvial deposits leading to other interesting chemical and
hydrologic similarities.
It’s size, drainage density, ecological diversity, and centrality to the lives of millions of people
make the Ganga an obvious candidate for classification-based ecological assessment. While data
gaps are large, it seems clear that the sustainable use of this river system turns on understanding
the combined effects of landscape-scale hydrological, chemical, and geomorphic/engineering
alterations on of ecology of the Ganga watershed. In other words, sustainable use by human
populations will require a wholistic (ecological) analysis of human impacts and future risks.
Regional river assessment approaches we are developing in the Great Lakes region seem
appropriate and transferable to the Ganga system (see Figure 4). Assessing current ecological
status, and evaluating futures areas at risk are important early steps towards protecting and
enhancing the quality of this world-class river.
Planning for a collaborative study
We (Wiley and Omair) are planning to travel to India in early December to begin discussions with
interested colleagues there about a collaborative effort to study the Ganga system using state-of-the-art
ecological classification, mapping, and modeling techniques being developed and tested in the Great
Lakes region. A bi-lateral collaboration focused on the Ganga not only provides a mutually beneficial
test of river management tools we have developed here, but also will provide a unique opportunity for the
comparative study of rivers and river management issues in India and North America.
Our long-term goals are scientific:
1. Understanding the impact of human societies on the functional ecology of river ecosystems
2. Understanding the role of climate differences on the functional ecology of alluvial and drift
dominated river ecosystems (Contrast of Laurentian and Gangan systems).
3. Evaluating the utility of an Ecosystem Management paradigm in cross- and contrasting cultural
settings.
Our approach will be to use comparative studies of Indian (Ganga Basin) and Midwestern Rivers
(Laurentian Basin) to help us address basic issues in river ecology and conservation.
Our short-term objectives are more specific, and are focused on beginning collaborative work on the
ecological classification and assessment on the Ganga River system. Specifically our immediate
objectives for a collaborative study of the Ganga River include:
Evaluate the applicability of recently developed classification and modeling based assessment
approaches in hydrologically and thermally contrasting systems (rivers of Michigan and the rivers
of the Ganga watershed).
2. Develop a wholistic analysis of the current ecological status of the Ganga River
3. Prepare data for a quantitative assessment of future risks.
4. Promote and support an ecosystem management approach for one of the worlds largest and most
highly utilized major river systems.
1.
I am seeking Rackham International Partnership funding (or discretionary Fund support) to attend
a series of preliminary planning meetings this December in Delhi, Lucknow, Banares, and Patna,
India. And to begin involvement next semester of graduate students in the development of an
ecological mapping project for the Ganga.
Overview of Proposed trip
We are planning a trip to India for early December 2002, to begin discussions among the key
collaborators (Boojh, Sinha, Wiley, Omair) on the development of a joint proposal to NSF-DST
US-India Partnership Program. We will also be meeting with university faculty and other
government and NGO scientists at Delhi, Lucknow, Banares (Varanasi), and and Patna to present
our proposal for collaborative study and try to recruit additional participants. Our proposed
agenda is summarized in Table 1. Our hope is that our Indian colleagues can continue and expand
preliminary data collection/compilation in India in 2003, and at the same time US collaborators,
can begin some of the GIS-based classification work (see example in Figure 2), and assist in
sample processing in Ann Arbo. Our goal would be to have preliminary data and mapping
available for writing a proposal to NSF in Fall 2003. Our estimated cost for this trip is ~
$4000.00 for Wiley and Omair. We should also have some funds available to offset any excessive
costs for Drs. Boojh and Sinha and to provide some additional basic monitoring supplies. Wiley
has some available travel monies from the SNRE which can be contributed.
Table 1. Planned Itinery for Dec 2002 trip.
dates
locale
meetings
Dec 30
Delhi
arrive
Dec 1-2
Delhi
National River Conservation Directorate; Min.
of Environment& Forests; Central Pollution
Control Board; JNU School of Environmental
Sciences for seminar; Local NGOs
Dec 3-4
Lucknow Center Environmental Ed.-North (MEF);
Gomtri River; workshop on river pollution and
status (Boojh, Sinha, and others)
Dec 5-7
Varanasi Ganga River by boat; Pollution Control
facilities; BHU for seminar and discussions;
Sarnath; Clean Ganga Initiative
Dec 8-12
Patna
Patna University for seminar and discussions,
Ganga River sampling trip; Village of Katauna;
with Chief Minister and Governor of Bihar.
Dec 13
Delhi
depart
host
Dr. Boojh, CEE-N
Dr. Boojh, CEE-N
Dr. Boojh, CEE-N
Dr. R.K. Sinha,
Head of Zoology
Dept., Univ of Patna
Request for additional support for a 2003-2004 SNRE Masters Project team
We would also like to request $1500 to support the work of a SNRE Masters Project team that
can be recruited this winter and work over the summer. Project teams in SNRE are composed of
3-6 M.S. students and the group project fulfils the opus requirement for graduation. Drs. Wiley
and Seelbach will direct a group of students in the preliminary mapping and classification phase
of the Ganga work. We have a number of new students each year who are specifically interested
in river conservation. And, there is always great interest in projects involving international issues
and development work. Helping lay the foundation for a regional assessment of the Ganga would
be an attractive project for many of our graduate students. The funding requested would support
mostly supplies (digital data sources), GIS lab fees, and some minimal hourly support for work
during the summer. In the long term we expect that a larger collaborative NSF-DST funded
project would be able to support multiple PhD students both here and in India.
Proposed Budget
TRAVEL COSTS
Requested from
Rackham
Air Tickets (Wiley and Omair, 2@1500)
per diem expenses (2@ 14 days x 35)
$3,000.00
$1120.00
Graduate Student Project Support
TOTAL DIRECT COSTS
$1500.00
$5,620.00
A
$ $
$
Sampled segments
2001
[n=33, in red]
$
$
$
$ $
$
$
$
B
Current status
of sampled segments
based on modeled
reference condition
$
$
$
Observed/ Expected spp.
$
$
$
$
1238
$
$
1238
$
$ $$
$
$
$
$
D
C
Current fish diversity
modeled for all segments
Risk Assessment
segments at risk for
future species loss
due to development
Number of taxa
[yr 2040]
Predicted taxa loss
1238
1238
Figure 3. Example of classification driven status and risk assessment for the Muskegon River using the Land
Transformation Model running an “unconstrained development” scenario for the year 2040. A: segments sampled for
fish community composition during 2001 (in red). B: Fish community status based on 2001 sampling results and regional
reference models. C: 2001 Species richness predicted for all segments using unit catchment properties, 2001 sampling
results, and and regional fish models. D: Risk assessment; species richness predicted for 2040 landcover scenario is
subtracted from modeled current richness to produce an estimate of species loss by 2040 for each river segment .
Figure 4. Example of a preliminary channel unit mapping [1:1,000,000 scale] on the upper
Ganga. Colored segments represent relatively homogeneous ecological units delimited for the
purposes of this example using available GIS layers to infer breaks in: topographic slope, valley
confinement, surficial geology, channel planform pattern, and discharge continuity. Each unit
would be sampled and modeled separately in future status assessments. Example covers less than
3% of the Ganga tributary system. Green on inset maps denotes entire Ganga basin.
Cited Literature
Bryce, S.A., and S.E. Clarke. 1996. Landscape-level ecological regions: linking state-level
ecoregion frameworks with stream habitat classifications. Environmental Management
20:297-311.
Davies, N. 1999. Prediction and Assessment of Local Stream Habitat Features using Large-scale
Catchment Characteristics. Honours Thesis in Applied Science, University of Canberra,
Belconnen, Australia.
Frissell, C.A., W.J. Liss, C.E. Warren, and M.D. Hurley. 1986. A hierarchical framework for
stream habitat classification: viewing streams in a watershed context. Environmental
Management 10:199-214.
Gopal B., and Sah M 1993. Conservation and management of rivers in India - case-study of the
river Yamuna. Environmental Conservation 20 (3): 243-254.
Gopal B., and Zutshi DP.1998. Fifty years of hydrobiological research in India. Hydrobiologia
384: 267-290 1998
Hawkes, H.A. 1975. River zonation and classification. Pages 312-374 In B.A. Whitton, Editor.
River Ecology. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Hawkins, C.P., R.H. Norris, J.N. Hogue, and J.W. Feminella. 2000. Development and evaluation
of predictive models for measuring the biological integrity of streams. Ecological
Applications 10:1456-1477.
Hawkins, C.P., R.H. Norris, J. Gerritsen, R.M. Hughes, S.K. Jackson, R.K. Johnson, and R.J.
Stevenson. 2000. Evaluation of the use of landscape classifications for the prediction of
freshewater biota: synthesis and recommendations. Journal of the North American
Benthological Society 19:541-556.
Higgins, J., M. Lammert, M. Bryer, M. DePhilip, and D. Grossman. 1998. Freshwater
conservation in the Great Lakes Basin: Development and application of an aquatic
community classification framework. The Nature Conservancy, Great Lakes Program,
Chicago.
Higgins, J., M. Lammert., and M. Bryer. 1999. Including Aquatic Targets in Ecoregional
Portfolios: Guidance for Ecoregional Planning Teams. Designing a Geography of Hope
Update #6. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, Virginia.
Hudson, P.L., R. W. Griffiths, and T.J. Wheaton. 1992. Review of habitat classification schemes
appropriate to streams, rivers, and connecting channels in the Great Lakes drainage basin.
Pages 73-107 In W.-D.N. Busch and P.G. Sly, Editors. The Development of an aquatic
habitat classification system for lakes. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.
Kumari A, Sinha RK, Gopal K, Lata S. 2002. Concentration of organochlorines in Ganges River
dolphins from Patna, Bihar. JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL BIOLOGY23 (3): 279281
Kannan,K., S.Tanabe, R.Tatsukawa, and R.K. Sinha. 1994. Biodegradation capacity and residue
pattern of organochlorines in Ganges river dolphins from India. Toxicological and
Environmental Chemistry 42:249-261.
Karr, J. R., K.D. Fausch, P.L. Angermeier, P.R. Yant, and I.J. Schlosser. 1986. Assessing
Biological Integrity in Running Waters: A Method and its Rationale. Special Publication 5.
Illinois Natural History Survey, Champaign.
Lotspeich, F.B. 1980. Watersheds as the basic ecosystem: this conceptual framework provides a
basis for a natural classification system. Water Resources Bulletin 16:581-586.
Maxwell, J.R., C.J. Edwards, M.E. Jensen, S.J. Paustian, H. Parrott, and D.M. Hill. 1995. A
hierarchical framework of aquatic ecological units in North America (Nearctic Zone).
USDA Forest Service, North-Central Forest Experiment Station, General Technical Report
NC-176, St. Paul, MN.
Rao, R.J. 2001. Biological resources of the Ganga River, India. Hydrobiologia 458:159-168.
Reynoldson, T.B., R.H. Norris, V.H. Resh, K.E. Day, and D.M. Rosenberg. 1997. The reference
condition: a comparison of multimetric and multivariate approaches to assess water-quality
impairment using benthic macroinvertebrates. Journal of the North American
Benthological Society 16:833-852.
Seelbach, P.W., and M.J. Wiley. 1997. The Michigan Rivers Inventory: Project Description.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries Technical Report 97-3, Ann Arbor.
Seelbach, P. W., M. J. Wiley, J. C. Kotanchik and M. E. Baker. 1997. A landscape-based ecological
classification system for river valley segments in lower Michigan (MI-VSEC version 1.0).
Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries Research Report 2036, Ann Arbor.
Seelbach, P.W., M.J. Wiley, P. Soranno, and M. Bremigan. 2001. Aquatic conservation
planning: predicting ecological reference ranges for specific waters across a region from
landscape maps. Chapter 26 in K. Gutzwiller, Editor. Concepts and applications of
landscape ecology in biological conservation. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY.
Singh, M. 2001. Heavy metal pollution in freshly deposited sediments of the Yamuna River: a
case sstudy from Delhi and Agra urban centers, India. Environmental Geology 40(6):664671.
Wiley, M.J., P.W. Seelbach, K.E. Wehrly, and J. Martin. 2002. Regional ecological
normalization using linear models: a meta-method for scaling stream assessment
indicators. In: T. Simon, Editor. Biological Response Signatures: Patterns in biological
integrity for assessment of freshwater aquatic assemblages. CRC Press.
Zorn, T. G., P. W. Seelbach and M. J. Wiley. 2002. Patterns in the Distributions of Stream Fishes
in Michigan's Lower Peninsula. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 131:70-85.