Modeling the Efficacy of the Ganga Action Plan's Restoration of The
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Modeling the Efficacy of the Ganga Action Plan’s Restoration of the Ganga River, India By Shaw Lacy A thesis submitted In partial fulfillment of the requirements For the degree of Master of Science Natural Resources and Environment at The University of Michigan August 2006 Thesis Committee: Professor Michael Wiley Professor Jonathan Bulkley Abstract. To combat rising levels of water pollution in the Ganges River, the Indian gov- ernment initiated the Ganga Action Plan (GAP) in 1984. After twenty years, it is a com- mon perception that the GAP has failed to achieve the goals of a cleaner river. Using available government data on pollution levels and hydrology, I undertook an of the GAP efficacy for fifteen pollution parameters across 52 water quality sampling points moni- tored by India’s Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) within the Ganga Basin. Dis- solved oxygen, BOD, and COD showed a significant improvement of water quality after twenty years. In addition, fecal and total coliform levels, as well as concentrations of cal- cium, magnesium, and TDS all showed a significant decline. Building on this analysis, a GIS analysis was used to create a spatial model of the majority of the Ganga River net- work using a reach-based ecological classification approach. Using recent GAP monitor- ing data, a multiple linear regression model of expected pollutant loads within each reach (VSEC unit) was created. This model was then used to inventory water quality across the entire basin, based on CPCB criteria. My analysis showed 208 river km were class A, 1,142 river km were class B, 684 river km were class C, 1,614 river km were class D, and 10,403 river km were class E. In 2004, field measurements were taken at six major cities along the Ganga mainstem which showed lower concentrations of nitrogen predicted from my model, and roughly the same values of phosphate as the model provided. Al- though the GAP did not result in significant improvements in all major water quality pa- rameters, the fact that most water quality parameters did not significantly decline, even after a doubling of the region’s population during the twenty-year period, does reflect a significant level of success with the law. iii Acknowledgements I would like to thank the many people who have helped contribute to my research. First, Professor Mike Wiley of the School of Natural Resources and Environment (SNRE) at The University of Michigan has been invaluable as a primary advisor, provid- ing direction and continuous constructive criticism. Second, the Rackham School of Graduate Studies provided the majority of funding through their “Rackham Discretionary Funds” program and SNRE’s travel grants, without which this research would not have been possible. I would also like to thank Professor Jonathan Bulkley for assenting to be the reader of this opus on very short notice. Mr. Stephen Hensler also provided a lot of assistance in collecting field data in India. iv Table of Contents Abstract..............................................................................................................................iii Acknowledgements............................................................................................................ iv Table of Contents................................................................................................................ v Preface................................................................................................................................ vi Introduction......................................................................................................................... 7 Human Significance of the Ganga River Basin .............................................................. 8 Impacted Aquatic Ecology of the Ganga River .............................................................. 9 The Ganga Action Plan................................................................................................. 10 Methods............................................................................................................................. 14 Construction of an annual average discharge (Q) model.............................................. 14 Central Pollution Control Board Data........................................................................... 16 Construction of the Ecological Valley Segment Model ............................................... 18 Estimating Pollution Beyond CPCB Basins ................................................................. 19 Empirical Pollutant Loading Estimates .................................................................... 19 Per capita Potential Loads......................................................................................... 20 Pollution Analysis..................................................................................................... 21 Sampling in India.......................................................................................................... 22 Sampling Sites .......................................................................................................... 22 Results............................................................................................................................... 25 Pre-Post GAP Comparisons.......................................................................................... 25 Indian Field Data........................................................................................................... 26 Estimated water quality using empirical loading models ......................................... 27 Per capita Potential Loads......................................................................................... 28 Estimate Comparisons .............................................................................................. 29 VSEC Basin Water Quality Classes ......................................................................... 29 Discussion......................................................................................................................... 31 GAP evaluation............................................................................................................. 31 Implications of Increased Fecal Coliform Levels..................................................... 31 Changing the Criteria................................................................................................ 33 Current water quality on Ganga.................................................................................... 34 Variation of phosphate between modeled and measured values .............................. 35 Comparison of the MLR and per capita models ....................................................... 38 Spatial and temporal variation ...................................................................................... 39 Conclusions....................................................................................................................... 43 Caveats, problems, future analysis.................................................................................... 44 Quality Assurance Quality Control............................................................................... 44 Modeling phosphate...................................................................................................... 44 Modeling the Effects of the Monsoon .......................................................................... 45 Tables................................................................................................................................ 47 Figures............................................................................................................................... 73 Bibliography ................................................................................................................... 111 Appendix 1. Pre-GAP pollutant concentrations.............................................................. 115 Appendix 2. Post-GAP pollutant concentrations............................................................ 119 v Preface. All geographic information system (GIS) layers and raw data can be found in the attached CD-ROM. GIS layers are saved as both the Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) shapefiles and ESRI personal geodatabases files. Pre-Ganga Action Plan (GAP) and Post-GAP data from India’s Central Pollution Control Board are saved in Mi- crosoft Excel 2002 format. vi Introduction. The Ganga1 River basin (Figure 1) covers an area of roughly 1 million square kilometers located in North-central India, the majority of Nepal, and extreme southwest- ern China. The middle Ganga Plain includes 144,409 km2 of land between the Himalaya Mountains to the north, and the Vindhaya Mountains in the south (Figure 2, Ray 1998). The mainstem of the river is roughly 2,500 km in length, if measured from the river’s source in the Gangotri Glacier to the Bay of Bengal, through the Hooghly River distribu- tary (Basu 1992). Six major tributaries originate in the Himalaya Mountains (Figure 3). These are (in geographic order from West to East) the Yamuna2 River, the Ramganga River, the Ghaghara River, the Gandak River, the Bhuri Gandak River, and the Kosi River. Al- though flowing north-to-south with the Himalayan Rivers, the Gomati River3 does not originate in the mountains. Six major tributaries originate from the Vindhya Mountains to the south. In geographic order from West to East the Chambal River, the Sind River, the Betwa