Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Report

ANNEXURE – 1: ECOLOGICAL IMPACT STUDY

Section - 9: Conclusions and Recommendations 237

Ecological Impact Study

STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN (SDP) FOR RAVI RIVERFRONT URBAN DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

January-2021

Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

TABLE OF CONTANTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 1 SECTION - 1: INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 Objectives of the Ecological Impact Assessment Study ...... 1 1.2 Methodology to conduct Ecological Impact Assessment... 1 1.3 Legislation and Guidelines ...... 1 1.4 Study Team ...... 3 SECTION - 2: OBSERVATIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS...... 1 2.1 Section-1 Ecological Baseline Study of the project ...... 1 2.1.1 Project Study Area...... 1 2.1.2 Steps in Ecological baseline study ...... 2 2.2 Section-2 Ecological Mapping of the Study Area ...... 51 2.3 Section-3 Assessment of Ecological Impacts from the Development in the project area ...... 53 2.3.1 Construction impacts ...... 53 2.3.2 Operational impacts ...... 58 2.4 Section –4 Mitigation Measures ...... 62 2.4.1 Impact avoiding/minimizing ...... 62 2.4.2 Restoration and Compensation ...... 63 SECTION - 3: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 65

Table of Contants TOC-I Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

APPENDICES:

Appendix-1: Appendices of CITES ...... 68 Appendix-2: Punjab Wildlife Act (amendments) 2007 ...... 71 Appendix 3: List of plant species recommended to be planted on riverbank...... 76 Appendix 4: List of trees for buffer zones and roadside ...... 81 Appendix 5: List of Palms, Gymnosperms, shrubs and ferns for Parks and Gardens .. 83

Appendices: TOC-II Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

LIST OF TABLES:

Table 1-1: Ecology Study Team ...... 3 Table 2-1: GIS based estimated existing landuses with their areas within the project site...... 2 Table 2-2: Criteria used for evaluating a site/habitat...... 3 Table 2-3: Criteria for evaluating species found within a habitat ...... 4 Table 2-4: Evaluating the significance of an ecological impact...... 4 Table 2-5: Details of the forest areas within the project boundary...... 5 Table 2-6: Evaluation of forests in the Project area ...... 10 Table 2-7: Evaluation of low-lying grassland in the Project area ...... 11 Table 2-8: Evaluation of Agricultural fields in the Project area ...... 12 Table 2-9: Evaluation of orchards in the Project area ...... 13 Table 2-10: Evaluation of ponds in the Project area...... 14 Table 2-11: Evaluation of River in the Project area ...... 15 Table 2-12: Evaluation of Islands in the Project area ...... 16 Table 2-13: Evaluation of wastelands in the Project area ...... 17 Table 2-14: List of plant species collected from ponds and river in the project area...... 18 Table 2-15: List of plant species collected from different habitats in the project area...... 19 Table 2-16: Status of plant species recorded within the study area ...... 31 Table 2-17: List of mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians of the project area ... 34 Table 2-18: Species richness of fauna and flora of the habitat types in the study area...... 39 Table 2-19: List of insect species identified in different habitats...... 40 Table 2-20: List of zooplanktons and protoctists found in the ponds and river of the study area ...... 42 Table 2-21: List of the fish species found in the river Ravi...... 43 Table 2-22: Status of Mammals Species recorded within the Study Area ...... 50 Table 2-23: Status of Amphibian Species recorded within the Study Area ...... 50 Table 2-24: Status of Reptile Species recorded within the Study Area...... 50 Table 2-25: Status of Birds Species recorded within the Study Area ...... 51

List of Tables: TOC-III Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

Table 2-26: Human Impacts on River Ecosystem...... 53 Table 2-27: In-depth Impacts of Riverfront Development on Ecological Resources of the River Ravi ...... 61 Table 3-1: Visiting season of the migratory birds found at the project site...... 66

List of Tables: TOC-IV Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2-1: Map of the Project area showing the locations of ecological study sites ...... 1 Figure 2-2: GIS based estimation of the forest areas in the project ...... 7 Figure 2-3: GIS based estimation of the forest areas affected by channel widening of River Ravi after development...... 9 Figure 2-4 (a): Birds of the study area ...... 44 Figure 2-5 (b): Birds of the study area ...... 45 Figure 2-6 (c): Birds of the study area ...... 46 Figure 2-7 (d): Birds of the study area ...... 47 Figure 2-8: Mammals of the studuy area ...... 48 Figure 2-9: Reptiles and Amphibians of the study area ...... 49 Figure 2-10: Biodiversity map of the protected species and their linkage with their habitats...... 52 Figure 2-11: Simplified Food web in the Project Area...... 52 Figure 2-12: Ecological and astronomical light pollution (Longcore and Rich 2004)...... 60 Figure 3-1: Fixtures that enhance and reduce light pollution ...... 69 Figure 3-2: Proper installation of fixtures can save energy and reduce light pollution http://physics.fau.edu/observatory/lightpol-prevent.html .... 70 Figure 3-3: Kites diving to get sacrificial meat at Shahdara Bridge...... 71 Figure 3-4: People selling and buying sacrificial meat at Shahdara Bridge...... 71 Figure 3-5A: Spotlight on building height and bird migration (San Francisco Planning Department 2011) ...... 73 Figure 3-6B: Portion of the buildings most susceptible to bird strikes. (San Francisco Planning Department 2011) ...... 74 Figure 3-7: Bird scaring devices (a) spikes, (b) flex track, (c) net ...... 75

List of Figures TOC-V Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

LIST OF PLATES:

Plate – 1A: Prosopis glandulosa invasion at Shahdara reserve forest...... 1 Plate - 1B: Livestock in the Mohlanwal forest ...... 1 Plate - 2A: Thick understory and herbaceous cover in Bhaini Forest...... 2 Plate - 2B: Mixed forest at Mohlanwal...... 2 Plate - 3A: Karol Forest Shahdra ...... 3 Plate - 3B: Conocarpus plantation at Anno Bhatti Forest...... 4 Plate - 4A: Newly established Eucalyptus stands at Anno Bhatti Forest in 2014...... 5 Plate - 4B: Eucalyptus stands in Anno Bhatti Forest in 2021...... 5 Plate - 5A: Parthenium invasion at Mohlanwal Forest...... 6 Plate - 5B: Saccharum dominated community near riverbank at Bhaini Forest...... 6 Plate - 6A: Mixed plantation at Anno Bhatti Forest...... 7 Plate - 6B: Paper Mulberry along Riverbank at Bhaini Forest...... 8 Plate - 7A: Pure Eucalyptus stands at Jhok Forest...... 9 Plate - 7B: Young Dalbergia stands at Mohlanwal Forest...... 9 Plate - 8A: A view of Jhok Reserve Forest...... 10 Plate - 8B: A view of Jhok Reserve Forest...... 10 Plate - 9A: Acacia-Dalbergia stand at Mohlanwal forest...... 11 Plate - 9B: Vegetation analysis at Bhaini Forest...... 11 Plate - 10A: Eucalyptus stands on riverbank of Mohlanwal Forest...... 12 Plate - 10B: Livestock grazing in Jhok reserve forest...... 12 Plate - 11A: Vegetation Analysis at Bhaini forest...... 13 Plate - 11B: Parthenium invasion in Mohlanwal Forest...... 13 Plate - 12A: Gathering information from local community members and forest Department Staff at Mohlanwal Forest...... 14 Plate - 12B: Invasion of Lantana camara at Jhok reserve forest...... 14 Plate - 13A: Thick vegetation and herbage cover at Jhok reserve forest...... 15 Plate - 13B: A view of (Dhana-Bhaini) Jhok reserve forest...... 16 Plate - 14A: Fauna and flora data collection in the forest...... 17 Plate - 14B: A view of Bhaini Forest showing grass cover, Acacia trees and grazing herds...... 17

List of Plates: TOC-I Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

Plate - 15A: Degraded forest patches in Jhok (Dhana- Bhaini Forest) ...... 18 Plate - 15B: Guava plantation in agroforestry areas of Dhana-Bhaini Forest...... 19 Plate - 16A: Pure willow stand at Bhaini forest ...... 20 Plate - 16B: New areas coming under agroferstry at Dhana-Bhaini forest...... 20 Plate - 17A: Eucalyptus stand at Bhaini forest ...... 21 Plate - 17B: Agroferstry at Bhaini forest...... 22 Plate - 18A: Lantana camara invasion at Dhana-Bhaini forest...... 23 Plate - 18B: Agroferstry at Bhaini forest in 2014...... 23 Plate - 19A: Agroforestry at Bhaini...... 24 Plate - 19B: A distant view of Shadanwali 2 Forest...... 25 Plate - 20A: Shadanwali 3 Forest...... 26 Plate - 20B: Shadanwali 3 Forest...... 26 Plate - 21A: Map of Korotana forest...... 27 Plate - 21B: Nursery at Korotana forest...... 27 Plate - 22A: Agriculture at Korotana forest...... 28 Plate - 22B: View of Korotana forest...... 29 Plate - 23A: A grassland near Bhaini forest...... 30 Plate - 23B: Pond in the grassland near Bhaini forest...... 30 Plate - 24A: Grazing in the grassland...... 31 Plate - 24B: Vegetation and fauna analysis in a degraded grassland...... 31 Plate - 25A: Overgrazing has resulted in degradation of grassland vegetation...... 32 Plate - 25B: Egrets in the fields...... 32 Plate - 26A: Paddy fields...... 33 Plate - 26B: Paddy and Sorghum fields...... 33 Plate - 27A: A Lychee orchard...... 34 Plate - 28B: Corn fields, Gauva orchard and forest at Bhaini...... 34 Plate - 29A: A seasonal Pond...... 35 Plate - 29B: A freshwater pond in the grassland...... 35 Plate - 30A: A freshwater pond in the grassland...... 36 Plate - 30B: A wastewater pond close to the village at Kalakhatai road...... 36 Plate - 31A: A freshwater pond in the grassland...... 37

List of Plates: TOC-II Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

Plate - 31B: A freshwater pond in the forest...... 37 Plate - 32A: Birds clustered on a small island in the river...... 38 Plate - 32B: Eroded and cut riverbanks...... 38 Plate - 33A: People crossing the river on boats...... 39 Plate - 33B: Shoreline vegetation...... 39 Plate - 34A: People crossing the river on boats...... 40 Plate - 34B: Riverbank...... 40 Plate - 35A: View of Ravi River, in the background is Bhaini forest...... 41 Plate - 35B: View of Ravi River, in the background is Mohlanwal forest...... 41 Plate - 36A: Riverbank...... 42 Plate - 36B: Walk along the riverbank for data collection...... 42 Plate - 37A: Fishing in river Ravi...... 43 Plate - 37B: Fishing in river Ravi...... 43 Plate - 38A: View of Ravi river...... 44 Plate - 38B: View of Ravi river...... 44 Plate - 39A: Ravi Bridge Shahdara...... 45 Plate - 39B: People using polluted water for bathing and washing at Ravi Bridge Shahdara...... 45 Plate - 40A: Polluted riverbank at Ravi Bridge Shahdara...... 46 Plate - 40B: Polluted riverbank at Ravi Bridge Shahdara...... 46 Plate - 41A: Livestock grazing on an Island in the river Ravi...... 47 Plate - 41B: Livestock grazing on an Island in the river Ravi...... 47 Plate - 42A: Livestock grazing on an Island in the river Ravi...... 48 Plate - 42B: Livestock grazing on an Island in the river Ravi...... 48 Plate - 43A: Shoreline vegetation on the island...... 49 Plate - 43B: Distant view of Kamran Baradari Island...... 49 Plate - 44A: Kamran Baradari...... 50 Plate - 44B: Kamran Baradari...... 50 Plate - 45A: A wasteland in the study area...... 51 Plate - 45B: A wasteland in the study area...... 51 Plate - 46A: Insect collection using sweep nets...... 52 Plate - 46B: Insect collection using sweep nets...... 52

List of Plates: TOC-III Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

Plate - 47A: Flora and fauna data collection...... 53 Plate - 47B: Water and sediment collection from river...... 53 Plate - 48A: Flora and fauna data collection...... 54 Plate - 48B: Bird observation using binoculars...... 54 Plate - 49A: Flora and fauna data collection...... 55 Plate - 49B: Algal growth in an irrigation channel...... 55 Plate - 50A: Egrets in the fields...... 56 Plate - 50B: Egrets in the fields...... 56 Plate - 51A: Dead wild cat in the fields...... 57 Plate - 51B: Grasscrete along walkways...... 57 Plate - 52A: Grasscrete in a parking lot...... 58 Plate - 52B: Grasscrete layers...... 58 Plate - 53A: Eucalyptus stands established in March 2013 at Anno Bhatti Forest. .... 59 Plate - 53B: Eucalyptus stands established in March 2014 at Anno Bhatti Forest. .... 60 Plate - 54A: A view of Anno Bhatti Forest...... 60 Plate - 54B: Livestock grazing at Anno Bhatti forest...... 61 Plate - 55A: A view of Anno Bhatti Forest...... 61 Plate - 55B: A view of Shahdara Reserve Forest...... 62 Plate - 56A: A view of Shahdara Reserve Forest...... 62 Plate - 56B: Eucalytus plantation at Shahdara Reserve Forest...... 63 Plate - 57A: Herbaceous cover in the degraded Shahdara Reserve Forest...... 64 Plate - 57B: Eucalytus plantation at Shahdara Reserve Forest...... 64 Plate - 58A: Eucalytus plantation at Shahdara Reserve Forest...... 65 Plate - 58B: Soil excavation at Shahdara Reserve Forest...... 65 Plate - 59A: Eucalytus plantation at Shahdara Reserve Forest...... 66 Plate - 59B: Degraded Shahdara Reserve Forest...... 66 Plate - 60A: Eucalyptus tree regenerating from cut stump at Shahdara Reserve Forest...... 67 Plate-60B: Eucalyptus trees regenerating from cut stumps at Shahdara Reserve Forest...... 67 Plate - 61A: Eucalyptus tree regenerating from cut stump at Shahdara Reserve Forest...... 68

List of Plates: TOC-IV Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

Plate - 61B: Interviewing local people at Shahdara Reserve Forest...... 68

List of Plates: TOC-V Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project is a proposed project to be carried-out on both sides of a 46 km long stretch of River Ravi. The project will have three phases which foster mega urban development in the area. This ecological impact assessment was carried-out as part of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) to gather ecological data of the Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project. The proposed project may have impacts on the natural environment including existing fauna, flora and their wild habitats. This assessment includes the study of both aquatic and terrestrial ecology of the project area. The guiding principle for this part of the EIA report is to conserve major habitats of flora and fauna in the area. This section of the report includes identification, prediction and evaluation of existing habitats, flora and fauna. The baseline ecological study was of 40 days in which tours of the area were arranged in 2014 to assess plants and animals present in different habitats. Survey was repeated in January 2021 for verification and updating the previously gathered information. After a vigorous literature review, certain criteria were established to evaluate habitats, animal and plant species. Keeping in view international and national legislations, protection status of species found in all habitats were sorted. This helped in proposing options for the conservation of respective habitats of protected species. The project site is significant due to its biodiversity richness which was 116 species of fauna and 147 species of flora. Fauna included 24 species of insects (only butterflies, dragonflies, damselflies, and mosquitoes), 53 of birds, 13 of mammals, 9 of reptiles, 3 of amphibians and 14 of fish. There were 147 species of plants in the area. Nine bird, 2 mammal and 5 reptile species are protected year-round under Schedule three of the Punjab Wildlife Act (Amendment) 2007. All the five nationally protected reptile species are on either Appendix I, II or III of CITES. Indian cobra and Ceylon chameleon are on Appendix II of CITES. The native fish species Mully (Wallago attu) and the Indian soft-shell turtle are classified as ‘Vulnerable’ under the IUCN Red Data List of threatened species. In mammals Jungle Cat and Indian Mongoose are protected under Schedule III of Punjab Wildlife Act (Amendment 2007) while Asiatic Jackal and Indian Mongoose are on Appendix III of CITES. Indian bull frog is protected under Apendix II of CITES. None of the plant and insect species are either nationally or internationally protected. The detailed surveys assisted in mapping momentous ecological relationships of the area i.e. food chains and food webs between aquatic

0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study and terrestrial flora and fauna. The potential ecological impacts from the project’s construction and operation were identified and their possible mitigation measures are proposed for enactment of habitat and species there. It is strongly recommended from this ecological impact assessment report that river is a substantial body as a part of an aquatic biome which should be conserved. Other habitats, most importantly shoreline and forests are essential habitats for survival of many animal and plant species, if they will be destroyed or affected by the development in the area, consequently many flora and fauna species will also disappear.

0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

SECTION - 1: INTRODUCTION

This ecological impact assessment is carried-out as part of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) to gather ecological data of the Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project which may have an impact on the natural environment including existing fauna, flora and wildlife habitats. This assessment includes both aquatic and terrestrial ecology of the study area. The guiding principle for this part of the EIA report is to conserve major habitats of flora and fauna in the area. This chapter includes identification, prediction and evaluation of existing habitats of study area, flora and fauna. The baseline ecological study was of 40 days in which tours of the study area were arranged to assess plant and animals in different times of the day. The potential ecological impacts from the project’s operation and construction were identified and possible mitigation measures are proposed for enactment of habitat and species there.

1.1 OBJECTIVES OF THE ECOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT STUDY The objectives of this ecological study were to • identify important ecological resources within the study area • assess the potential impacts on these ecological resources from the development in the area • provide practical mitigation measures to combat, minimize or avoid impacts from the development within the area

1.2 METHODOLOGY TO CONDUCT ECOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT The current study was carried-out in following steps: 1. Documentation of important ecological resources, i.e surveys were conducted to gather data about habitat, flora and fauna in the region, in addition to it, available literature (published reports, research papers etc.) were searched and used in compiling ground observations. 2. Evaluation of significance of ecological resources 3. Prediction of ecological impacts on the resources due to project development 4. Provision of mitigation measures which will reduce or minimize impacts identified on ecological resources.

1.3 LEGISLATION AND GUIDELINES This Ecological impact assessment was carried-out in consideration of national and international legislations which Pakistan is abided by. The list of

Section - 1: INTRODUCTION 1 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

guidelines and conventions are as follows: International legislations: Pakistan is signatory to many international conventions and treaties • Ramsar Convention: this is intergovernmental Convention on Wetlands of International Importance; Pakistan is ratified to this convention on November 23, 1976. The main objective is to conserve world’s wetlands and their resources. • Bonn Convention: Convention on the Conservation of migratory Species of Wild Animals, June 1979 and came into force in Pakistan in 1987. The main aim of this convention is to conserve terrestrial, aquatic and avian migratory species throughout their range. • Convention on Biological Diversity CBD: Pakistan ratified to CBD in 1994; it recognizes the intrinsic Value of biological diversity and ecological, genetic, social, economic, cultural, educational, recreational, and aesthetic values of biodiversity and its components. • IUCN Red List of threatened species: The International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural resources (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species provides taxonomic, conservation status and distribution information on plants, fungi and animals that have been globally evaluated using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria. This system is designed to determine the relative risk of extinction, and the main purpose of the IUCN Red List is to catalogue and highlight those plants and animals that are facing a higher risk of global extinction (i.e. those listed as Critically Endangered, Endangered and Vulnerable). It also includes information on plants, fungi and animals that are categorized as Extinct or Extinct in the Wild; on taxa that cannot be evaluated because of insufficient information (i.e., are Data Deficient); and on plants, fungi and animals that are either close to meeting the threatened thresholds or that would be threatened were it not for an ongoing taxon-specific conservation programme (i.e., are Near Threatened). • CITES: The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora is an international agreement between governments. Its aim is to ensure that international trade in specimens of wild animals and plants does not threaten their survival. The species covered by CITES in the project area are listed in Appendix-1. National Legislation: Acts and Rules Following national laws and acts are in force in Pakistan for the protection of Environment and biological diversity. • Pakistan Forest Act 1927; Forest (Amended) act 2001

Section - 1: INTRODUCTION 2 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

• The Punjab Wildlife (Protection, Preservation, Conservation and Management) (Amendment) Act, 2007. The detail of mammals, reptiles, amphibians and birds protected throughout the year (Third Schedule) is attached in Appendix-2. • Pakistan Environmental Protection Act, 1997 • Pakistan National Conservation Strategy (1992) • Biodiversity Action Plan (2000) • National Environmental Policy (2005) • National Forest Policy (2010) • National Climate Change Policy (2012)

1.4 STUDY TEAM The details of ecological study team members is given below: Table 1-1: Ecology Study Team

Sr. Name of the Specialization Qualification No. Member Conservation 1 Dr. Faiza Sharif Biologist/Restoration Ph. D. Botany (GCU Lahore) Ecologist M. Phil. Environmental Science 2 M. Umar Hayyat EIA specialist (GCU Lahore) PhD Scholar Environmental Science (GCU Lahore) M. Phil. Botany (GCU Lahore), Dr. Rashid 3 Botanist PhD Environmental Science Mahmood (GCU Lahore) M. Phil. Environmental Science (GCU Lahore), PhD 4 Dr. Laila Shahzad Environmentalist Environmental Science (LCWU Lahore) M. Phil. Zoology (GCU 5 Dr. Sumbal Nazir Zoologist Lahore), PhD Environmental Science (GCU Lahore) BSc (Hons.) Environmental Science (GCU Lahore), MPhil. 6 Ms. Asma Mansoor Restoration Ecologist Environmental Science (GCU Lahore) BSc (Hons.) Environmental 7 Ms. Arooj Fatima Habitat Ecologist Science (GCU Lahore), MPhil.

Section - 1: INTRODUCTION 3 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

Sr. Name of the Specialization Qualification No. Member Environmental Science (GCU Lahore) BSc (Hons.) Environmental Field Surveyor/ Science (GCU Lahore), MPhil. 8 Mr. Zawar Haider Environmentalist Environmental Science (GCU Lahore) M. Phil. Zoology 9 Mr. Junaid Nadeem Wildlife Expert GC University, Lahore. M. Phil. Environmental Science 10 Mr. Shahzad Siddiq Environmentalist (GCU Lahore), PhD Scholar Environmental Science (GCU Lahore)

Section - 1: INTRODUCTION 4 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

SECTION - 2: OBSERVATIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS

2.1 SECTION-1 ECOLOGICAL BASELINE STUDY OF THE PROJECT

2.1.1 Project Study Area The area of the project is 46 km downstream on the River Ravi. The project will have three phases, will be called phase-1, phase-2 and phase 3. This riverfront urban development will take place on 46 km Long River with a stretch of 5 km on each side of the riverbank. The cited area is diverse mix of forests, agriculture, ponds, lowlands and wasteland etc. River Ravi: Total area of the River present in the project boundary is about 9,908 Acre. The banks of the River Ravi are vegetated with tree species like Dalbergia sissoo, Eucalyptus and Acacia nilotica etc. where ever riparian forests exist. Many grasses and sedges are common on the riverbank as Cynodon dactylon, Saccharum munja, S. spontaneum, Cyperus difformis and C. iria. Important fishes of river Ravi are Thaila, Mori, Rohu, Singharee and Carp etc. The river Ravi is highly polluted river of Punjab with untreated industrial and municipal waste ending up in it especially in the areas around Lahore city. The situation is further worsened by dumping of municipal solid waste on its banks. There are many settlements of katchi abadis close to the river, which add up in polluting riverbank as well as dry bed of the river. Figure 2-1 shows the locations of the ecological study sites within the Project area.

Figure 2-1: Map of the Project area showing the locations of ecological study sites

Section - 2: OBSERVATIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS 1 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

2.1.2 Steps in Ecological baseline study The ecological baseline study was carried-out in three steps: A. identifying habitats in the area, B. identifying species of fauna and their protection status C. identifying species of flora and their protection status A) Habitat survey and profile The total project area was surveyed in a team and data was gathered for the habitat information on the basis of following: Identifying types of habitats, observing existing condition in each habitat and its ecological characteristics and providing overview of other distinct characters of the site. The study area is curbed to 46 km on the both sides of riverbank. The track was determined by using aerial photographs and the GIS-based maps helped in locating side roads from the main course. There are five main roads entering from different sides of the project area that gave access to the study sites i.e. Kala Khatai road, G.T. road, Lahore ring road, Multan road and Jaranwala road. Habitats were studied starting from main roads and moving through side roads to ending up at river at most of the locations. The project area has diverse kinds of habitats ranging from forested area, agriculture fields, lowland grasslands, orchards, wastelands etc. Table 2-1 shows types of landuses in project site and their GIS based estimated areas before the development. Table 2-1: GIS based estimated existing landuses with their areas within the project site.

Landuse Area (Acre) Agriculture 77,357 Barren Land 2,851 Bund or Spurs 295 Creeks 526 Drainage 259 Dumping Site 736 Flood Plain 4,482 Forest 4,958 Graveyard 148.87 Industrail & Commercial Zone 461.9 Island 33.65 Orchards 2,600 Planned 923 Ponds 984 River 3,591 Settelments 1,868 Total 102,074

Section - 2: OBSERVATIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS 2 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

In the project area, each type of habitat, species of flora and fauna were observed and evaluated on the basis of criteria which were developed to assess ecological characteristics and their importance. Criteria for Evaluating Ecological significance and Ecological impacts of habitats, flora and fauna The ecological impact is direct or indirect effect on species or their habitat due to changes in the environment by a project. In general, an ecological significance refers to the importance of a specie/site to particular area whereas ecological impact evaluates importance of certain species or a habitat specific to the project area in comparison to other less important ones. Criteria that were used to evaluate ecological importance and impacts of development on the local ecosystems are presented as follows (Table 2-2). Table 2-2: Criteria used for evaluating a site/habitat.

Criteria Remarks A natural habitat with lesser modifications by human beings is highly valued in ecological valuation. The more natural Naturalness an area will be, the higher will be its importance in ecological evaluation. A habitat with large area shall be of more importance than Size a small area. In a habitat, more diversity of the species communities, Diversity higher will be their conservation value in ecological valuation. Rarity is a trait of habitats as well as species. The rarer Rarity habitats and species will have higher value of the site than those without rarity. Habitats those are difficult to be re-created naturally or Re-creatability artificially are usually valued higher. e.g. a natural forest Fragmentation occurs when a continuous larger habitat Fragmentation loss into smaller parts/remnants. The more fragmented habitats have the lower value and vice versa. Ecological linkage refers to a close proximity of two habitats. e.g. a wetland in a forest area. The value of a Ecological linkage habitat increases if it lies in close proximity and/or links functionally to a highly valued habitat of any type. Certain sites, through appropriate management or natural processes, may eventually develop a nature conservation Potential value interest substantially greater than that existing at present. Factors limiting such potential being achieved shall be noted.

Section - 2: OBSERVATIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS 3 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

Criteria Remarks These are areas of high importance due to the potential of Nursery/breeding regeneration and long-term survival of many organisms and ground their populations. e.g. coral reefs Old Long-standing natural or semi-natural habitats are of Age higher value. For some habitats such as woodlands, older ones are normally valued much higher than recent ones. Abundance/Richness In general sites supporting more wildlife will be rated higher of wildlife than having less/no wildlife.

In the project area, flora and fauna species were identified and their status was evaluated on the basis of following criteria as shown in Table 2-3 Table 2-3: Criteria for evaluating species found within a habitat

Criteria Remarks It refers to the Species listed under local legislation and Protection status international conventions for protection and conservation purposes. Species of wildlife shall be given special attention. Rarity is a trait of high concern in ecological evaluation. The Rarity rarer the species, the more value it has. Although exotic species either rare have low value. Distribution of species can be extensive or restricted. Species with restricted distribution (locally or regionally) will be of higher Distribution value because of its vulnerable status than those more widespread ones. In this context endemic species are of higher concern to a nation.

After documenting the baseline data and impacts of construction in the said area, ecological impact is identified as described in Table 2-4. Table 2-4: Evaluating the significance of an ecological impact.

Criteria Remarks The quality of habitat is defined to be the basic characteristics of an ecological site; as how diverse the habitat is. “The impact will be more significant if ecologically important habitats are Habitat quality affected”. The criteria used for evaluating the ecological importance of a habitat can be naturalness of the area, size, diversity, rarity etc. as shown in Table 2. Species refer to the organism of a population occupying an area. “The impact will be more significant if ecologically Species important species are affected”. The criteria used for evaluating the ecological importance of a species are shown in Table 3. The impact will be greater if larger areas of a habitat or greater Size/Abundance numbers of organisms are affected (e.g. The impact of

Section - 2: OBSERVATIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS 4 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

Criteria Remarks indiscriminate clearance of woodland is more severe than that of selective felling of trees at the same site). Permanent and irreversible impacts are usually more significant Reversibility than temporary and reversible ones. Long term impacts are usually more significant than short term Duration ones. Usually the greater the magnitude of the environmental Magnitude changes (e.g. increase in pollution loads, decrease in food supply), the more significant is the impact.

Habitat Information 1: Forests: There are seven forests in the project area with a total area of 5766 Acre out of that 789 is under Riverbed, 1235 is with Pak Army, 3697.5 is with forest Department and 44.5 is encroached upon. Out of the 3697.5 Acre area that is with the Forest Department only 1822 Acre is planted (Table 2-5, Appendices 6-8). There is 1235 Acre area of Shadanwali, Korotana and Jhok forests that is with the Pak Army that had both forest stands and agroforestry. The exact estimation of the planted cover of these forests under possession of both organizations was difficult, so GIS based estimation was used for this purpose (

Figure 2-2). The results showed that total planted forest cover is upto 4958 Acre, but the field visits showed that in many areas tree density was very low such as agroforestry areas of Dhana-Bhaini and Korotana Forests. The tree species planted in these forests comprise mainly of Eucalyptus, Sheesham, Kikar, Willow, Simbal and Mulberry etc. Table 2-5: Details of the forest areas within the project boundary.

Section - 2: OBSERVATIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS 5 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

Area under Forest Department

(Acre)

(Acre)

(Acre)

Legal Forest Name

Status type

Planted

Total blank Total

Gross Area Gross

plantableblank

Encroached(Acre)

-

Plantableblank

UnderRiverbed

UnderPak Army

un

after development (Acre) development after Estimated area Estimated under River

Section Anno Bhatti Riverian 272 260 12 0 0 - - 12 117.43 38 Reserved Shahdara Riverian 1615 860 755 20 732 - 732 2.5 21.33 Un- Kamran Riverian 21 15 6 0 6 - 6 - 0 classed Bara Dari Reserved Jhok* Riverian 3071 672 916 927 42 590 - 3 0 Reserved Shadanwali* Riverian 380 - - - - 326 - 24 3.31 Reserved Korotana* Riverian 359 - - - - 319 40 0 85.17 Un- Katar Bund Riverian 48 15 19 19 0 - 11 3 27.39 classed Total 5766 1822 1708 966 780 1235 789 44.5 254.63

(Source: Punjab Forest Department as of January 2021), *1235 Acre area of these forests is undercontrol of Pak Army and the planted area reported here is only that is under Forest Department.

Section - 2: OBSERVATIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS 6 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

Figure 2-2: GIS based estimation of the forest areas in the project 1) Anno Bhatii Forest: The total area of this forest is 272 Acre and was approached by the team through Lahore Ring Road (Appendix 6). The planted area of this forest is 260 Acre according to the report of Punjab Forest Department as of July 2020 (Table 6). In 2014 visit it was found that 60 Acre area of the forest was planted with Eucalyptus in March 2013 and March 2014 (30 Acre each year). Other than Eucalyptus few trees of Acacia nilotica, A. modesta, and Dalbergia sissoo were found there and the forest was in much degraded state. But in the current survey in January 2021 it was found that its 150 Acre area was planted in 2016-17, and 25-Acre area in 2017-18 with Eucalyptus, Kikar, Sheesham, Melia azedarach (Bakain), Kachnar, Morus alba (Toot), Neem and Conocarpus spp. Among the invasive species Prosopis juliflora, Paper mulberry and Parthenium hysterophorous were present there. Herbaceous flora mostly comprised of Croton sparsiflorus, Calotropis procera and Cynodon dactylon. 2) Shahdara Reserve Forest: The total area of this forest is 1615 Acre and was approached by the team through Lahore Ring Road (Appendix 7). This is second largest forest by area in the study site. This forest had a very low planted area and was in a much-degraded state in 2014, as its soil has also been excavated and removed from many places. Total planted area of this forest was only 1.84 Acre in 2014. Almost all of the Eucalyptus trees seem to be regenerating from cut stumps. Other than Eucalyptus, Ziziphus nummularia, C. procera, Cynodon dactylon Desmostachya bipinnata, Sonchus asper and Cyprus were common wild species. Site was heavily invaded by Prosopis glandulosa. Some compartments of this forest are in the river but still it had a very large area that was in need of rehabilitation in 2014. January 2021 visit revealed that the total planted area of this forest is now 860 Acre out of that 600 Acre in Karol were planted in 2014-15 with Eucalyptus camaldulensis, Morus alba, Morus nigra, Shireen, Simbal, Popular, Jaman, Conocarpus and Jacaranda etc. and 120 Acre was planted in 2015-16 with Eucalyptus spp. Invasive species here included P. hysterophorus and Prosopis juliflora. 3) Jhok Forest: This is the largest forest in the study area and spreads on both sides of the river. The part of it on the right side of the river while travelling downstream is known as Dhana Bhaini forest and on the left bank is known as

Section - 2: OBSERVATIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS 7 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

Chung Mohlanwal forest named after the adjacent towns (Appendix 8). The total area of this forest is 3071 Acre out of that 672 Acre is planted as per Forest Department. Its 590 Acre is under Pak Army control in Dhana-Bhaini side of the forest that also had forest cover that is not included in the above estimate. Some area of this forest is also under the river but still it has 927 Acre area that can be rehabilitated. Dhana Bhaini forest was approached by the team through Lahore- Jaranwala road. Some part of it is under army control and is under agroforestry where seasonal vegetables, corn and sorghum crops were observed. This forest is under threat because of agroforestry as agricultural activities like pesticide sprays, frequent irrigation and fertilizer use can have detrimental effects on soil properties as well as on local fauna and flora. January 2021 visit revealed more area to be under agriculture and young guava plantations were also observed. Chung Mohlanwal Forest was approached by the team through Multan road. This forest is larger in size as compared to Dhana Bhaini. This forest was stressed by grazing of large number of livestock kept by the local community. Forest is planted with Eucalyptus camaldulensis, D. sissoo, Acacia nilotica and Salix tetrasperma etc. Both these forests were in more intact state as compared to the others with plantations that were old plus tree stands that were less than 10 years old. The forest was rich in biodiversity. Invasion of Paper mulberry (especially in Dhana Bhaini), Lantana camara, P. hysterophorus and mesquite was found here. 4) Shadanwali Forest: This forest is scattered in small patches known as Shadanwali 1, 2, 3 and 4 (Appendix 8). The forest was approached by the team through Lahore-Jaranwala road. Most area of this forest in compartments 2, 3 and 4 is under Army control while compartment 1 (24 Acre) is under encroachment. As per Forest Department information no forest cover is shown here because 326 Acre is with Army, but site visit and data collected from the site showed that almost 340 Acre area of this forest (Shadanwali 2, 3 and 4) is planted. Most common trees there are Sheesham, Eucalyptus, Simbal, Toot and Bakain. 5) Korotana Reserve Forest: The total area of this forest is 359 Acre and was approached by the team through Lahore-Jaranwala road (Appendix 8). Most of this forest is under Army control (319 Acre) is with the Army and 40 Acre is in Riverbed . This forest is predominantly planted with Eucalyptus and Sheesham. 6) Katar Bund Forest: This forest is divided into Katar Bund North and South and is approachable from Multan Road. This is a very small patch of 48 Acre out of that 19 Acre is Katar Bund North and 29 Acre is Katar Bund South (Appendix 8). Only 15 Acre area of Katar Bund is planted with Eucalyptus, 11 Acre is under River and 3 Acre is encroached upon.

Section - 2: OBSERVATIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS 8 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

7) Targhar (Kamran Bara Dari): This is an ‘un-classed’ forest with an area of 21 Acres. The forest is mainly planted with Eucalyptus, Sheesham, Arjun and Willow etc. The whole of the area of this forest will be protected in the new development by creating an island. GIS based estimate has shown that in the new development almost 117 Acre area of Anno Bhatti, 85 of Korotana, 27 of Katar Band North, 21 of Shahdra and 3.31 of Shadanwali 4 forests will be lost because of river channelization and widening, while Jhok, Kamran Bara Dari forests will remain unaffected

Figure 2-3: GIS based estimation of the forest areas affected by channel widening of River Ravi after development. The forests were surveyed by the team to identify plant species. Quadrats of 10 m × 10 m were marked in the forests and the number of herbs, shrubs and trees present in it were recorded (Table 2-6 and Plates 4-23). The samples of unidentified species were collected and were identified in the laboratory using available literature and electronic databases.

Section - 2: OBSERVATIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS 9 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

Table 2-6: Evaluation of forests in the Project area

Criteria Remarks The forests in the project area are seminatural, as they contain planted species that are not native to Pakistan like Eucalyptus spp. along with native species like D. sissoo and A. nilotica etc. These forests are providing habitat to many native species of Naturalness fauna and flora. Agroforestry was introduced in some areas of the Jhok and Korotana forests. Invasion of Prosopis juliflora, Prosopis glandulosa, Lantana camara, Broussonetia and Parthenium has been observed in different forests. There are seven forests in the project area of different sizes Size ranging from 48-3071 Acre. Diversity Diversity of species and habitat types present in the forests is high. Habitat is rare because of a river and forest combination and Rarity largescale conversion of land into agriculture. Few species are vulnerable according to their conservation status in the region. Such forests are not easily re-creatable and it takes long time for Re-creatability the trees to grow and the diverse species assemblages to develop from recolonization and establishment. The forests are not connected and most of them are fragmented Fragmentation and isolated. There is a need to develop corridors and create buffers around them. They had good ecological linkages as they are close to Ecological linkage agriculture fields, river and there are temporary ponds created in the low-lying areas after rains or floods. Potential value They have very high conservation value. Nursery/breeding Such forests provide important nursery or breeding ground to ground many mammals, birds and reptiles. These forests are old but there are mix of old and comparatively young trees in the forests as plants are added when so ever Age budget is available. Some of the trees are lost after floods or harvested by the forest department each year. These forests have high species richness especially of plants, birds Abundance/Richness and invertebrates. Diversity of species in the forests is high with 94 of wildlife plant species and 67 species of birds, reptiles, mammals and amphibians.

2: Low-lying Grasslands: There are few low-lying grassland areas within the study area. The lowland areas are inundated by the river when water level is high after monsoon and during the dry season agriculture is practiced on some parts of them. One such large grassland is situated adjacent to Dhanna Bhaini forest. This area was dominated by Cynodon dactylon and other herbs

Section - 2: OBSERVATIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS 10 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

and grasses (Plates 24-26A). Common species were Croton sparsiflorus, Polygonum plebejum and Saccharum spontaneum. Some invasion of Parthenium hysterophorus was also observed. Many ephemeral pools appear during rainy season that add up to their wildlife and habitat diversity. These areas are used by the people for livestock grazing. Besides flora, there were bird species like acridoeheres tristis, hoplopterus indicos, and easer domesticus etc. Other animal species included Hystrix indica, and Golunda elliota. Table 2-7: Evaluation of low-lying grassland in the Project area

Criteria Remarks The low-lying grasslands in the area are natural. But they suffer Naturalness from disturbances like agricultural activity and grazing. Generally, they are not one of the major habitat types in the area. They are productive areas because seasonal flooding Size adds nutrients and sediments making them suitable for agriculture. Because of their smaller size diversity of species and habitats Diversity was low as compared to the forests. Because of its competitive agricultural use this is a rare Rarity habitat type within the study area. Because of the presence of grasses, it can be comparatively Re-creatability easily recreated. These grasslands are subjected to fragmentation from the Fragmentation forest areas. Habitat value is high because of linkages with agricultural Ecological linkage fields, river and ponds. Due to human disturbance in the form of cattle grazing and agriculture this area is under threat. Economic benefits can Potential value be generated from these areas because of the presence of species like Saccharum spontaneum and S. munja that can be exploited on sustainable basis. They usually have comparatively low value in context of Nursery/breeding breeding grounds for other organisms, but they act as a ground refuge for wildlife. Their age is varied from few years to several years as these Age are recreated repeatedly due to natural and anthropogenic disturbances. Abundance/Richness of Moderate with 10 plant species (excluding pond) and 52 wildlife species of birds, reptiles, mammals and amphibians.

Section - 2: OBSERVATIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS 11 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

3: Agriculture and Roadside: Most of the project area is agricultural land in the project boundary which is almost 75.78% of the land covering the area of 77,357 Acre. These lands have an extensive network of side roads and because of their closeness to the roads they are kept in a single habitat type. The most common crops grown over there were rice, Sorghum bicolor and corn while seasonal vegetables were also grown there (Plates 26B-28A). There were many species of both native and exotic trees like Acacia nilotica, Eucalyptus camaldulensis, Melia azedarach and D. sissoo. Shrubs like Calotropis procera, Ricinus communis, herbs and grasses like Amaranthus viridis, Conyza ambigua, Paspalum distichum, Echinochloa colonum, Cynodon dactylon, sedges like Cyperus iria and Cyperus rotundus. Among invasive species Prosopis juliflora and Parthenium hysterophorus were more common. The agriculture land is valuable for birds like acridoeheres tristis, hoplopterus indicos etc. Other animal species are felis chaus, Hystrix indica, and Golunda elliota etc. Table 2-8: Evaluation of Agricultural fields in the Project area

Criteria Remarks All agricultural fields are highly manipulated and are artificial Naturalness ecosystems created by humans. Size Size of this type of habitat within the project area is very large. Plant diversity was very high because of the larger area and a lot of planted species by humans. Trees are planted on the Diversity margins of the fields to act as a wind breaks or for shade. Fruit trees like mango and guava were also there. Moreover, sufficient water and nutrients attract many weeds. Most of this area is under agriculture before the project but will Rarity be permanently lost and highly reduced after the project. This habitat can be recreated where soil conditions are good, Re-creatability and water is available. These fields are fragmented due to roads and human Fragmentation settlements. Agricultural land is protected by farmers who are local people. Ecological linkage They protect their fields from unwanted disturbance but many animals from adjacent forests come for forage. They have high economic value. The area along Kalakhatai road is famous for producing Basmati rice that is highly priced in Potential value the International market. Important for food production and security. These lands are in use by the nesting birds for foraging; many Nursery/breeding mammals, invertebrates, reptiles and amphibians use these as ground nursery/breeding grounds

Section - 2: OBSERVATIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS 12 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

Criteria Remarks Agriculture in this area is practiced for a long time especially the Age extension of canal irrigation system led to the largescale clearance of natural vegetation for agricultural purposes. Abundance/Richness High, with 98 plant species and 57 species of birds, reptiles, of wildlife mammals and amphibians.

4: Orchards: There are many privately owned orchards present in the project area with a total area of about 2600 Acre. According to the master plan of the project, most of these orchards will be retained as such in the new development in the eco-village of Phase 3 and the farmhouses of Phase 1. These orchards were of guava, lychee, strawberry and only a few of mango (Plate 28). Due to proximity of river and fertile soil besides growing crops, orchard plantation is common practice for commercial purposes. These orchards were also the habitat of many birds, mammals and plant species. Bird species were Acridotheres ginginianu, Dicrurus macrocersus vieillot, Passer domesticus, and Corvus splendens. And the species of mammals were Hystrix indica, Funambulus pennantii, Golunda elliota and Herpestes edwardsi. Some grasses and herbs were also present there. Table 2-9: Evaluation of orchards in the Project area

Criteria Remarks Naturalness All orchards are artificially created. Size The size of this habitat type is 2.55% of the total project area. Diversity Orchards had moderate diversity of flora and fauna. This habitat type is not very common in the area and will be Rarity further reduced after development. Orchards can be recreated but will take time for the plants Re-creatability to grow and start producing fruits. Fragmentation These are fragmented and scattered. Moderate due to proximity of agricultural fields and at some Ecological linkage places to the forests. Potential value High economic value plus important for food production. Their value as breeding grounds is comparatively low. Nursery/breeding Orchards are owned by the local people who protect them ground from unwanted entrance of animals. Age Form recent to more than a decade old Abundance/Richness of Moderate abundance, with 49 plant species and 45 species wildlife of birds, reptiles, mammals and amphibians.

5: Ponds: The area has wastewater ponds around towns and villages. The area of ponds is 984 Acres. There will be no wastewater ponds after the development. Fresh water ponds are seasonal in the area and are created

Section - 2: OBSERVATIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS 13 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

due to collection of water in depressions after the rainy season (Plates 29-31). After the development freshwater ponds will be created in Phase 3. Following bird species were observed around the ponds Egretta intermedia, Streptopelia tranquebarica, Acridotheres tristis, Dicrurus macrocersus vieillot, Egretta garzetta, Corvus splendens. One Amphibian species Euphlyctis cyanophlyctis was common there. Some aquatic plants were also there. Table 2-10: Evaluation of ponds in the Project area.

Criteria Remarks Mostly ponds were wastewater ponds for sewage disposal Naturalness around settlements. Fresh water ponds in the forests and grasslands and other areas were natural. Overall size of both these types of ponds was small (< 1%) in Size the area. Diversity Diversity of these ponds were moderate Rarity Ponds were rare in the project area. Re-creatability These can be re-created artificially. Fragmentation Mostly ponds are fragmented. Good ecological linkage is due to their presence in forests or Ecological linkage grasslands. Removal of wastewater ponds will increase the environmental and aesthetic values of the site. Recreation of Potential value Freshwater Ponds in the area will be beneficial in increasing both species and habitat diversity. They will have their potential value for fishing and aquaculture as well. Nursery/breeding These are important breeding grounds for many insects that ground use these ponds as their nursery. Most of the ponds around settlements are old. Freshwater Age ponds are mostly seasonal. Abundance of plant and animal species was low. There were Abundance/Richness of 5 macrophyte species and 19 species of birds, reptiles, wildlife mammals and amphibians. Diversity of algae and zooplanktons was high in the freshwater ponds.

6: River: River Ravi is an old river of Province Punjab, which is badly polluted close to city Lahore (Plates 32-40). There are many fish species of high food and economic value known to this river. Water quality of River is poor owing to the discharge of industrial effluents and sewage water. Tree species on riverbanks in the area of the forests were mostly Eucalyptus canaldulensis, Acacia nilotica and Dalbergia sissoo. The aquatic species Eichhornia crassipes and Pistia stratiotes were also seen on the water surface. Birds on the embankments were mainly Egretta intermedia, Haplopterus indicus, Acridotheres ginginianus, Columbia livia. These riverbanks are important for

Section - 2: OBSERVATIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS 14 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

many migratory birds for example, Anas crecca, Egretta garzetta and Gallinago Gallinago. Fishing activities were observed both upstream and downstream of Lahore city. Table 2-11: Evaluation of River in the Project area

Criteria Remarks The River Ravi is natural but will undergone channelization. Also, it is badly degraded by the solid waste generated by Naturalness city inhabitants of Lahore, due to domestic sewage and industrial discharge into main channel of river. The size of the River channel will increase after the project Size due to its widening. Diversity Moderate Punjab is named due to five rivers in the province, Ravi is very important because all the riparian forests and habitats floodplain ecosystem services are dependent on it. Its Rarity importance has increased because of decreased water discharge from India. By area it is a rare habitat as it only covers < 10% of the total area. It can be re-created but recreation of a river is very difficult Re-creatability may take more than 15 years to take its natural flow. Fragmentation It is a continuous river. It provides important ecological corridor for the movement of fish and other aquatic life. Moreover, it is also important for Ecological linkage the movement of migratory birds. It is important for the establishment of riparian vegetation. Seasonal flooding creates ponds and nurtures other habitat types. The river is a lifeline to support all the goods and services provided by the surrounding landscape whether in the form of agriculture or forests. Due to the current degraded and Potential value polluted condition of the river provision of these goods and services is highly affected. There is a need to improve its water quality by treating the sewage for the enhancement of its ecological, economic and aesthetic values. Nursery/breeding This river provides breeding ground to many fish, reptile, ground amphibian and invertebrate species. Age It is very old. Abundance/Richness of Moderate as compared to forests wildlife

7: Island: There are islands in the study area that are created when water level in the river goes down, while they inundate when water level rises (Plates 41-43 A). One of the islands is very famous historically because of the

Section - 2: OBSERVATIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS 15 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

presence of Kamran Bara Dari that was built in 1540 (Plates 43B-44). Other one is in the area of the Jhok reserve forest where wheat is cultivated in winter when river water levels are low. No crop is cultivated in summer because of the risk of flood damage so at that time they are converted into grasslands. Shrubs found there were Calotropis procera, herbs are Eclipta alba, Parthenium hysterophorus, Phyla nodiflora, Polygonum plebejum, grasses are Cynodon dactylon, Dactyloctenium scindicum, Echinochloa colonum, Saccharum spontaneum, sedges are Cyperus rotundus. Out of these species, there are three invasive species. Parthenium hysterophorus, Lantana and Prosopis juliflora are invasive. Table 2-12: Evaluation of Islands in the Project area

Criteria Remarks There is one permanent island in the area while three Naturalness more will be created under new development. The existing one is having old history with the river. Currently size of this habitat is very small (33.65 Acre) but Size will be increased after the development. Moderate diversity, much river shoreline diversity exists in Diversity this part of land. Rare as area under them before and after the Rarity development will be comparatively small. This can be recreated after diverting the river channel. Re-creatability But the cost for doing so will be higher. Fragmented and isolated from other land because of Fragmentation river. Important ecological linkages with interference of land Ecological linkage and water. High potential value, important for migratory birds resting Potential value and foraging sites. Nursery/breeding Vital breeding ground as a shoreline habitat. ground Age Old history of seasonal creation Abundance/Richness of Moderate wildlife

8: Wasteland: There were wastelands in the area, which were with very little vegetation cover. Sand dredging was carried out at one of such sites near the river (Plate 45). The total area of such barren lands is currently 2851 Acre in the project. After the development there will be no wasteland. They maybe because of human pressures that resulted in land degradation and desertification. Salt crust was seen on the surface of soil at a couple of places indicating land salinization.

Section - 2: OBSERVATIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS 16 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

Table 2-13: Evaluation of wastelands in the Project area

Criteria Remarks Naturally it used to have vegetation cover but due to human pressure and their activities, now it is converted Naturalness into wastelands. Artificial. Varies from small to large. Overall area of this landuse is Size currently 2.79%. Diversity Diversity of such habitats is low. Not very common, but they should be reclaimed to Rarity productive uses. This can be recreated easily. But rather than recreating Re-creatability this site, it should be replanted or used in a development perspective. Fragmentation These are in the form of patches in the productive land. They were present close to agriculture fields. Some also Ecological linkage had temporary freshwater ponds in it. Such lands have low potential value with respect to Potential value biological diversity. Their economic value is very low but can be increased after rehabilitation and reclamation. Nursery/breeding Their value as a nursery or breeding ground for species is ground low. Age Recent to old Abundance/Richness Low, with 26 plant and 33 species of mammals, birds, of wildlife reptiles and amphibians.

B) Flora Information 1- Survey for the Floral Inventory of the project area Plants species in the study area were surveyed by the team using all the major roads travelling upstream and downstream of Lahore at both sides of river Ravi first in 2014 and then repeated in January 2021. Plant species on the main and side roads, orchards, grasslands and agricultural fields were carried out using 100 m long transect walks. Quadrats of 10 m × 10 m were marked in the forests and the number of herbs, shrubs and trees present in it were recorded (Table 7 and Plates 4-23). Long walks along the bank of the river at various locations helped in describing shoreline vegetation. Islands were reached through boats. Unknown plants species were collected for the purpose of identification which were then identified using Floras of Lahore, Punjab and Pakistan. Help from eflora of Pakistan (http://www.efloras.org/flora_page.aspx?flora_id=5), IUCN’s red list (https://www.iucnredlist.org/) and global invasive species database (http://www.iucngisd.org/gisd/) websites was also taken. Number and types

Section - 2: OBSERVATIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS 17 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

of trees, shrubs, and herbs were recorded during the surveys and their IUCN status was noted afterwards. Few common trees were eucalyptus, seesham, kikar, beri, toot, dherak, phulai etc. Invasive species included Lantan camara, Prosopis juliflora and Parthenium in terrestrial ecosystems while Pistia and Eichhornia crassipes were invasive species of aquatic ecosystems. List of aquatic plant species present in river or pond is given in Table 2-14 while list of plants from all other habitats is given in Table 2-15. Table 2-14: List of plant species collected from ponds and river in the project area.

Habitat Abundanc IUCN AQUATIC PLANTS COMMON NAMES s e class STATUS R P ANGIOSPERMS Not Eichhornia crassipes* Water Hyacinth + + A Evaluated Common Least Lemna minor - + B Duckweed Concern Tropical Duck- Least Pistia stratiotes* + + B Weed Concern Not Potamogeton sp. Pondweed - + D Evaluated Lesser indian reed Not Typha angustata - + C mace Evaluated

PTERIDOPHYTES Not Marsilea villosa Villous Waterclover - + B Evaluated BRYOPHYTE Not Marchantia sp. Liverwort + - D Evaluated "+" = Present, "-" = Absent, * = Invasive, R= River, P = Pond, A = Very Common, B = Common & Widespread, C = Less Common, D = Rare, E = Very Rare

Section - 2: OBSERVATIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS 18 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

Table 2-15: List of plant species collected from different habitats in the project area.

HABITATS ABUNDAN IUCN SCIENTIFIC NAMES COMMON NAMES F A + R R. B. O L W K I CE CLASS STATUS TREES Not Acacia nilotica Egyptian Thorn + + - + - - + - A Evaluated Not Albizia lebbeck Rain Tree + + - - - - + - C Evaluated Not Albizia procera Tall Albizia ------+ - E Evaluated Least Alstonia scholaris White Cheesewood - - + - - - + - D Concern Not Azadirachta indica Neem Tree + - - - - - + - C Evaluated Not Bombax ceiba Cotton Tree + + + - - - + - C Evaluated Broussonetia Not Paper Mulberry + + + - - - - - D papyrifera* Evaluated Conocarpus spp Mangrove tree + + - - - - + - D - Not Cordia myxa Assyrian Plum + + ------D Evaluated Cupressus Not Italian Cypress ------+ - E sempervirens Evaluated Not Dalbergia sissoo Sissoo Tree + + + + - - + - A Evaluated Ehretia serrata Koda Tree + ------E Not

Section - 2: OBSERVATIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS 19 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

HABITATS ABUNDAN IUCN SCIENTIFIC NAMES COMMON NAMES F A + R R. B. O L W K I CE CLASS STATUS Evaluated Not Erythrina suberosa Corky Coral Tree + ------E Evaluated Eucalyptus Not Red Gum + + + + - - - - B camaldulensis Evaluated Not Eucalyptus citriodora Spotted Gum + - - - - - + - D Evaluated Not Eucalyptus largiflorens Flooded Gum + - - - - - + - D Evaluated Not Ficus benghalensis Banyan Fig - + - - - - + - C Evaluated Least Ficus carica Fig + + - + - - - - C Concern Not Ficus infectoria White Fig - - + + - - - - D Evaluated Not Ficus racemosa Cluster Fig ------+ - E Evaluated Not Ficus religiosa Peepul Tree + + + + - - + - C Evaluated Data Mangifera indica Mango - + - - - - + - D Deficient Not Melia azedarach China Berry + + + + - - + - B Evaluated Mimusops elengi Spanish Cherry ------+ - E Not

Section - 2: OBSERVATIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS 20 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

HABITATS ABUNDAN IUCN SCIENTIFIC NAMES COMMON NAMES F A + R R. B. O L W K I CE CLASS STATUS Evaluated Not Morus alba White Mulberry + + + + - - + - B Evaluated Not Morus nigra Black Mulberry - + ------E Evaluated Not Musa paradisiaca Banana - + ------E Evaluated Least Nerium oleander Oleander - + - - - - + - E Concern Not Parkinsonia aculeate Cambron + + + - - - - - C Evaluated Not Phoenix dactylifera Date Palm + - + - - - + - C Evaluated Not Platanus orientalis Chinar ------+ - E Evaluated Least Pongamia pinnata Indian Beech + + + - - - + - C Concern Not Polyalthia longifolia Ashok ------+ - E Evaluated Not Populus euphratica Salt Poplar - + - + - - - - D Evaluated Not Prosopis cineraria Jand ------+ - E Evaluated Prosopis juliflora* Mesquite + + + + - - + - B Not

Section - 2: OBSERVATIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS 21 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

HABITATS ABUNDAN IUCN SCIENTIFIC NAMES COMMON NAMES F A + R R. B. O L W K I CE CLASS STATUS Evaluated Not Psidium guajava Guava + + - + - - - - C Evaluated Not Salix tetrasperma Indian Willow + ------D Evaluated Not Syzygium cumini Black Plum - + - + - - + - C Evaluated Not Tamarix aphylla Athel Pine + ------D Evaluated Not Terminalia arjuna Arjun Tree + - - - - - + - D Evaluated Least Ziziphus jujuba Chinese Date + + + - - - - - C Concern Not Ziziphus nummularia Jujube + + + - - - - - C Evaluated SHRUBS Not Abutilon bidentatum Velvetleaf - + ------E Evaluated Abutilon hybridum Chinese Bellflower + + - - + - - - C - Not Acacia farnesiana Mimosa Bush - + ------E Evaluated Not Atriplex crassifolia Saltbush - + ------E Evaluated Bougainvillea Bougainvillea ------+ - E Not

Section - 2: OBSERVATIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS 22 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

HABITATS ABUNDAN IUCN SCIENTIFIC NAMES COMMON NAMES F A + R R. B. O L W K I CE CLASS STATUS spectabilis wild Evaluated Not Calotropis procera Rubber bush/ Aak + + + + - - + - B Evaluated Not Hibiscus rosa sinensis Shoe Flower ------+ - E Evaluated Not Ipomoea carnea Bush Morning Glory + + + - + - - + C Evaluated Not Jasminum officinale Jasminum ------+ - E Evaluated Not Lantana camara* Big Sage + - + - - - + - C Evaluated Not Murraya exotica Orange Jasmine ------+ - E Evaluated Not Ricinus communis Castor Oil Plant + + - - - - + - C Evaluated Not Rosa indica Rose Bed ------+ - E Evaluated Not Sida cordifolia Country Mallow + ------E Evaluated Not Tamarix dioca Salt Cedar - + + - - - - + D Evaluated Not Withania somnifera Indian Ginseng + + + + - - - - C Evaluated HERBS

Section - 2: OBSERVATIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS 23 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

HABITATS ABUNDAN IUCN SCIENTIFIC NAMES COMMON NAMES F A + R R. B. O L W K I CE CLASS STATUS Not Agave Americana Century Plant + ------E Evaluated Not Achyranthes aspera Prickly Chaff Flower + + - + - - - - C Evaluated Not Alhagi maurorum Camelthorn + - + + - + - - C Evaluated Least Alternanthera sessilis Sessile Joyweed + + + - - - - - C Concern Not Amaranthus viridis Slender Amaranth + + - + - - - - B Evaluated Least Ammannia baccifera. Blistering Ammania - + ------E Concern Not Boerhavia diffusa Red Spiderling + + + - - - - - C Evaluated Not Cannabis sativa Marihuana + + - - - - - + C Evaluated Tropical Sensitive Least Cassia absus + + ------D Pea Concern Chenopodium Not Mexican Tea + + - - - - - + C ambrosioides Evaluated Not Chenopodium album Lambsquarters + + + - - - - - B Evaluated Least Chrozophora tinctoria Dyer's Litmus - + ------E Concern Citrullus lanatus Watermelon + + + + - - - + D Not

Section - 2: OBSERVATIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS 24 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

HABITATS ABUNDAN IUCN SCIENTIFIC NAMES COMMON NAMES F A + R R. B. O L W K I CE CLASS STATUS Evaluated Not Convolvulus arvensis Field Bindweed + + - + - - - - C Evaluated Not Conyza ambigua Rough Conyza + + + + - + - - B Evaluated Not Conyza Canadensis Horseweed + - - - - + - - D Evaluated Not Croton sparsiflorus Ban Tulasi + + + - + + - - B Evaluated Not Croton tiglium Purging Croton - - - - - + - - E Evaluated Not Digera muricata False Amaranth + + + + - - - - C Evaluated Not Datura metel Devil's Trumpet ------+ - E Evaluated Data Eclipta alba Eclipte Blanche + + + + - + - + B Deficient Not Euphorbia hirta Asthma Weed + + - + - - - - C Evaluated Not Euphorbia prostrata Prostrate Sandmat + + + + - + - - B Evaluated Not Launaea procumbens Country Dandelion + + + - + - - - C Evaluated Leptochloa panacea Mucronate + + - + - + - - C Least

Section - 2: OBSERVATIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS 25 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

HABITATS ABUNDAN IUCN SCIENTIFIC NAMES COMMON NAMES F A + R R. B. O L W K I CE CLASS STATUS Sprangletop Concern Malvastrum Not False Mallow + + - + - - - - C coromandelianum Evaluated Nicotiana Not Tex-Mex Tobacco - + + - - - - - E plumbaginifolia Evaluated Not Oxalis corniculata Sleeping Beauty + + + + - + - - B Evaluated Oxystelma Least Rosy Milkweed Vine + - - - - + - - D esculentum Concern Parthenium Not Whitetop Weed + + + - + + - + B hysterophorus* Evaluated Turkey Tangle Least Phyla nodiflora + + + + - - - + B Frogfruit Concern Not Physalis divaricate Ground Cherry - + ------E Evaluated Least Polygonum persicaria Redshank + + + + - - - - C Concern Not Polygonum plebejum Small Knotweed + + - - + + - + B Evaluated Not Portulaca oleracea Little Hogweed + ------E Evaluated Not Solanum nigrum Black Nightshade + + + - - - - - C Evaluated Solanum Thai Eggplant + - - - - + - - D Not

Section - 2: OBSERVATIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS 26 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

HABITATS ABUNDAN IUCN SCIENTIFIC NAMES COMMON NAMES F A + R R. B. O L W K I CE CLASS STATUS xanthocarpum Evaluated Not Sonchus asper Spiny Milk Thistle + + - - - + - - C Evaluated Least Sphenoclea zeylanica Gooseweed - + ------E Concern Not Suaeda fruticosa Shrubby Seablite + - - - - + - - E Evaluated Trianthema Not Wild Water Melon + + + + - - - - C portulacastrum Evaluated Not Tribulus terrestris Bullhead - + ------E Evaluated Not Verbena officinalis Herb Of The Cross + ------E Evaluated Not Xanthium strumarium Cocklebur + + - + - - - - B Evaluated GRASSES Not Acrachne racemosa Goosegrass - + - - - - - E Evaluated Bothriochloa Not Silver Beardgrass - + + - - - - - D laguroides Evaluated Least Brachiaria ramose Browntop Millet + - + - - - - - D Concern Creeping Panic Least Brachiaria reptans + + + + - - - - C Grass Concern

Section - 2: OBSERVATIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS 27 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

HABITATS ABUNDAN IUCN SCIENTIFIC NAMES COMMON NAMES F A + R R. B. O L W K I CE CLASS STATUS Not Cenchrus ciliaris Buffel Grass + + ------D Evaluated Not Cenchrus setigerus Birdwood Grass + + - + - - - - C Evaluated Cenchrus Not Cloncurry + ------E pennisetiformis Evaluated Not Cynodon dactylon Bermuda Grass + + + + + + - + A Evaluated Dactyloctenium Egyptian Crowfoot Not - + ------D aegyptium Grass Evaluated Dactyloctenium Not Crowfoot Grass - + + + - - - + B scindicum Evaluated Desmostachya Least Halfa Grass + + + + - + - - B bipinnata Concern Not Digitaria ciliaris Southern Crabgrass - + + + - - - - C Evaluated Dichanthium Not Marvel Grass + - - + - - - - D annulatum Evaluated Echinochloa colonum Jungle Rice + + + + - - - + B - Least Echinochloa crusgalli Barnyardgrass - + - + - + - - C Concern Least Eleusine indica Wiregrass - + ------E Concern Not Eragrostis cilianensis Candy Grass - + ------E Evaluated

Section - 2: OBSERVATIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS 28 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

HABITATS ABUNDAN IUCN SCIENTIFIC NAMES COMMON NAMES F A + R R. B. O L W K I CE CLASS STATUS Least Eriochloa procera Spring Grass + + ------D Concern Hemarthria Least Whip Grass + + + + - - - - C compressa Concern Not Imperata cylindrical Blady Grass + + - + - - - - C Evaluated Not Panicum antidotale Blue Panicgrass - + ------E Evaluated Yellow Watercrown Least Paspalidium flavidum. + ------E Grass Concern Not Paspalum distichum Gingergrass + + - + - + - - B Evaluated Not Perotis hordeiformis Bottle-brush grass - - - - - + - - E Evaluated Least Phragmites karka Tall Reed + ------E Concern Not Saccharum munja Plume Grass + + + - - + - - B Evaluated Least Saccharum ravennae Canne D'italie + + - + - - - - C Concern Saccharum Least Wild Cane + + + + + + - + B spontaneum Concern Not Setaria glauca Yellow Foxtail + + ------D Evaluated Setaria pumila Pigeon Grass + + + + - - - - C Not

Section - 2: OBSERVATIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS 29 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

HABITATS ABUNDAN IUCN SCIENTIFIC NAMES COMMON NAMES F A + R R. B. O L W K I CE CLASS STATUS Evaluated Not Sorghum halepense Johnson Grass + + - + - - - - C Evaluated Sporobolus Madagascar Not - + - - - + - - D coromandelianus Dropseed Evaluated SEDGES Not Carex fedia ness. Carex - + + - + + - - C Evaluated Small flower Least Cyperus difformis - + ------E Umbrella Sedge Concern Least Cyperus iria Rice Flat Sedge + + + + - + - - B Concern Least Cyperus rotundus Nut-Grass + + + + - - - + B Concern Least Fimbristylis dichotoma Two Rowed Rush + - - - - + - - D Concern Least Pycreus flavidus - - + - - + - - - E Concern "+" = Present, "-" = Absent, * = Invasive, F = Forest, A + R = Agriculture + Roadside, R. B. = River Bank, R= River, O = Orchard, P = Pond, L = Lowland, W = Wasteland, K = Kamran Bara dari, I = Island ,AC= Abundance class, A = Very Common, B = Common & Widespread, C = Less Common, D = Rare, E = Very Rare

Section - 2: OBSERVATIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS 30 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

In addition to trees, shrubs and herbs found in different habitats, samples of water were collected from irrigation channels, rice paddies, ponds and river and were observed under compound microscope for identification of algae. Following is the list of algae found in ponds and river during study period. Table 17: List of algae found in irrigation channels, rice paddies, river and ponds during the study period.

Species Phylum Spirogyra Charophyta Chlorococcum Chlorophyta Ankistrodesmus Chlorophyta Ulothrix Chlorophyta Cladophora Chlorophyta Oedogonium Chlorophyta Cosmarium Chlorophyta Hydrodictyon Chlorophyta Pandorina Chlorophyta Oscillatoria Cyanobacteria Nostoc Cyanobacteria Anabaena Cyanobacteria Lyngbya Cyanobacteria Microcystis Cyanobacteria Chrococcus Cyanobacteria Navicula Heterokontophyta Pinnularia Heterokontophyta

2- Protection status of Plants found in the area After developing inventory of the plants in each habitat, status of species protection, distribution and their rarity was evaluated according to the criteria described in Table 2-16. Table 2-16: Status of plant species recorded within the study area

Criteria Remarks

None of the species is protected under IUCN Red List of Threatened Protection Species. Status of most of the species is either not evaluated or least Status concern. Distributio 5 are very common, 23 are common and widespread, 46 are less n common, 27 are rare and 45 are very rare in the study area.

Section - 2: OBSERVATIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS 31 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

Criteria Remarks

No species is rare under IUCN. But the widespread of exotic species like Parthenium, Lantana, P. juliflora and Paper Mulberry is pushing native Rarity species of trees, shrubs like Calotropis, Ranunculus to become very less frequent in the area. C) Fauna Information 1- Fauna survey for developing inventory in the project site The survey was done in the project area and data was gathered for mammals, reptiles, birds, amphibians, insects and zooplanktons. A checklist of the species that might be expected in the study area was prepared by searching published literature. Both direct observation and indirect methods were used to gather information. Community surveys were carried out and data was gathered from the local people regarding information of animals in the area using field guides and colored photographs. A verification survey was conducted in the second week of January 2021 to verify the presence and abundance of the fauna reported during the previous study conducted in 2014. The survey area was the same as in the previous study to draw a comparative analysis. The literature review and community survey were also conducted to ensure that all species which are present or expected to be present within the study area are reported. The detailed survey included ecological importance of species, their niche and their IUCN conservation status; like endangered, threatened, vulnerable etc. Plates (46-51A) a- Survey of Birds The methodology adopted for the avifauna survey included line-transect method, point count, direct observation, and call recognition. The bird survey was conducted at early morning and evening time, when the bird activity is maximum. The birds were observed with binoculars (10 x 50) and spotting scopes, and they were identified with the help of field guide/book Grimmett et al. (2008). The effective sampling distance was 200 m from transects. While the recorded data included species identity as well as its relative abundance in the project area. Table 18 and Figures 4 (a-d) show details of the birds found in the project area. b- Survey of Mammals Mammals were surveyed during the visits and were identified from field observations of paw prints, scats and their burrows. In consideration of the nocturnal and elusive behaviour of mammals, the survey methodology included direct observation, spoor tracking (observations based on footprints, burrows, den sites etc.) and scat analysis (morphometric analysis of faecal matter). The species identification was based on the field guides Roberts (2005a & b). Moreover, the public and the Forest Department Staff

Section - 2: OBSERVATIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS 32 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

were also interviewed regarding the presence of mammalian species and their relative abundance. Table 18 and Figure 5 show details of the mammals found in the project area. c- Survey of Reptiles and Amphibians These field surveys were carried out to locate species and their habitats within the study area. The morning surveys were conducted in the bright day light and evening surveys of the same place were also carried out. The herpetofauna survey was based on active search method and public survey. Due to winter season in the second survey in January 2021, herp species were unlikely to be observed through direct observation. However, the active search method was adopted whereby debris, logs, and riverbank were searched for direct and indirect observations. Moreover, the public was interviewed regarding the species presence and their relative abundance. List of the species is shown in table 19 and figure 6. Bird species were more abundant along the riverbanks, agricultural fields and in forest areas. Most common species were Passer domesticus, Corvus splendens, Acridotheres tristis, Egretta intermedia, and Dicrurus macrocersus vieillot. Wild boars and jackals were present in the study area. Mostly small size mammals which included porcupines, rat and bat species were there. Mammals were mostly found in forests and agriculture fields. Among the reptiles, Varanus bengalensis, Uromastyx hardwickii and Naja naja etc. were common. Three species of snakes and two species of turtles are reported. According to the IUCN red list of threatened species, Nilssonia gangetica is vulnerable and it needs to be protected. Only three Amphibian species were found in the study area. Among them, Hoplobatrachus tigrinus and Bufo stomaticus were very common. None of the species of birds, mammals and amphibians were found rare in the IUCN lists.

Section - 2: OBSERVATIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS 33 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

Table 2-17: List of mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians of the project area

Habitats Punjab IUCN Animal Species Common name A+ AC Wildlife CITES W P R O L F status R Act Birds Egretta intermedia Intermediate Egret + - + + - + + B LC  Accipiter badius Shikra + - - - - - + D LC Acridotheres ginginianus Bank Myna + + - - + + + B LC Acridotheres tristis Common Myna + + + + + + + A LC Actitis hypoleucos* Common Sand piper + + - + - + + B LC Amaurornis phoenicurus White breasted hen - - - + - + - D LC  Anas crecca* Common teal - - - + - - - D LC Anas Platyrhynchos* Mallard - + - - + + + C LC  Ardeola grayii Indian pond Heron + - - - + - + C LC  Bubulcus ibis Cattle egret + - - + + + + C LC  Callacanthis burtoni Spectacle Finch - - + + + + + D LC Centropus sinensis Crow pheasant + - - - + - + C LC Ceryle rudis Pied kingfisher + - - + + + + C LC Cinnyris asiaticus Purple sunbird + - - - + - + D LC Columba livia Wild rock dove + - - + + + + B LC Copsychus saularis Magpie robin + - - - + - + C LC Coracias benghalensis Indian roller + + - - - - + B LC Corvus splendens House Crow + + + + + + + A LC

Section - 2: OBSERVATIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS 34 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

Habitats Punjab IUCN Animal Species Common name A+ AC Wildlife CITES W P R O L F status R Act Coturnix coturnix* Common Quail - - - + - - + D LC Dicrurus macrocersus vieillot Black Drongo + - + + + - + B LC Dinopium benghalense Golden backed woodpecker + + - - + - + C LC Egretta garzetta* little egret + - + + + + + B LC  Francolinus pondicerianus Black Partridge + - - - - - + E LC Francolinus pondicerianus Grey Partridge + + - + + + + C LC Galerida cristata Crested lark + - - - + + + C LC Gallinago gallinago* Common snipe - - - + - - - E LC Gallinula chloropus* Common moorhen - + - + - - + C LC Gracupica contra Pied myna + + - + + + + D LC Halcyon smyrnensis White-breasted Kingfisher + - - + + + + B LC Himantopus himantopus* Black winged stilt + - + + - - - C LC Hirundo rustica* Common swallow - - - + - - - D LC Hoplopterus indicus* Red-Wattled Lapwing + + - + + + + B LC Hydrophasianus chirurgus* white pheasant jacana - - + - - + - E LC  Lanius schach long tailed shrike + - - - - - + C LC Merops orientalis Green bee eater + + - - - - + C LC Merops philippinus* Blue tailed bee eater - - - + + + + C LC Milvus migrans migrans Black kite + - + + + + + A LC  Motacilla alba White wagtail + - - + - + + C LC

Section - 2: OBSERVATIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS 35 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

Habitats Punjab IUCN Animal Species Common name A+ AC Wildlife CITES W P R O L F status R Act Orthotomus sutorius Common tailor bird + - - - - - + C LC Passer domesticus House Sparrow + + + + + + + A LC Petronia xanthocollis yellow throated sparrow + - - - - - + C LC Ploceus philippinus baya weaver + - - + + - + B LC Pyconotus cafer Red vented bulbul + - - + + + + B LC Saxicola caprata Bush chat + - - - + - + C LC Saxicoloides fulicata Indian robin + + - + + + + C LC Spilopelia senegalensis little brown dove + - - - + - + B LC Streptopelia capicola Ring necked dove + - - - - + + C LC Streptopelia tranquebarica Red turtle dove + - - + + + + C LC  Treron phoenicoptera yellow-footed green pigeon - - - + + + + C LC Tringa nebularia Common Greenshank + - + + - + + B LC Turdoides caudata Common babbler + + - - - - + B LC Upopa epops* Hoopoe + - - + + + + B LC Zosterops palpebrosus Oriental white eye - - - - + - + D LC Mammals Canis Aureus Asiatic Jackal + - - + + + + C LC III Felis chaus Jungle cat + + - + + + + D LC  Funambulus pennantii Palm squirrel + + + + + + + A LC Golunda elliota Bush rat + - - - + + + B LC

Section - 2: OBSERVATIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS 36 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

Habitats Punjab IUCN Animal Species Common name A+ AC Wildlife CITES W P R O L F status R Act Herpestes edwardsi Indian mongoose + + - + + + + B LC  III Hystrix indica Indian crested porcupine + + + + + + + A LC Lepus nigricollis Indian hare + + - - - - + D LC Megaderma lyra Indian false vampires + + - - + + + B LC Millardia meltada soft furred field rat + + + + + + + B LC Mus musculus House mouse + + + + + + + A LC Rattus Rattus roof rat + + - + + + + B LC Suncus Murinus Asiatic House shrew + + - + + + + B LC Sus scrofa Wild boar + - - - - + + C LC Reptiles Nilssonia gangetica Indian soft-shell turtle - - - + - + + C VU  I Bungarus caeruleus Indian crate + + - + + + + B LC Calotes versicolor Indian garden lizard + + + + + + + A LC Chamaeleo zeylanicus Ceylon Chameleon + - - - + + + C NE II Lissemys punctate Indian flapshell turtle - - - + - + + C LC  II Naja naja Indian cobra - - - + - + + C LC II Uromastyx hardwickii Spiny tail lizard + + + + + + + B LC  II Varanus bengalensis Indian monitor lizard + + + + + + + B LC  I Xenochrophis piscator Checkered keelback + + + + + + + B NE  III Amphibians

Section - 2: OBSERVATIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS 37 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

Habitats Punjab IUCN Animal Species Common name A+ AC Wildlife CITES W P R O L F status R Act Bufo stomaticus Indus toad + + + + + + + A LC Euphlyctis cyanophlyctis Indian skipper frog - + - - - + - B LC Hoplobatrachus tigrinus Indian bull frog + + + + - + + A LC II *=Migratory, A+R= Agriculture and roadside, W= wasteland, P=Pond, R= Riverbank, O=Orchard, L=Lowland, F=Forest, AC = abundance class, LC=Least concern, VU=Vulnerable, NE=Not evaluated, A=very common, B= common & wide spread, C= less common, D= Rare, E =very rare.

Section - 2: OBSERVATIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS 38 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

Table 2-18: Species richness of fauna and flora of the habitat types in the study area.

Habitat types Birds Mammals Reptiles Amphibians Plants Agriculture and 41 13 6 2 99 roadside Wasteland 15 10 5 3 26 Pond 11 4 4 2 5 Riverbank 32 9 8 2 53 Orchard 32 11 6 2 49 Lowland 29 12 9 3 10 Forest 47 13 9 2 94

d- Insect surveys Insect surveys were carried out using sweep nets, while they were also identified by direct observations. Because of their well-established status as indicators of ecosystem health emphasis was given on butterflies. Other groups included dragonflies, damselflies, and mosquitoes etc. The list of the species is given in Table-20. Insects were identified with the help of available literature and keys. Insect guilds are identified with the help of field observation and available literature (CSIRO, 1991; Triplehorn and Johnson, 2005). Coleopteran species (Berosus spp. and Hydrophlis spp.) are water scavenger beetles. Larval stages of Dipteran species (Anopheles spp. and Culex spp.) occur in ponds while adults are present in forests, lowlands and orchards. They suck blood of other animals and humans. Female mosquitoes also collect nectar and honeydew from trees. Larval stages of Chironomid spp. (Diptera) occur in tree holes filled with water, ponds, stagnant water. Adult stage is attracted to flowers for pollen and nectar and exist in orchards, lowlands and forests. Nectar provides good source of energy. Larval stages of Odonata are present near the bank of river and pond while adult stages can be seen in orchards, lowlands and forests. Both adult and larval stages of Dragonflies (Odonata) are voracious predators, feeding on the living prey. Insects belonging to Hemiptera (Hydrometra spp.) are present in ditches, swamps and ponds. It moves on the surface of water and eats mosquito larvae and water fleas. Lepidopteran species play an important role of pollination and can be seen in agricultural fields, lowlands, orchards and forests.

Section - 2: OBSERVATIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS 39 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

Table 2-19: List of insect species identified in different habitats

Habitats IUCN Scientific name Common name AC A+ R W P R O L F status Order Coleoptera Berosus sp Beetle - - + - - - - C NE Hydrophilus sp Beetle - - + - - - - B NE Order Diptera Anopheles sp Mosquitoe - - La - A A A B NE Chironomid sp Non-biting midges - - La La A + A C NE Musca domestica house fly + + - - + + + A NE Culex sp Mosquitoe - - La - A A A B LC Order Hemiptera Hydrometra sp Bug - - + - - - - E NE Order Odonata Crocothemis Scarlet Dragonfly A - La - A - A A NE erythraea Ishnura forcipate N/A A - La - A - A A NE Orthetrum anceps N/A A - La - A - A B NE Orthetrum Sabina Slender Skimmer A - La - A - A B NE Pantala flavescens Wandering Glider A - La - A - A A NE Order Lepidoptera Agriopis marginaria Dotted Border + - - - + - + B NE Catoprilia pyranthe Mottled Emigrant + - - - + - + B NE

Section - 2: OBSERVATIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS 40 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

Habitats IUCN Scientific name Common name AC A+ R W P R O L F status Colotis amata Small Salmon Arab + - - - + - + E NE Fabricius Cynthia cardui Painted Lady + - - - + - + D NE Danaus chrysippus African Monarch + - - - + - + A NE Junonia almanac Peacock Pansy + - - - + - + D NE Nomophila Lucerne Moth + - - - + - + B NE neararctica Papilio demoleus Lime Butterfly + - - - + - + A NE the indian cabbage Pieris canidia + - - - + - + B NE white Pieris napi Green veined white + - - - + - + B NE Oriental Leaf worm Spodoptera litura + - - - + - + C NE Moth Zizeeria maha Pale Grass Blue + - - - + - + A NE A+R= Agriculture and roadside, W= wasteland, P=Pond, R= Riverbank, O=Orchard, L=Lowland, F=Forest, LC=Least concern, NE=Not evaluated, A=Adult, Las=Larvae, AC = Abundance Class, A = Very common, B = Common & widespread, C = less common, D = rare, E =very rare

Section - 2: OBSERVATIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS 41 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

e- Survey of zooplanktons Water samples from river and ponds were collected and brought into the laboratory. Zooplanktons were observed under compound and stereo microscopes. List of zooplanktons is given in Table 22. Table 2-20: List of zooplanktons and protoctists found in the ponds and river of the study area

Scientific name Group Paulinella nidulus Amoeboid Centropyxis aculeta Amoebozoa Difflugia lobostoma Arcellinida Plumatella fruiticosa Bryozoan Fredericella sultana Bryozoan Diaptomus castor Crustacean Diaptomus sarsi Crustacean Cyclops viridus Crustacean Cyclops varicans Crustacean Mesocyclops leuckerti Crustacean Mesocyclops hyalinus Crustacean Parastenocaris lacustris Crustacean Daphnia ambigua Crustacean Ceridaphnia reticulate Crustacean Moinodaphnia malcayii Crustacean Daphnia smilis Crustacean Bosmina longirostris Crustacean Macrothrix rosae Crustacean Polyartha vulgaris Rotifer Keratella quadrata Rotifer Keratella cochlaeris Rotifer Asplancha priodonta Rotifer Epiphanes branchionus Rotifer Euclanis dilatata Rotifer Trochosphaera solstitialis Rotifer Philodina roseola Rotifer Filina longiseta Zooplankter Protoctists Euglena Protoctist Paramecuim Protoctist

Section - 2: OBSERVATIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS 42 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

f- Fish survey Fish surveys were conducted in the main channel of river Ravi with the help of local fishermen using nets. These nets were deployed at different sites for 30 minutes to one hour during the vegetation survey of the nearby community. Fishermen were also interviewed to collect information on the river fish in the study site. List of fish species found in the river are shown in Table 2-21. Table 2-21: List of the fish species found in the river Ravi.

Scientific Names Common Names IUCN status Catla catla Thaila/Indian carp LC Channa marulius Saul LC Channa punctate Daula LC Cirrhinus mrigala Mori LC Ctenopharyngodon idella † Grass carp NE Cyprinus carpio*† Common carp/Gulfam VU Hypopthalmichthys molitrix † Silver carp NT Hypophthalmichthys nobilis † Big head carp DD Labeo rohita Rohu LC Macrognathus pancalus Groj LC Oreochromis aureus* Tilapia NE Rita rita Khagga/Tirkanda LC Sperata sarwari Singharee LC Wallago attu Mullee VU LC=Least concern, VU=Vulnerable, NT=Near threatened, DD= Data deficient, NE= Not evaluated, * = invasive, † exotic

Section - 2: OBSERVATIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS 43 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

Figure 2-4 (a): Birds of the study area

Section - 2: OBSERVATIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS 44 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

Figure 2-5 (b): Birds of the study area

Section - 2: OBSERVATIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS 45 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

Figure 2-6 (c): Birds of the study area

Section - 2: OBSERVATIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS 46 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

Figure 2-7 (d): Birds of the study area

Section - 2: OBSERVATIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS 47 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

Figure 2-8: Mammals of the studuy area

Section - 2: OBSERVATIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS 48 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

Figure 2-9: Reptiles and Amphibians of the study area 2- Protection status of all Animals found in the area After evaluating habitats and developing fauna’s inventory in each case, status of protection was evaluated for the species of mammals, amphibians, reptiles and birds according to the criteria described in Table-4. Following is the detail of mammals in the study area those are evaluated on their distribution, protection status and rarity.

Section - 2: OBSERVATIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS 49 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

Table 2-22: Status of Mammals Species recorded within the Study Area

Criteria Remarks Herpestes edwarsdi (Indian Mongoose) and Felis Chaus are Protection Status protected under Punjab Wildlife Act. Asiatic Jackal and Indian Mongoose are listed in CITES Appendix III Funambulus pennantii and Mus musculus are very common. Distribution Lepus nigricollis and Canis Aureus are less common. Other species are common and widespread. There are no endemic species. None of them are threatened according to IUCN red data Rarity list.

The detail of amphibian species evaluated on the basis of their distribution, protection status and rarity are given below. Table 2-23: Status of Amphibian Species recorded within the Study Area

Criteria Remarks Protection Status Indian Bull Frog is listed in CITES Appendix II 2 species are very common (Hoplobatrachus tigrinus and Distribution Bufo stomaticus), 1 species (Euphlyctis cyanophlyctis) is

common and widespread. There are no endemic species. None of them are rare locally or are threatened according Rarity to IUCN red data list. In case of reptiles, the details of their distribution, protection status and rarity are listed in below Table 2-24: Status of Reptile Species recorded within the Study Area.

Criteria Remarks Varanus bengalensis and Uromastyx hardwickii are protected under Punjab Wildlife Act Schedule Three. Freshwater turtles are on the priorty list of WWF-P and are also protected under Punjab Wildlife Act Schedule Three. Naja naja (Indian Cobra), Protection Status Lyssemus punctata (Indian flapshell turtle), Chamaeleo

zeylanicus and Uromastyx hardwickii are included in CITES Appendix II. Nilssonia Gangetica and Varanus bengalensis are listed in CITES Appendix I. Xenochrophis piscator is listed in CITES Appendix III. Nilssonia gangetica Trionyx gangetica and Lissemys Punctata Distribution are less common. The reason could be the illegal hunting of softshell turtles. Other species are common and widespread. There are no endemic species present in this area.

Section - 2: OBSERVATIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS 50 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

Nilssonia gangetica is graded as vulnerable on IUCN Red List Rarity of threatened species.

The distribution, protection status and rarity of birds evaluated in the study area are as follows Table 2-25: Status of Birds Species recorded within the Study Area

Criteria Remarks Egretta Intermedia, Streptopelia tranquebarica, Bubulcis ibis, Anas platyrhynchos, Milvis migrans migrans, Hydrophasianus chirurgus, Amaurorinus phoenicurus and Ardeola grayii are Protection Status listed in Punjab Wildlife Act Schedule III. Himantopus himantopus

is protected under UNEP’s Agreement on the Conservation of African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbirds of ‘Convention on migratory species’ 4 species are very common, 11 species are common and Distribution widespread, 20 species are less common, 8 are uncommon.

There is no endemic species in this area. Rarity None of the species are rare according to IUCN red data list.

2.2 SECTION-2 ECOLOGICAL MAPPING OF THE STUDY AREA Biodiversity map of the protected species and their linkage with their habitats is presented in Figure 7

Section - 2: OBSERVATIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS 51 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

Figure 2-10: Biodiversity map of the protected species and their linkage with their habitats From the data gathered in the project area, there are two important ecosystems identified, one is in form of aquatic ecosystem provided by the river and ponds whereas the other one is terrestrial ecosystem. Terrestrial ecosystem included forest areas, grasslands, orchards, agricultural fields, islands and wasteland. The two forms of biomes are interconnected and have developed vital linkages from land to water and water to land. In rainy seasons, water, sediments, pollutants, nutrients, and other materials flow from terrestrial environments to aquatic one. The nutrients in form of droppings of the amphibiotic animals move from water to land. Such connections develop important food chains and food webs in both ecosystems. An illustration of such possible food web is provided for the study area.

Figure 2-11: Simplified Food web in the Project Area. These conceptual models show trophic levels of producers, herbivores, omnivores and carnivores which existed in the area. e.g. birds are omnivorous as they eat invertebrates and plants. In an ecosystem, energy and nutrients flow from a low trophic level to a higher trophic level. As the river gets polluted the pollutants from water and sediments travel into the food chain and get bioaccumulated into the bodies of the animals. The area surrounding river Ravi is mostly agricultural where high pesticides usage exists. These pesticides are reported from the water and sediments of river (Syed et al. 2014). Organochlorines have been reported to be present in the eggshells of cattle egret (Malik et al. 2011). There is a need to clean the river from pollution loads to save the whole of the ecosystem.

Section - 2: OBSERVATIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS 52 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

2.3 SECTION-3 ASSESSMENT OF ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS FROM THE DEVELOPMENT IN THE PROJECT AREA This section of the report deals with the impacts on ecological resources of project area. The above identified habitats, species and other resources can have potential impacts from developmental project. Evaluation of these impacts are being described on basis of construction activities in the area and secondly because of project operation. The significant ecological resources of the area are different habitats, flora, fauna and river channel itself. To reveal the potential impacts on resources, visits were made to the area in addition extensive literature surveys were conducted to compile this section. Here is the list of Human impacts on river ecosystem as documented in literature. Table 2-26: Human Impacts on River Ecosystem.

Habitat Flow Regime Water Quality Food Source Biotic Interaction Structure

Exotic species Algal Endemic species

Habitat diversity Nutrients production Threatened and Discharge Siltation Thermal Energy input endangered Water depth Bank stability regime Particulate species Water velocity Cover Turbidity organic Hybridization Flood frequency Woody debris Salinity matter Population Flood magnitude Channel Dissolved Aquatic structure Drought sinuosity oxygen invertebrates Competition frequency Habitat pH Terrestrial Species richness Flow variability connectivity Toxins invertebrates Predation Trophic structure

Keeping legislations and guidelines in consideration and researching literature, the potential impacts of construction and operations of the project on the ecological resources have been identified as follows:

2.3.1 Construction impacts During the construction phase activities like clearance of sites, excavation, dredging, habitat filling with spoils, site formation, riprap handling for riverbed and embankments will create disturbance for the wild animals, birds as well as plant species.

Section - 2: OBSERVATIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS 53 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

A) Permanent loss of habitat Due to the construction and site clearance, few habitats will be totally lost e.g. the river shoreline. This will totally diminish the plant species growing on the shoreline of river Ravi. In addition, water-land interface is necessary for many amphibians which will be destroyed due to formation of concrete walls. Many reptiles like freshwater turtles use these areas as their nesting sites and doing so will seriously affect the population of species that are already under threat. As planned in the new development that the width of the river will be fixed whereas in natural flow the rivers do not have a uniform width. This will bring an extra 2.32% area under the river that will be achieved by clearing many adjacent habitats. Almost all area of Anno Bhatti Forest and half of Korotana Forest will thus be lost. Larger areas of land under agriculture will be totally lost while some of the orchard areas will also be lost. This will cause pressure on the supply of fruits and vegetables to Lahore city which then will have to be transported from far off areas and will result in their increased prices and shortage. B) Amplified Fragmentation During construction phase, controlling the flow of water while creating islands in the river body, construction of barrages and river wall will affect water flow ultimately affecting aquatic life. Construction activities will cause fragmentation and isolation of existing habitats. They may cause hindrance in movement of biota across different landscape patches for searching food, breeding or other purposes. Reduced mobility of animals may cause loss of metapopulation structure resulting in population decline and local extinction. C) Habitat damage Due to the construction in the project site, direct, indirect or temporary damages will occur from site excavation and clearance and dumping spoils in other habitats. Transportation during construction process will also destroy wilderness of the area. Most of the agricultural land will be damaged due to construction in the site D) Soil erosion Due to excavation and site clearance, soil will be exposed and eroded. As a result of this soil erosion, there will be more soil deposition with runoff in riverbed which will increase eutrophication and sediment loads in the river. Aquatic life can face stress from high turbidity of suspended soil particles which will reduce light penetration affecting primary production, and reduce visibility of aquatic animals. High sediment loads can clog gills of the fish. Furthermore, eutrophication can deplete dissolved oxygen of the water bodies providing more stress to fish and other aquatic macrophytes.

Section - 2: OBSERVATIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS 54 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

E) Wildlife disturbance and Noise pollution Wilderness is a trait of wild areas which are far from the urban areas. Urban areas display lots of population, roads traffic, congestion, sounds of machines, etc. The forest areas close to the riverbank exhibit trait of wilderness. Due to construction in this area, human disturbance to ecosystems will be highest to the wild animals and birds especially. The severity of this disturbance totally depends upon duration of activity in the site, its intensity and frequency. Many mammals and birds can be more disturbed by presence of workers, loud noises and operational construction plants. F) Cutting down riparian vegetation The removal of this vegetation leads to increased water temperature and changes in river ecosystems. The absence of riparian belt of vegetation leads to unhindered passage of nutrients into the river. Where this vegetation belt is intact up to 90% of the nutrients are captured and absorbed before reaching the river. The roots of plants and especially those of trees have an important structural role on the reinforcement of riverbanks because they retain the soil particles and prevent the water from carrying them away. G) River channelization River Channelization - is the process of planned human intervention in the course, characteristics or flow of a river with the intention of producing some defined benefit. Flowing water is an essential feature of a river. It determines the capacity to erode and transport sediments and governs ecological processes so that lotic communities form open rather than closed systems. Changes to a river’s flow regime therefore are likely to have profound consequences. Channelization has several predictable and negative effects • Loss of wetlands because of construction of embankments is one of the important effects of river channelization. In the current project the last 6-7 km of the river channel will be kept natural without the construction of embankments. That will allow flooding of the Phase 3 area during rainy seasons, where many freshwater ponds are planned to compensate the loss of wetland habitats. • Although the current development aims to maintain the natural meander of the river but fixing the river width will reduce meander and cause straightening of river as compared to its natural course. Straightening causes the streams to flow more rapidly, which can, in some instances, vastly increase soil erosion. All of this results in faster water flow and higher water levels during floods. The faster flow itself results in intensified erosion of both the riverbanks and bottom, i.e. the river starts “eating” its own bed and digs into the ground until it reaches harder bedrock. The increased erosion results in higher water turbidity,

Section - 2: OBSERVATIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS 55 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

which is a big problem for all aquatic organisms because it reduces the penetration of sunlight into the water. Fine particles clog to the gills of the animals that breathe dissolved oxygen. • Another, even more serious problem related to riverbed incision is the lowering of groundwater levels. The river and neighbouring groundwater are interconnected bodies, and the drop of water levels in the river (in some cases down 5 or 6 m) leads to a parallel decrease in the groundwater level because the river acts as a draining channel. The lowering of groundwater level result in withering of riparian trees and dry wells and boreholes. H) Effect of Barrages on river ecology Many studies have proved that creation of barrages or dams in river channels effect ecology of river, especially fish. As fish needs instream flow of water which is disturbed by barrages and hence affect spawning and food activities of these fauna. The construction of a dam, for example, affects the transport of water and sediment, so that the local hydrological equilibrium is upset, and the effects spread through the community, causing a general ecological transition. These responses are an important focus of modern river ecology. Juvenile fish would be affected by altered flow of water. The fragmentation of aquatic and riparian habitats and isolation of associated populations results in the deterioration of ecological integrity and loss of important ecosystem services (Dynesius and Nilsson, 1994). The instream barriers restrict the migration of ichthyofauna to the upstream, wintering and spawning habitats (Irving & Modde, 2000). The alteration in flow frequency and magnitude can change the periphyton communities (algal and cyanobacterial communities) in river (Biggs, 2000). The periphyton community is not only the primary source of oxygen, food and energy for the higher trophic level in water, but these are also important indicators of water quality. The change in downstream hydrology and geomorphology may result in the larval and juvenile mortality at water intakes (Benstead et al. 1999). Extensive studies have been conducted to evaluate the impact of barriers such as barrages and dams which disrupt the longitudinal connectivity of rivers and consequently obstruct the fish movement to their feeding and spawning grounds thereby also limiting dispersal (Van Puijenbroek et al., 2019; Barbarossa et al., 2020). The barriers alter morphology, hydrology, and function of the freshwater ecosystem. The resulting fragmentation and isolation results in a major shift in species distribution and abundance (Poff and Schmidt, 2016). Thus, construction of such barriers is considered a major threat to the freshwater biodiversity (Reid et al., 2019). Moreover, reduction in dissolved oxygen levels in the stagnant water usually makes it unsuitable for the survival of the resident fish fauna (Welcomme, 1985). Another major

Section - 2: OBSERVATIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS 56 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

environmental impact on the fish fauna is triggered during the construction phase of barriers. The soil and silt erosion during excavation activities degrades the water quality which lead to toxicity to fish. Moreover, the soil and silt runoff also threaten the breeding/spawning grounds in the river. Furthermore, the use of explosives during excavation process also creates blast shocks which are in turn lethal for the fish population within its range (Bernacsek, 2001). Fish ladders can also have higher mortality rates, depending on the success of the design, and also fish may avoid them. Those fish that successfully negotiate the barrage structure, would then pass into the calmer basin where the change in current flows, sedimentation, directional clues and predation could either benefit or disbenefit differing species (The Severn Barrage, 2007). There are two categories of threats to fish: Direct: injury and mortality due to strikes and water conditions (for example water pressure) resulting in damage or disorientation. Indirect: loss and degradation of habitat which may be important for feeding and spawning; and disruption to movement. The most drastic impact of constructing barriers such as barrages is the loss of land, which includes forests, marshes, etc, which serve as a habitat to a large number of bird and animal species. The disturbance during reservoir construction activity, the noise, light, presence of construction workers, etc. disturb the wild animals, which consequently attempt to escape to distant habitats. Moreover, the habitat destruction causes wide-spread migration to new environments where if the species fail to adapt, they risk extinction (Liao et al., 1988). The construction of barrages dramatically changes the river hydrological regime and thus in turn alter the migratory pathways of waterbirds as well. The negative impact of river barriers on the abundance and distribution of fauna, including birds (including waterfowls), fishes, macroinvertebrates and zooplankton) has already been recognized (Poff & Zimmerman, 2010). The selection of a water body as a stop-over or wintering ground depends on the food availability, predation and disturbance (Newton, 2010). The construction of barriers changes the vegetation dynamics, macroinvertebrate habitat and fish abundance and diversity (Liermann et al. 2012), consequently, altering the food availability for the migrating water birds as well (Zeng et al., 2017). After construction of the barrage the habitat of the reservoir borders are forever altered from their pre-existing state due to difference in lentic and lotic conditions, seasonal flooding and water quality. Moreover, the increased water turbidity due to increased erosion and sedimentation, and decreased photosynthesis of planktons and submerged plants dramatically reduces primary productivity. The reduction in turn affects freshwater

Section - 2: OBSERVATIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS 57 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

chelonians due to decrease in food availability. The freshwater turtles have feeding and nesting habitat at the riverbanks. As they are extremely vulnerable to noise and disturbance, the construction activity and human disturbance results in a drastic decline in their population (Alho, 2011). I) Concrete boundary of river Riverbanks are used as corridor for bridging land and terrestrial life. These banks should be as natural as possible of earthen material, grass concrete or pebbles rather than concrete. The concrete boundary will act as a barrier for many amphibians and reptiles that use the sandy banks of the river. J) Island creation There are three islands proposed in the project area that will be artificially created in phase I, II, and III. Creating new islands will be a fruitful idea if it will provide shoreline and terrestrial habitat to birds and other species. Creation of islands will mean diverting river water to an artificially constructed channel that can lead to reduced water flows in the main channel.

2.3.2 Operational impacts Operational impacts are impacts which are expected after completion and regulation of the project. A) Habitat Loss and degradation After completion of the project, many habitats will be totally diminished e.g. vegetation on the riverbank, seasonally flooded grasslands and most of the agricultural fields. Therefore, vegetation of these particular habitats will be lost. There will be more fragmentation in the natural habitats due to road network in the area. Suburban areas around Lahore city produce seasonal vegetables that are sent to markets in Lahore. Fertile alluvial soils of this area also provide cereals and fruits to Lahore city and development on this land will mean loss of productive land on which many people depend for their livelihoods. According to the master plan area for Eco-village has been set aside in phase 3 of the project that will have fields and orchards. This area will also have freshwater ponds that will add up to habitat heterozygosity and will support native biological diversity. Urban agriculture and food production in this eco-village can in part compensate for loss of this habitat and tackle food supply issues. B) Ecological barriers On completion of the project, the width of the river will be fixed to 1 km with concrete banks. As a result, this will be an ecological barrier to terrestrial animals, predatory mammals, juvenile birds and other wild animals.

Section - 2: OBSERVATIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS 58 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

C) Noise and air pollution due to urbanization Due to the development in the area, urban life will create big burden on natural resources. Human interruption and activities in the form of business centers, universities, residential colonies and movement of vehicles etc. will degrade naturalness of the area. Therefore, after operation more noise and air pollution will result. D) Light pollution Another important operational impact on wildlife will be from lights in urban areas. Wild animals are used to conditions of wild that is low noise, low lights and naturalness. With this mega construction in the area, and lots of lights from urban, residential, commercial and transportation pressure, many wild animals will be forced to leave their wild sites. Light pollution affects human health by disrupting circadian rhythm. Nocturnal animals such as bats suffer greatly, causing a decrease in population, difficulties with finding food, exposure to predators, and an increase in mortality. Insects such as moths and flies suffer a decrease in population due to light pollution because of strikes and it is easier for predators to hunt the insects. The decreased insect population impacts all the animals that feed on insects as their main food source. Large numbers of birds die from collisions with lighted buildings. The lighted buildings attract them. Migrating birds don’t reach their destination because the artificial lights interfere with their navigation and can throw them off course. Light pollution alters the day/night patterns in animals, resulting in not getting enough sleep, not having enough down time for the body to repair itself, and altered reproductive cycles.

Section - 2: OBSERVATIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS 59 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

Figure 2-12: Ecological and astronomical light pollution (Longcore and Rich 2004). E) Bird Collisions and strikes There are special problems posed for birds living in or flying through cities. Research has documented that buildings and windows are the top killer of wild birds (Klem 2009; Gelb and Delacretaz 2009). This toll strikes indiscriminately culling some of the healthiest of the species. Between one and five percent of the total migratory population die in window crashes annually (Klem, 2009). Building collisions pose further risk to endangered or threatened species whose populations are already declining due to habitat loss, toxin loads, and other severe environmental pressures. Juvenile residents and migrants of all ages — those least familiar with the urban setting — face the greatest risk of injury or death from the hazards of the city environment. Collision hazards include vehicles, bridges, transmission towers, power lines, and turbines, but the majority of avian deaths and injuries occur from impacts with building components such as transparent or reflective glass. Night-time lighting also interferes with avian migrations. Building collisions are a threat of sufficient magnitude to affect the viability of bird populations, leading to local, regional, and national declines.

Section - 2: OBSERVATIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS 60 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

Table 2-27: In-depth Impacts of Riverfront Development on Ecological Resources of the River Ravi

Impacts Ecological resources Positive/ Magnitude Duration Reversibility Negative or Extent Available resources Territory (hunting/foraging grounds; shelter and breeding Negative Extensive Long term Irreversible sites; corridors for migration and dispersal) Reversible Water quality of river Positive Extensive Long term to some extent Soil minerals and nutrients Negative Extensive Long term Irreversible Stochastic process Short and Positive Extensive Irreversible Flooding Long term Climate change Negative Complex Long term Complex Erosion Negative Extensive Long term Irreversible Short and Eutrophication Negative Extensive Reversible Long term Ecological processes Population dynamics: (survival rates and reproduction rates; Negative Extensive Long term Irreversible competition; predation; seasonal behaviour; dispersal and genetic exchange; elimination of wastes.) Vegetation dynamics (colonisation; succession; Negative Extensive Long term Complex competition; and nutrient- cycling) Ecosystem properties Fragility and stability carrying capacity and limiting factors, Negative Extensive Long term Irreversible

Productivity Negative Extensive Long term Irreversible

Connectivity, Patchiness and Negative Extensive Long term Irreversible degree of fragmentation Ecological relationship Short and Negative Extensive Complex Tropic levels, Food chains and Long term

Section - 2: OBSERVATIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS 61 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

Impacts Ecological resources Positive/ Magnitude Duration Reversibility Negative or Extent food webs, herbivore-plant relationships, predator-prey relationships, herbivore- carnivore relationships, adaptation and dynamism Ecological role or function

Decomposer, primary producer, Negative Long term consumers, parasite and Extensive Irreversible

predator, keystone species.

2.4 SECTION –4 MITIGATION MEASURES The mitigation priorities for the project are avoidance or minimization, restoration and compensation. The aims of providing mitigation measures are to provide environmentally friendly options which will minimize unnecessary habitat loss.

2.4.1 Impact avoiding/minimizing First measure to reduce the impacts of construction and operation of the project, are in form of avoiding and minimizing the impacts. A. Avoiding dumping of dredged spoil in other ecological habitats adjacent to the site: During construction of the project, the dredged spoil will be created. It should be avoided to dump such spoil in closer habitats. As dumping of this excess material will degrade other habitats too. B. Protection of other habitats with fences and barriers: During construction phase, a fence should be used as a barrier to protect forested area as well as agricultural land as much as possible. So that such habitats and their wildlife remain undisturbed. C. Minimization of barging disturbance to wildlife: Noise and disturbance may increase while barging spoil and would have effects on birds and other animals. Following mitigation measures may be adopted to protect birds against excessive noise and disturbance: • The construction workers on the barge should avoid making sudden loud noises or disturbing birds. • Barging of more spoil should be scheduled in the summer to avoid the migratory period of birds in winter as far as possible. A. The adoption of diligent and proper construction practices can

Section - 2: OBSERVATIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS 62 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

mitigate the erosion near the riverbanks during excavation process, thereby minimizing the threat of turbidity and toxicity to the fish stock. Moreover, it is pertinent to prevent buildup of excessive bedload in order to protect the fish habitats, in particular the spawning grounds. The damage from the blast shocks can also be minimized by constructing a temporary fencing/screen to ensure that the fish stock remains out of range from the blast area. Similarly, the timing of the explosives can also be adjusted for use during periods when fish activity is likely to be minimum in the area, e.g. daylight hours, dry season (Welcomme, 1985). B. It is crucial to monitor the fauna habitat, feeding, nesting requirements of birds and interaction with the community and ecosystem in general. The monitoring activity helps in determining the areas of high sensitivity and priority and in turn modify the development work to minimize the detrimental impacts on the habitat and reproductive activity of terrestrial animal species.

2.4.2 Restoration and Compensation Secondly restoration and compensation are mitigation measures that can be followed if impacts are to be minimized. Restoration can be important measure in this project to value ecological resources of the area and restoring the degraded habitats is the best option available. Whereas Compensation in this project refers to reimbursement of loss or used habitat in favorable condition. a. Avoiding loss of existing forests: Almost 255 Acre land area of Shahdra, Katar Bund, Anno Bhatti, Korotana and Shadanwali forests is expected to be lost in the widening of the River channel. At the first place these forests should be tried to be saved from being lost using some engineering approach or re-design by creating islands. But in extreme and unavoidable circumstances proper land and monetary compensation shall be paid to the Forest Department for re- establishment of these lost forest areas. It will take a much longer time period for the mature forest stands to establish and start providing the lost ecosystem services they are currently providing so doing this should only be taken as a last resort. b. Forest restoration with native species: As mentioned in Table 5 that still 1750 Acre of land area is available in the forests for plantation. Moreover, during the construction phase of the project species in the forested land may also be affected. There will be a need to restore and augment the populations after the project completion to enhance the biodiversity in the area and to provide more habitats for other species. Such forest restoration should be carried out with native

Section - 2: OBSERVATIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS 63 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

species, e.g. Dalbergia sissoo, Tamarix aphylla, Acacia nilotica, Populus euphratica, Prosopis cineraria and Tamarix dioca etc. Almost 1750 Acre area in the current forests is still blank and is available for plantations, on that 1,058,811 more trees can be established (12 ft x 6 ft density). This will enhance the site value and in part will provide compensation for the lost habitat for the species. c. Revegetation along the embankment slopes and along the river: Plantation of grasses, sedges and other herbs on the outside embankment slopes and their adjacent areas has a potential to mitigate lost riparian grassland habitats. Planting on such bank slopes would increase the value of habitat by providing vertical structural diversity and will provide a compensation for the lost land-water interface for the movement of reptile and amphibian species. Establishment of extensive and continuous vegetation cover along the embankments of the riverbanks is highly recommended. It is further recommended that at least 50 m wide continuous green belt comprising of shrubs and trees be established on both sides of the river. A mixture of plant species with various life forms and heights should be used to encourage development of a multi-level canopy which would increase the habitat diversity and resource provision to the biological diversity. d. Creation of buffer zones along the main roads and railway tract: Buffer belts along the main roads and railway tracts shall be created using native tree species of the thorn forest community that has been lost from this area due to land clearance for agriculture purposes i.e. P. cineraria, Salvadora oleoides, T. aphylla and Capparis decidua. This will not only help in the conservation of native species of wild flora and fauna but will also reduce air and noise pollution created by vehicles. A good compensation for the lost habitats can be creation of new habitats at other sites. e. Creation of grasscretes in the foreshore areas: The establishment of grasscrete in the foreshore areas like viewpoints, parking lots and walking tracts can be made with grasscrete using native grasses (Plates 51B-52). “Foreshore is the part of a shore between the water and cultivated or developed land.” f. Island vegetation: Islands in the project area should be planted with the shoreline vegetation which will be removed from the riverbanks. This will help in compensating the lost vegetation of the riverbank and restoring a new site with native trees.

Section - 2: OBSERVATIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS 64 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

SECTION - 3: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

On the basis of results of the current study it is concluded that development in this area will have less impacts on the ecological resources of the area if the following recommendations will be considered during construction and operation of the project: 1- River is an important place for the wildlife, aquatic life, and riparian vegetation. It is important to conserve the river Ravi as a sustainable support to flora and fauna of this area. 2- It is imperative to protect the river as a continuous wildlife corridor and not a fragmented unsustainable corridor. The riverbank should be constructed like that there should be option for its revegetation with native grasses and sedges. A list of plants suitable for plantation at riverbank is provided in appendix 3. 3- Forests are prime wildlife habitat within the project area, so it is highly recommended that all of the forests should be retained. The project shall be designed in such a way that all the forest areas are protected. 4- Habitats and species of conservation value should be protected. It is crucial to monitor the fauna habitat, feeding and nesting requirements and interaction with the community and ecosystem in general. The monitoring activity allows the decision makers to determine the areas of high sensitivity and priority and in turn modify the development work to minimize the detrimental impacts on the habitat and reproductive activity of species. Indian Soft-shell turtle are vulnerable species of the site. It is important to conduct population surveys for soft-shell turtle and chekered keelback snake and all the other species that are listed in CITES or are protected under Schedule III of Punjab Wildlife Act, and to identify their breeding populations and nesting grounds to minimize the effects of this developmental activity on the ecology of their habitat. Help in this regard can be taken from Punjab Wildlife Department, species specialist groups of IUCN and WWF-P. 5- It is suggested that ramps along the riverbanks shall be made at appropriate distance and places to give access to wildlife. 6- Migratory route used by the birds to cross Pakistan is known as Green route or Indus Flyway or International Bird Migratory route number 4. Almost one million migratory birds visit Pakistan each year, majority of them during winter season (Nov. to Feb.). Due to the construction and development in the area, many migratory birds of the area will be disturbed or maybe they leave to visit this site in future. It is therefore important to avoid or reduce construction activities during that time

Section - 3: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 65 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

of the year in particular areas so as not to disturb their right-of-way. Monitoring their behavior during construction will also be important. Help in this regard can be taken from WWF-P and Wildlife Department. A list of birds along with their migratory season is given in table 30 Table 3-1: Visiting season of the migratory birds found at the project site

Migration No. Scientific names Common names Months season 1 Upupa epops Hoopoe Winter Oct-Feb Red wattled Monsoon (May- 2 Vanellus indicus Summer Lapwing Oct) 3 Anas Platyrhynchos Mallard Winter Nov-Feb 4 Gallinula chloropus Common moorhen Winter Sept-May Blue tailed bee 5 Merops philippinus Summer March-Sept eater Common Sand 6 Actitis hypoleucos Winter Aug-Mar piper 7 Anas crecca Common teal Winter Nov-Mar 8 Gallinago gallinago Common snipe Winter Sep-Mar 9 Hirundo rustica Common swallow Winter Oct-Mar 10 Coturnix coturnix Common Quail Winter Sep-Mar 11 Egretta garzetta little egret Winter Oct-May Hydrophasianus white pheasant 12 Summer Mar-Oct chirurgus jacana Himantopus 13 Black winged stilt Winter Oct-Mar himantopus

7- Reducing pollution loads of the river by installing wastewater treatment plants will definitely have a positive impact on the fish species and other aquatic life but barrages and river channel diversion for islands might affect them. Although in the project design there are two fish ladders with each barrage for ensuring the movement of fishes but to what extent these will be used by individual species is not clear. Studies have shown difference in the behavior of fish species regarding use of fish ladders. Moreover, there is a need to protect our native fish species that are under threat and their population has already suffered a considerable decline due to introduction of exotic species, overexploitation and habitat degradation. Help in this regard can be taken from Fisheries Department. 8- The surveys during this study have shown that the riparian forests are affected by the factors like overgrazing, trespassing, trampling and invasion of exotic species like Parthenium, mesquite and Lantana. If

Section - 3: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 66 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

properly restored these forests have a lot of potential to compensate the loss of tree species elsewhere as a result of this development. It is therefore suggested to conduct a detailed study on the current status of these forests to propose management interventions for their ecological restoration. Help in this regard can be taken from Restoration Ecology Research Group of Sustainable Development Study Centre, GC University Lahore. 9- Forest restoration should be carried-out to provide habitat to native biological diversity and to ensure their conservation. Rehabilitation of these forests to a healthier state will not only provide biological benefits but will also provide social benefits. Guided trails for the tourists and local residents can be made in the forests for nature experience like bird watching etc. This will also increase the heuristic value of these forests (value for education and research). Help in this regard can be taken from Restoration Ecology Research Group of Sustainable Development Study Centre, GC University Lahore and the Punjab Forest Department. 10- It is strongly recommended that no metal or concrete roads shall pass through the forest areas to avoid their fragmentation and isolation. This will also act as a barrier for wildlife movement and will result in their population decline because of strikes or reduced mobility. Noise produced by this will also affect their behavior, feeding and nesting of birds etc. 11- It was observed that agroforestry is widely practiced in some forests especially Dahnna Bhaini and Korotana forests which should be discontinued to keep forests in an intact state. Agriculture alters soil properties due to ploughing, irrigation, use of fertilizers and pesticides etc., that make them good for weed invasion and less suitable for forest growth. 12- Buffer belts around roads and railway tracts shall be planted using native tree species to extend wildlife habitat and to compensate tree loss from other sites. It is highly recommended that some area in the buffers shall be set aside for the establishment of once widespread native Thorn Forest community comprising of Salvadora oleoides, Prosopis cineraria, Tamarix aphylla and Capparis decidua trees. These floodplain thorn forests have been totally exterminated from almost all of their historic range mostly because of the clearance of land for agricultural purposes. Recreation of a lost forest type will have a high conservation value and will be a good compensation measure. This restored Thorn Forest will not only provide habitat to native flora and fauna but will also act as a demonstration site and a living classroom for the students for their education and research. Help in this regard

Section - 3: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 67 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

can be taken from Restoration Ecology Research Group of Sustainable Development Study Centre, GC University Lahore. A list of tree species suitable for plantation at buffer zones and roadsides is provided in Appendix 4. 13- It is recommended that the forests and other open green space areas like orchards and parks be connected through green belts to provide corridors for the movement of wildlife. Lists of species suitable for plantation in parks and green belts are provided in Appendices 4 and 5. 14- A tree and shrub belt of native species at least of 30-50 m width is proposed along both banks of the river as a compensation for the loss of shoreline riparian habitat (Appendix 3). 15- Most of the agricultural land will be lost as a result of this development in a time frame of 30 years (the proposed time of project completion). An eco-village comprising of natural habitats like ponds, fields and orchards is proposed in the Phase III of the project. The area along Kalakhatai road in Phase I is famous for rice production that is a local specialty and is highly priced in the international market. It is therefore recommended that some area shall be set aside for agriculture in Phase I as well. It is highly recommended to promte the use of modern agriculture techniques for urban farming like hydroponics and rooftop gardening to accommodate the shortage of land. Education, awareness and traings in this regard shall be provided to the residents with financial and technical assistance. 16- Developments built into the river can change the flow of water, resulting in the accumulation of silt or, conversely, scouring of the riverbed and foreshore. This can have an adverse effect on the river’s hydrology, navigability, aquatic life and flood defense structures. Precautionary measures shall be taken to minimize these sediments loads ending up in the river. 17- Kamran Baradari is a site of great archaeological significance, so it is suggested that the construction of river embankments around it be in such a way that they don’t affect its existing vegetation and distant visibility. 18- Following are some of the recommendations for reducing effects of light pollution (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission http://myfwc.com/conservation/you-conserve/lighting/pollution/, IDA (International Dark Sky association) Practical Guide: PG1 Introduction to light pollution (www.darksky.org) • Keeping the light LOW (mounting the fixture as low as possible).

Section - 3: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 68 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

• Lower the wattage of all outdoor lighting—both municipal and private. Over lighting reduces the eye’s ability to see outside of the lit area. In addition, excess light can produce glare, which also reduces visibility. Selecting the correct lamp wattage increases safety and reduces costs. • Place motion sensors on essential outdoor lamps. Lighting on demand trumps a manual switch or timer. Motion sensitive switches light walkways when need. • SHIELDED (fully shielding the light so bulbs and/or glowing lenses are not visible) cuts down on the amount of glare and light visible to the animals, so that there is less opportunity for them to get trapped, repelled, or have their day/night patterns altered.

Figure 3-1: Fixtures that enhance and reduce light pollution • Keeping it LONG wavelength (ambers and reds) actually makes the light that is visible seem dimmer to nocturnal animals that primarily use rod vision. Some long wavelength light sources such as low-pressure sodium lights and amber and red LEDs use a fraction of the energy of their mercury halide, incandescent and even fluorescent counterparts and cut down greenhouse gas emissions. • Closing curtains at night to keep indoor light in, especially in a multi-storied building will prevent bird crashes • Considering them as prime wildlife habitat in the urban area lighting in the Forest areas should be avoided.

Section - 3: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 69 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

Figure 3-2: Proper installation of fixtures can save energy and reduce light pollution http://physics.fau.edu/observatory/lightpol-prevent.html 19- One common practice that local people have adopted is throwing of sacrificial flesh in the river water as a “sadqa”. Sacrificial meat which is also known as SADQA has been used for many years in Lahore city. People give sadqa because they have a concept that by giving it we can release from all types of troubles and bad omen. Many cyclists on river Ravi Bridge sell sacrificial meat in packets on roadsides. The meat sellers have made it their profession and they sell one packet of meat at the cost of Rupees 10. In addition, they are using different dyes to keep that meat as red in color. It has been researched that such dyes contain known heavy metals (Nickel, Copper, Cadmium, Chromium and Arsenic) in it (Mohiyudin 2014). Later on, such dyed meat is taken up by the large birds and it end up in becoming part of the food chain. The high rate of heavy metal concentration and microbial contents in sacrificial meat can make it more hazardous and harmful to the health of animal and birds. This project of river development can stop throwing this meat in river Ravi through a prohibition act to control on such activities in river body.

Section - 3: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 70 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

Figure 3-3: Kites diving to get sacrificial meat at Shahdara Bridge.

Figure 3-4: People selling and buying sacrificial meat at Shahdara Bridge.

Section - 3: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 71 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

20- To avoid bird collisions following measures can be taken • Bird-safe glazing treatments should be included like fritting, netting, permanent stencils, frosted glass, exterior screens, physical grids placed on the exterior of glazing or UV patterns visible to birds. • Awareness campaigns for developers, architects, planners, property owners, businesses, residents and youth groups should be arranged. • Interior plants should be moved from the window so as not to be visible from the outside to the birds. • Consider limiting nighttime building use by combining motion operated light sensors with daytime cleaning services. This combination will reduce light pollution and increase energy conservation. • Where interior lighting is used at night, window coverings should be closed to block light transmission adequately. • Consider seasonal migration needs. Unneeded interior and exterior lighting should be turned off from dusk to dawn during this period.

Section - 3: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 72 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

Figure 3-5A: Spotlight on building height and bird migration (San Francisco Planning Department 2011)

Section - 3: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 73 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

Figure 3-6B: Portion of the buildings most susceptible to bird strikes. (San Francisco Planning Department 2011) 21- High-rise buildings present an easy target for birds. Not only are they up in the birds' domain, but they offer multiple stories on which they can roost and nest. Followings are frequently used birds’ deterrents • Visual (Lasers, Dogs, Human Scarer, Scarecrows, Balloons, Falconry, Radio-Controlled Aircraft, Mirrors/Reflectors, Tapes, Flags, Rags and Streamers). • Exclusion (Nets, Wires and Anti-Perching Devices). Exclusion techniques are usually extremely effective. Efficacy depends on the degree to which birds are excluded, but the greater the exclusion the more expensive they are. • Habitat Modification (Vegetation Management, Alternative Feeding Areas and Bait Stations, Removal of Roost Structures, Water Spray Devices and Food Removal). Habitat modification techniques are generally considered to be effective and environmentally friendly.

Section - 3: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 74 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

Figure 3-7: Bird scaring devices (a) spikes, (b) flex track, (c) net 22- Following are some of the recommendations for reducing ecological footprint of this development: • Development of mass transit system will cut down carbon emissions. • Energy efficient buildings and building codes should be introduced in the urban construction to reduce energy use by heating and cooling. • Forest restoration and vegetation enhancement to capture and fix carbon dioxide. • Street and other lights in the public areas should be on solar energy. • Use of alternative energy resources will reduce ecological footprint. • Setting aside areas for agriculture in the project for urban agriculture and vegetables production to meet the needs of the local residents will reduce ecological footprint. • Solid waste generated from the residential areas should be segregated at source and properly recycled.

Section - 3: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 75 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

• Compositing of all the garden waste will be cut down synthetic fertilizer use and help in reducing ecological footprint.

Section - 3: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 76 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

Literature Consulted Acreman, M., & Dunbar, M.J. (2004). Defining environmental river flow requirements: A review. Hydrology and Earth System science, 8(5), 861-867. Akhtar M, Mahboob S, Sultana S, Sultana T, Alghanim KA, Ahmed Z (2014) Assessment of Pesticide Residues in Flesh of Catla catla from Ravi River, Pakistan The Scientific World Journal 2014 Alho, C. J. R. (2011). Environmental effects of hydropower reservoirs on wild mammals and freshwater turtles in Amazonia: a review. Barbarossa, V., Schmitt, R. J., Huijbregts, M. A., Zarfl, C., King, H., & Schipper, A. M. (2020). Impacts of current and future large dams on the geographic range connectivity of freshwater fish worldwide. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(7), 3648-3655. Benstead, J. P., March, J. G., Pringle, C. M., & Scatena, F. N. (1999). Effects of a low‐ head dam and water abstraction on migratory tropical stream biota. Ecological Applications, 9(2), 656-668. Bernacsek, G. M. (2001). Environmental issues, capacity and information base for management of fisheries. Dams, Fish and Fisheries: Opportunities, Challenges and Conflict Resolution, (419), 139. Biggs, B.J.F., 2000. New Zealand periphyton guideline: detecting, monitoring and managing enrichment of streams [online]. Wellington: Ministry for the Environment. Chen, C. (2011). A study on sustainable riverfront landscape design: On design strategy based on ecological recovery and context protection. Master Thesis. University of Florida, United States. Ufdcimages.Uflib.Ufl.Edu/Uf/E0/04/38/69/00001/Chen_C.Pdf. Accessed on 9 September 2014. CSIRO. (1991). the insects of Australia. A textbook for students and research workers. New York, Cornell University Press, 1135. Dynesius, M., & Nilsson, C. (1994). Fragmentation and flow regulation of river systems in the northern third of the world. Science, 266(5186), 753-762. ERC. (2010). A report on the surveying method of ecological impact study of the environmental impact assessment of Hong Kong section of Guangzhou- Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail. Hong Kong: Eco-Education & Resources Centre.http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr09- 10/english/panels/tp/tp_rdp/papers/tp_rdp0920cb1-2879-9-e.pdf. Accessed on 8 September 2014. Fox, R.L. (2013). Sinclair riverfront ecological enhancement project: Recommendations – 2007. Iowa: Landscape Architecture + Planning. http://ruthfoxlandarch.com/sinclair-site-investigation/. Accessed on 11

Section - 3: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 77 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

September 2014. GISD. (2005). Global Invasive Species Database. Kenya: Global Invasive Species Programme. http://www.issg.org/database. Accessed 6 September 2014. Champion, H.G., Seth, S. K., & Khattak, G.M. (1965). Forest types of Pakistan. Peshawar: Pakistan Forest Institute. Gelb, Yigal; Nicole Delacretaz. 2009. Windows and Vegetation: Primary Factors in Manhattan Bird Collisions Northeastern Naturalist. 16(3):455-470. GOP (Government of Punjab). 2013. Forest Area. GIS Lab. of Dev. and Working Plan Circle, Punjab Forest Department, Lahore. Grimmett, R., Roberts, T. J., Inskipp, T., & Byers, C. (2008). Birds of Pakistan. A&C Black. Hanson, A. (2012). Reconnecting to a forgotten river: An ecological solution. Bachelor design Thesis, North Dakota State University, and Fargo, United States. http://library.ndsu.edu/repository/handle/10365/20053. Accessed on 9 September 2014. Heim, S. (2002). Ecological impact study. Connecticut: TRC Environmental Corporation Windsor. Www.middletownplanning.com/SumnerBrook_Ecological_Impact_St. Accessed on 12 September 2014. Hersh, B.F. (2012). The complexity of urban waterfront redevelopment. New York: University Schack Institute of Real Estate http://www.naiop.org/en/Research/Our-Research/Reports/The-Complexity- of-Urban-Waterfront-Redevelopment.aspx Hoch, P. (2011). Species/Flora of Pakistan. Missouri: Tropicos org. Missouri Botanical Garden. http://www.tropicos.org/Project/Pakistan. Accessed on 4 September 2014. IEEM. (2006). Guidelines for ecological impact assessment in the United Kingdom. Hampshire: Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management. http://www.cieem.net/data/files/Resource_Library/Technical_Guidance pdf. Accessed on 12 September 2014. Iqbal, M., Saleem, I., Ali, Z., Khan, M.A., & Akhtar, M. (2011). Bird ecology from the Ravi River of Lahore: Habitat degraded. The Journal of Animal & Plant Sciences, 21(4), 817-821 Iqbal, M.Z. Malik, S.A., & Chaudhry, A.A. (2007). Birds of Lahore cantonment. Pakistan Journal of Zoology, 39(4), 203-214. Irving, D. B., & Modde, T. (2000). Home-range fidelity and use of historic habitat by adult Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius) in the White River, Colorado and Utah. Western North American Naturalist, 16-25.

Section - 3: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 78 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

IUCN. (2014). The IUCN red list of threatened species. Version 2014.2. Cambridge: International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. http:// www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed on 5 September 2014. J. Bishop, H. McKay, D. Parrott and J. Allan. 2003. Review of international research literature regarding the effectiveness of auditory bird scaring techniques and potential alternatives. Kashyap, S.R. (1936). Lahore district flora. Lahore: University of the Punjab. Nasir, E. and S.I. Ali. (1971-2005). Flora of Pakistan. Islamabad: Pakistan Agriculture Research Centre. Khalid, S., & Siddiqui, S. (2014). Weeds of Paksiatn: Cyperaceae. Pak. J. Weed Sci. Res., 20(2): 233-263. Khan A, Ali Z, Shelly S, Ahmad Z, Mirza M (2011) Aliens; a catastrophe for native freshwater fish diversity in Pakistan Journal of Animals and Plants Sciences 21:435-440 Khan A, Shakir H, Khan M, Abid M, Mirza M (2008) Ichthyofaunal survey of some fresh water reservoirs in Punjab J Anim Pl Sci 18:151 Khan MS (2004) Annotated checklist of amphibians and reptiles of Pakistan Asiatic Herpetological Research 10:191-201 Khan MS (2010) Checklist of Amphibians of Pakistan Pakistan J Wildlife 1:37-42. Klem, D. Jr. February, 2009. Avian Mortality At Windows: The Second Largest Human Source of Bird Mortality on Earth. Proceedings of the Fourth International Partners in Flight Conference: Tundra to Tropics. 244-251 Liao, W. L., Bhargava, D. S., & Das, J. (1988). Some effects of dams on wildlife. Environmental Conservation, 15(1), 68-70. Liermann, C.R., Nilsson, C., Robertson, J. & Ng, R.Y. (2012). Implications of dam obstruction for global freshwater fishdiversity. BioScience 62: 539–548. Longcore T, Rich C (2004) Ecological light pollution Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2:191-198 Malik RN, Rauf S, Mohammad A, Ahad K (2011) Organochlorine residual concentrations in cattle egret from the Punjab Province, Pakistan Environmental monitoring and assessment 173:325-341 Mihov, S., & Hristov, I. (2011). River ecology. World Wide Fund. http://awsassets.panda.org/downloads/riverecology_eng_bt13dec.pdf. Assessed 8 September 2014. Milunovic, M. (2007). The redevelopment of Belgrade’s riverfront: Developing landscape design and planning solutions for ecological sustainability of Danube riparian ecosystem. Master thesis. SUNY College of Environment Science and Forestry, United States.

Section - 3: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 79 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

http://www.esf.edu/la/capstones/2008/Milunovic_Milica_08/Milunovic_prop osal_08.pdf. Accessed on 10 September 2014. Mohy-u-din N., Farooq A., Mehwish M. and Adnan S. A. 2014. Assessment of contaminants in sacrificial meat sold at various locations in Lahore, Pakistan. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. App. Sci. 3(6): 292-303 Moza, U. (2014). River Ravi ecology and fishery. New Delhi: Indian Council of Agricultural Research. http://www.icar.org.in/files/River_Ravi.pdf. Assessed 10 September 2014. Newton, I. (2010). The migration ecology of birds. Elsevier. Noreen, U. (2008). Illegal trade in freshwater turtle parts. Islamabad: Pakistan Wetland Programme. http://www.wwfpak.org/species/images/FreshwaterTurtles_publications/lleg alTradeofFreshwaterTurtlesParts.pdf. Assessed 15 September 2014 Noureen, U. (2007). Freshwater turtles of Pakistan. Islamabad: Pakistan Wetland Programme. http://www.wwfpak.org/species/images/FreshwaterTurtles_publications/Fres hwaterTurtlesofPakistan2-2007.pdf. Assessed 15 September 2014 NSTA. (2004). Protocol 5. Collecting aquatic invertebrates. Arlington: National Science Teachers Association. http://www.scilinks.org/. Accessed on 9 September 2014. Otto, B., McCormick, K., & Leccese, M. (2004). Ecological riverfront design: restoring Rivers, connecting communities. Planning advisory service report number 518-519. Chicago: American Planning Association. https://www.csu.edu/cerc/documents/EcologicalRiverfrontDesign.pdf Accessed on 10 September 2014. Parker, R.N. (1956). A forest flora for the Punjab with Hazara and Dehli. Lahore: Govt. Printing Press. Poff, N. L., & Schmidt, J. C. (2016). How dams can go with the flow. Science, 353(6304), 1099-1100. Poff, N.L. & Zimmerman, J.K. (2010) Ecological responses toaltered flow regimes: a literature review to inform the scienceand management of environmental flows. Freshwater Biology 55:194–205. Rafique, M., Khan, N.H. (2012). Distribution and status of significant freshwater fishes of Pakistan Zoology Survey of Pakistan. 21, 90-95. Rauf A, Javed M, Ubaidullah M (2009) Heavy metal levels in three major carps (Catla catla, Labeo rohita and Cirrhina mrigala) from the river Ravi, Pakistan Kidney 2:4.43-40.92b

Section - 3: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 80 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

Reid, A. J., Carlson, A. K., Creed, I. F., Eliason, E. J., Gell, P. A., Johnson, P. T., ... & Cooke, S. J. (2019). Emerging threats and persistent conservation challenges for freshwater biodiversity. Biological Reviews, 94(3), 849-873. Roberts, T. J. (2005a). Field guide to the large and medium-sized mammals of Pakistan. Oxford University Press. Roberts, T. J. (2005b). Field guide to the small mammals of Pakistan. Oxford Univeristy Press. Roberts, T.J. (1991). The birds of Pakistan, regional studies and non-passeriformes. Oxford university press. Roberts, T.J. (1992). The birds of Pakistan, passeriformes: Pittas to buntings. Oxford university press. Roberts, T.J. (1997). The mammals of Pakistan. Oxford university press. Revised edition Roberts, T.J. (2001). The butterflies of Pakistan. Oxford university press. Roberts, T.J., (2006). Field Guide to the Large and Medium-sized Mammals of Pakistan. Oxford university press. Roberts, T.J., (2006). Field Guide to the Small Mammals of Pakistan. Oxford university press. Sadia S.A., & Mirza, Z. B. (2011). Ecological and socioeconomic linkages of birds of river riverine habitats. Pakistan Journal of Zoology, 43(1), 113-122. Saeed, M., Khan, Z. D., & Ajaib, M. (2012). Some phytosociological studies of chasmophytes and ediphytes of Lahore city. Pak. J. Bot., 44: 165-169. San Francisco Planning Department. 2011. Standards for Bird-Safe Buildings. Draft report prepared by San Francisco Planning Department, USA. Shafiq, M.M. (2005). Wildlife acts & rules of Pakistan. Peshawar: Pakistan Institute of Forest, ministry of Environment, Govt. of Pakistan. www.falcons.com.pk/Wildlife_acts_and_rules.pdf. Accessed on 9 September 2014. Shakir H, Qazi J (2013) “Impact of industrial and municipal discharges on growth coefficient and condition factor of major carps from Lahore stretch of river Ravi. Journal of Animal and Plant Sciences 23:167-173 Shakir H.A., & Qazi, J.I. (2013). Impact of industrial and municipal discharges on growth coefficient and growth factor of major carps from Lahore stretch of River Ravi. The Journal of Animal & Plant Sciences, 23(1), 167-173 Shakir HA, Shazadi K, Qazi JI, Hussain A. (2014). Planktonic diversity in gut contents of Labeo rohita from Ravi, Pakistan reflecting urban loads on the river Biologia (Pakistan) 60:87-92

Section - 3: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 81 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

Singh, A.P. (2011). Birds of the upper catchment of Ravi River, Chamba district, Himachal Pradesh, India. Indian birds, 7(4): 97–103. Syed JH, Malik RN, Li J, Chaemfa C, Zhang G, Jones KC (2014) Status, distribution and ecological risk of organochlorines (OCs) in the surface sediments from the Ravi River, Pakistan Science of the Total Environment 472:204-211 The Severn Barrage. (2007). the Severn Barrage Project. Accessed on 1 September, 2014. http://www.foe.co.uk/sites/default/files/downloads/the_severn_barrage.pd f Triplehorn, C.A., Johnson, N.F. (2005). Borror and DeLong’s Introduction to the Study of Insects, seventh ed. Thompson Books/Cole, Belmont, CA. USAC. (2003). Peoria riverfront development, Illinois (ecosystem restoration), feasibility study with integrated environmental assessment. Illinois: Rock Island District, Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army. http://sites.cityofvancouver.us/Report.pdf. Accessed on 12 September 2014. Van Puijenbroek, P. J., Buijse, A. D., Kraak, M. H., & Verdonschot, P. F. (2019). Species and river specific effects of river fragmentation on European anadromous fish species. River Research and Applications, 35(1), 68-77. WAPCOS. (2012). Technical analysis of EIA report of development of waterfront at Mormugao port Goa. New Delhi: Centre for Science and Environment. http://www.cseindia.org/userfiles/eia_review.pdf. Accessed on 10 September 2014. Welcomme, R. L. (1985). River fisheries. FAO Technical Paper No. 262. Food and Agriculture Organisation: Geneva. Wheater, C.P., Bell, J.R., & Cook, P.A. (2011). Practical field ecology: A project guide. Hoboken: Wiley & Sons Ltd. Publication. Zeng, Q., Lu, C., Li, G., Guo, Z. B., Wen, L., & Lei, G. C. (2017). Impact of a dam on wintering waterbirds’ habitat use. Environmental Conservation, 45(4), 307- 314.

Section - 3: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 82

APPENDICES

Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

Appendix-1: Appendices of CITES

Section - 3: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 68 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

Section - 3: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 69 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

Section - 3: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 70 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

Appendix-2: Punjab Wildlife Act (amendments) 2007

Section - 3: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 71 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

Section - 3: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 72 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

Section - 3: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 73 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

Section - 3: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 74 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

Section - 3: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 75 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

Appendix 3: List of plant species recommended to be planted on riverbank

Plant Type Local Name Family Height Flowering Time

Trees

Acacia modesta Phulai Fabaceae Medium April – May

Acacia nilotica Egyptian Thorn Mimosaceae 10-12m June – July

Bauhinia alba Sufaid Kachnar Fabaceae 8-12m March - April

Cassia fistula Amaltas Fabaceae 12-15m May - June

Section - 3: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 76 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

Plant Type Local Name Family Height Flowering Time

Dalbergia sissoo Sissoo Tree Fabaceae 20-25m April

Ficus religiosa Peepul Tree Moraceae 30 m Set – Oct

Jacaranda March-April & Gul-e-Neelam Fabaceae 10 m mimosifolia Sep-Oct

Upto to Populus euphratica Salt Poplar Salicaceae Jan - June. 15m

Prosopis cineraria Jand Fabaceae 3-5 m Feb - March

Salix tetrasperma Indian Willow Salicaceae 8-10m March-April

Upto to Syzygium cumini Black Plum Myrtaceae March - April 30m

Tamarix aphylla Athel Pine Tamaricaceae 20 m June – Oct

Shrubs

Kabli Kikar / Acacia farnesiana Fabaceae 4m Aug - March Gand

Alaichi / Alpinia allughas Zingiberaceae 1-1.5m April - May Cardamom

Andropogon Bamboo Poaceae 0.5-1m March - April muricatus

Common 1 / 2- Bambusa nana Poaceae - bamboo 1.5m

Hop headed Barleria lupulina Acanthaceae 0.6m April - May barleria

Bauhinia Orchid tree Fabaceae 1-1.5m Sep - Oct tomentosa

Bougainvillea Thornless Nyctaginaceae 2-4m June - July arborea bougan

Carissa grandiflora Kronda / Natal Apocynaceae 2.5-3.5m May - August

Cassia glauca Cassia / cenna Fabaceae 2-3m April - May

April - May & Cestrum diurnum Day Jasmine Solanaceae 1.5-3m Sep - Oct

Section - 3: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 77 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

Plant Type Local Name Family Height Flowering Time

Cestrum April - May & Night Jasmine Solanaceae 1.5-3m nocturnum Sep - Oct

Codiaeum Croton Euphorbiaceae 2-3m - veriegatum

Duranta repens Pigeon berry Verbenaceae 1-4m May - Oct

Eranthemum Neelum Acanthaceae 1-2m April-May nervosum

Euphorbia Lal jhari Euphorbiaceae 1-5m Nov - April cotinifolia

Jhumka / Throughout the Hamelia patens Rubiacaee 2-4m Bunday year

Hibiscus rosa- Throughout the Shoe flower Malvaceae 2-3m sinensis year

Jasminum Yasmeen / Oleaceae 3-5m Nov - Feb grandiflora Chambeli

Jasminum humile Pili chambali Oleaceae 2-3m Feb - March

Jasminum sambac Motia Oleaceae 2-4m April - Sep

Jatropha integrima Jatropha Euphorbiaceae 2-3m March-April

Juniperus prostrate Juniper Pinaceae 2-3m -

Lagerostoemia Gul-e-fanoos Lythraceae 1-3m May - Sep lancasteri

Lawsonia inermis Heena Lythraceae 2-3m May - June

Many times a Murraya exotica Murva Rotaceae Upto 3m year

Nerium oleander Oleander Apocynaceae 2–6 m May - June

Nyctanthes arbor- Har Singhar Oleaceae 2-4m Oct -Nov tristis

April - May & Punica granatum Anar Punicaceae 3-4m Sep - Oct

Russelia Most part of the Fountain bush Scrophulariaceae 1-2m sarmentosa year

Section - 3: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 78 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

Plant Type Local Name Family Height Flowering Time

Schinus Kali mirch Anacardiaceae 3-4m March - April terebinthilolius

Tamarix dioica salt cedar Tamaricaceae 1-18m -

Tecomella Lahura Bignoniaceae 3-5m Feb - April undulate

April - May / Thevetia peruviana Pili kaner Apocynaceae 3-4m Year round

Thuja orientalis More Pankh Pinaceae 2-3m No flower

Herbs

Agave Americana Century Plant Asparagaceae Upto 9m June - July

Anemone sp. Windflower Ranunculaceae 0.2m June - Aug.

Aquilegia sp. Columbine Ranunculaceae 0.5m Feb - May

Dahlia sp. Dahlia Asteraceae 0.3m Dec - June

Freesia sp. Freesia Iridaceae 0.3m March-April

Gazania sp. Treasure Flower Asteraceae 0.2m Feb - June

Pansy sp. Pansy Violaceae 0.2m Jan - May

Pettunia sp. Petunia Solanaceae 0.3m Dec - March

Ranunculus sp. Buttercup Ranunculaceae 0.4m Feb - May

Black Throughout the Solanum nigrum Solanaceae 0.15-0.6 Nightshade year

Grasses & Sedges for river embankment slopes

Creeping Panic Throughout the Brachiaria reptans Gramineae 0.1-0.5m Grass year

0.25- Carex fedia ness. Carex Cyperaceae April - May 0.6m

0.08m- Throughout the Cyperus iria Rice Flat Sedge Cyperaceae 0.6m year

Throughout the Cyperus rotundus Nut-Grass Cyperaceae 0.3-0.4 year

Section - 3: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 79 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

Plant Type Local Name Family Height Flowering Time

Desmostachya Halfa Grass Poaceae 1.2-1.8 m Mid Summer bipinnata

Southern Throughout the Digitaria ciliaris Gramineae Upto 1m Crabgrass year

Echinochloa Throughout the Jungle Rice Gramineae 0.1-1m colonum year

Hemarthria Throughout the Whip Grass Gramineae Upto 1m compressa year

Saccharum munja Plume Grass Poaceae 2m Oct - Jan

Saccharum Wild Cane Poaceae 2-3.5 m May - Dec spontaneum

Throughout the Setaria pumila Pigeon Grass Poaceae 0.2m year

Section - 3: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 80 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

Appendix 4: List of trees for buffer zones and roadside

Plant Type Local Name Family Height Flowering Time Trees Egyptian Acacia nilotica Mimosaceae 10-12m June - July Thorn Albizia lebbek Rain Tree Mimosaceae 18-24m April - May Albizia procera Tall Albizia Mimosaceae 15-20m June - August White Alstonia scholaris Apocynaceae 15-20m Oct - Dec Cheesewood Azadirachta indica Neem Tree Meliaceae 10-12m April - May April-May, Aug- Capparis decidua Kareer Capparaceae 5 m Sept. Cordia myxa Assyrian Plum Boraginaceae 10-12m March - April Dalbergia sissoo Sissoo Tree Fabaceae 20-25m April Corky Coral Erythrina suberosa Fabaceae 10-18m March - April Tree Ficus benghalensis Banyan Fig Moraceae 20-30m April & Oct. – Nov Ficus carica Fig Moraceae 7–10 m Jun - Sep Upto Ficus infectoria White Fig Moraceae Set - Oct 15m Dec- March & Ficus racemosa Cluster Fig Moraceae 9-12 m July-Sep Ficus religiosa Peepul Tree Moraceae 30 m Set - Oct Heterophargama Nag Phali Bignoniaceae 10-15m July - Aug adenophyllum Mangifera indica Mango Anacardiaceae 12-15m Feb. - March Melia azedarach China Berry Meliaceae 9-12m April - May Spanish Mimusops elengi Sapotaceae 12-18m July - Dec Cherry White Morus alba Moraceae 12-15m March - April Mulberry Black Morus nigra Moraceae 12m May - June Mulberry Throughout the Musa paradisiaca Banana Musaceae 2–9 m year

Section - 3: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 81 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

Plant Type Local Name Family Height Flowering Time March - April & Parkinsonia aculeate Cambron Fabaceae 7-10m Sep - Oct Phoenix dactylifera Date Palm Arecaceae 30 m Feb to March Silver date Phoenix sylvestris Arecaceae 4-15m June - July palm Upto Platanus orientalis Chinar Platanaceae March - May 25m Polyalthia longifolia Ashok Annonaceae 20-25m Feb - April Upto Populus euphratica Salt Poplar Salicaceae Jan - June. 15m Prosopis cineraria Jand Fabaceae 3-5 m Feb - March Psidium guajava Guava Myrtaceae 6m April- May Salix tetrasperma Indian Willow Salicaceae 8-10m March-April Salvadora oleoides Vann Salvadoraceae 6m March-April Upto Syzygium cumini Black Plum Myrtaceae March - April 30m Tamarix aphylla Athel Pine Tamaricaceae 20 m June - Oct Terminalia arjuna Arjun Tree Combretaceae 20-30m March - May Chinese Ziziphus jujuba Rhamnaceae 8-10m June - July Date

Section - 3: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 82 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

Appendix 5: List of Palms, Gymnosperms, shrubs and ferns for Parks and Gardens

Reproduction Plant Type Local Name Family Height Time Palms Bismarkia nobilis Bismarck palm Palmae 25m Mid spring Borassus flabalifer Sugar palm Palmae 30m Feb - April Upto Butia capitata Jelly Palm Palmae June - July 6m Upto Caryota urens Wine palm Palmae - 12m Chamaedorea 0.1- Parlour Palm Palmae Mid Spring elegans 0.3m Chamaerops humilis Fan Palm Palmae 2-5m April-May Upto Cocos nucifera Coconut Palm Palmae - 30m Golden Dypsis lutescens Palmae 6-12m July - August cane palm Upto Livistona australis Slender palm Palmae April - May 25m Chinese Fan Livistona chinensis Palmae 13m - Palm Nannorrhops Mazari Palm Palmae 1-2m - ritchieana Neodypsis decaryl Triangle Palm Palmae 15m - Phoenix canariensis Date palm Palmae 10-12m Jan Phoenix dactylifera Date Palm Palmae 30 m Feb - March Silver Date Phoenix sylvestris Arecaceae 4-15m June - July Palm Miniature Date Phoenix roebelenii Palmae 2-3m - Palm Phoenix rupicola Cliff Date Palm Palmae 8m - Phoenix raclinata Wild date palm Palmae 7.5-15m Feb Ravenea rivularis Majesty Palm Palmae 12m - Rhapis excels Lady Palm Palmae 3m Jan

Section - 3: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 83 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

Reproduction Plant Type Local Name Family Height Time Slender Lady Rhapis humilis Palmae 3-4m - Palm Cuban royal Roystonea regia Palmae 20-30m Jun - July palm Sabal maxicana Texas Palmetto Palmae 9-12m April - May California Fan Washingtonia filifera Palmae 9m Feb - March Palm Wodyetia bifurcata Foxtail Palm Palmae 6-9m Gymnosperms Araucaria Monkey Puzzle Araucariacea 40m Feb - March araucana Tree e Araucaria Araucariacea Hoop Pine 60m - cunnninghamii e Araucaria Norfolk Island Araucariacea 20-30m - heterophylla Pine e Cedrus deodara Deodar Pinaceae 40-50m Aug - Sep Cupressacea Cupressus arizonica Arizona Cypress 15-25m - e Cupressacea Cupressus funebris Cypress 20-35m Feb e Cupressus Cupressacea Italian Cypress 18m - sempervirens e Upto Cycas circinalis Queen Sago Cycadaceae - 4m Cycas revoluta Kungi Palm Cycadaceae 3m - Ephedra ciliata Joint-pine Ephedraceae 0.2m - Maidenhair Ginkgo biloba Ginkgoaceae 20-35 April Tree Juniperus Creeping 0.1- Pinaceae June horizontalis Juniper 0.3m Pinus halepensis Aleppo Pine Pinaceae 15-25m March - April Pinus roxburghii Chir pine Pinaceae 30-50m Jan - April Podocarpus Podocarpac Kusamaki 20m - macrophyllus eae

Section - 3: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 84 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

Reproduction Plant Type Local Name Family Height Time Cupressacea Thuja occidentalis White cedar 10-20m Feb - March e 0.4- Zamia fischeri Cycad Zamiaceae Feb - March 0.5m Shrubs Kabli Kikar / Acacia farnesiana Fabaceae 4m Aug - March Gand Alaichi / Zingiberacea Alpinia allughas 1-1.5m April - May Cardamom e Alaichi / Zingiberacea Alpinia allughas 1-1.5m April - May Cardamom e Andropogon Bamboo Poaceae 0.5-1m March - April muricatus Andropogon Bamboo Poaceae 0.5-1m March - April muricatus Common 1 / 2- Bambusa nana Poaceae - bamboo 1.5m Common 1 / 2- Bambusa nana Poaceae bamboo 1.5m Hop headed Acanthacea Barleria lupulina 0.6m April - May barleria e Hop headed Acanthacea Barleria lupulina 0.6m April - May barleria e Bauhinia tomentosa Orchid tree Fabaceae 1-1.5m Sep - Oct Bauhinia tomentosa Orchid tree Fabaceae 1-1.5m Sep - Oct Bougainvillea Thornless Nyctaginace 2-4m June - July arborea bougan ae Apocynacea 2.5- Carissa grandiflora Kronda / Natal May - August e 3.5m Cassia glauca Cassia / cenna Fabaceae 2-3m April - May April - May & Cestrum diurnum Day Jasmine Solanaceae 1.5-3m Sep - Oct April - May & Cestrum nocturnum Night Jasmine Solanaceae 1.5-3m Sep - Oct Codiaeum Euphorbiace Croton 2-3m - veriegatum ae

Section - 3: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 85 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

Reproduction Plant Type Local Name Family Height Time Verbenacea Duranta repens Pigeon berry 1-4m May - Oct e Verbenacea Duranta repens Pigeon berry 1-4m May - Oct e Eranthemum Acanthacea Neelum 1-2m April-May nervosum e Eranthemum Acanthacea Neelum 1-2m April - May nervosum e Euphorbia Euphorbiace Lal jhari 1-5m Nov - April cotinifolia ae Jhumka / Throughout the Hamelia patens Rubiacaee 2-4m Bunday year Throughout the Hibiscus rosa-sinensis Shoe flower Malvaceae 2-3m year Jasminum Yasmeen / Oleaceae 3-5m Nov - Feb grandiflora Chambeli Jasminum humile Pili chambali Oleaceae 2-3m Feb - March Jasminum sambac Motia Oleaceae 2-4m April - Sep Euphorbiace Jatropha integrima Jatropha 2-3m March-April ae Juniperus prostrata Juniper Pinaceae 2-3m - Lagerostoemia Gul-e-fanoos Lythraceae 1-3m May - Sep lancasteri Lawsonia inermis Heena Lythraceae 2-3m May - June Upto Many times a Murraya exotica Murva Rotaceae 3m year Apocynacea Nerium oleander Oleander 2–6 m May - June e Nyctanthes arbor- Har Singhar Oleaceae 2-4m Oct -Nov tristis April - May & Punica granatum Anar Punicaceae 3-4m Sep - Oct Scrophulariac Most part of Russelia sarmentosa Fountain bush 1-2m eae the year Schinus Anacardiace Kali mirch 3-4m March - April terebinthilolius ae

Section - 3: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 86 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

Reproduction Plant Type Local Name Family Height Time Tamaricacea Tamarix dioica salt cedar 1-18m - e Bignoniacea Tecomella undulata Lahura 3-5m Feb - April e Apocynacea April - May / Thevetia peruviana Pili kaner 3-4m e Year round Thuja orientalis More Pankh Pinaceae 2-3m No flower Herbs Pettunia sp. Petunia Solanaceae 0.3m Dec - March Pansy sp. Pansy Violaceae 0.2m Jan - May Gazania sp. Treasure Flower Asteraceae 0.2m Feb - June Dahlia sp. Dahlia Asteraceae 0.3m Dec - June Freesia sp. Freesia Iridaceae 0.3m March - April Ranunculace Ranunculus sp. Buttercup 0.4m Feb - May ae Grasses & Sedges Upto Arundo don Nara Poaceae Nov - Feb 1.5m Throughout the Cynodon dactylon Khabble Grass Poaceae 0.2m year Cyperus nutans - Cyperaceae 0.5m Oct - Nov Ferns Adiantum 0.1- - Pteridaceae - raddianum 0.3m Adiantum venustum - Pteridaceae 0.2-0.3 - Cyrtomium Dryopteridac - 0.5m - falcatum eae Dryopteridac Dryopteris ramosa - - - eae Marsilea quadrifolia - Marsileaceae 0.19m - Onychium 0.4- - Pteridaceae - japonicum 0.6m Upto Pteris vitata - Pteridaceae - 1m

Section - 3: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 87 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

Section - 3: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 88 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

Appendix 6: Map of Anno Bhatti Forest

Section - 3: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 87 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

Appendix 7: Map of Shahdara Reserve Forest

Section - 3: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 88 Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project Ecological Impact Study

Appendix 8: Map of Jhok, Korotana and Sadhanwali Forests

Section - 3: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 89