MARINE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT STUDY FOR … · marine environmental impact assessment...

MARINE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT STUDY FOR

SHORE BASED WIND POWER PROJECT AT

MUNDRA, GUJARAT

For

ADANI GREEN ENERGY LIMITED GUJARAT

MARCH 2016

MARINE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT STUDY

FOR SHORE BASED WIND POWER PROJECT AT

MUNDRA, GUJARAT

PROJECT CODE: 499121314

For

ADANI GREEN ENERGY LIMITED GUJARAT

MARCH 2016

INDOMER COASTAL HYDRAULICS (P) LTD. (ISO 9001 : 2008 CERTIFIED AND NABET-QCI ACCREDITATED)

63, GANDHI ROAD, ALWAR THIRUNAGAR, CHENNAI 600 087.

Tel: + 91 44 2486 2482 to 84 Fax: + 91 44 2486 2484

Web site: www.indomer.com, E-mail: [email protected]

http://www.indomer.com/

mailto:[email protected]

INDOMER COASTAL HYDRAULICS (P) LTD. (ISO 9001 : 2008 CERTIFIED AND NABET-QCI ACCREDITATED)

63, Gandhi Road, Alwar Thirunagar, Chennai 600 087. Tel: + 91 44 2486 2482 to 84 Fax: + 91 44 2486 2484

Web site: www.indomer.com , E-mail: [email protected]

Client : Adani Green Energy Limited.

Project Title : Marine EIA study for shore based wind power project at Mundra, Gujarat.

Project Code : 499121314

Abstract : Adani Group has proposed to construct 74 numbers of wind mills along the coastal stretch of

Mundra. Indomer has taken up a Marine Environmental Impact Assessment (MEIA) and

Marine Environmental Management Plan (MEMP) in order to ensure sustainable

development and preservation of marine ecology. This report presents the details of study

made on Marine Environmental Impact Assessment and Marine Environment Management

Plan.

Foreword :

The materials presented in the report carry the copy right of AGEL and INDOMER and should

not be altered or distorted or copied or presented in different manner by other organizations

without the written consent from AGEL and INDOMER.

References : S. O. No: AGEL/Indomer/MS/SO/AG/S4/13 - dt. 26.12.13

Date Report Type Originator Checked by Approved by Approver’s Sign

Interim

19.04.14 Draft V. Vaigaiarasi K. Dharmalingam P. Chandramohan

10.03.15 Final A.P. Anu K. Dharmalingam P. Chandramohan

16.03.16 Revised Final √ V. Vaigaiarasi K. Dharmalingam P. Chandramohan

1 Project Code 499121314 Text pages : 90

2 File Location : F:/2016 Projects/MAR 16/499. ADANI - MUNDRA Tables : 32

Figures : 4

http://www.indomer.com/

mailto:[email protected]

INDOMER

Marine EIA study for shore based Wind power project at March 2016

Mundra, Gujarat.

Declaration by Experts contributing to the EIA

I, here by, certify that I was a part of the EIA team in the following capacity that developed the above

EIA.

EIA Coordinator:

Name : Dr. P. Chandramohan

Signature & Date :

Period of involvement : 07.01.14 - 16.04.14

Contact information : 9940141650

Functional Area Experts

SI.No. Functional

Areas Name of the expert/s

Involvement (Period & Task)

Signature & Date

1 HG Dr. P. Chandramohan

(07.01.14 - 16.04.14) EIA Coordinator & Hydrology and

Groundwater

2 LU Mr. K. Dharmalingam (17.01.14 - 25.01.14)

Land use

3 EB Dr. R. Alfred Selvakumar

05.02.14 - 21.02.14 Ecology & Biodiversity

4 GEO Dr. Terry Machado (05.03.14 - 15.03.14)

Geology

5 WP Dr. Arun Narhar Kadam

(14.02.14 - 28.02.14) Water pollution

6 AP, AQ, WP

Dr. Apurba Gupta

(04.03.14 - 15.03.14) Air pollution, Air quality, Water

pollution

7 NV Mr. Vivek Prabhakar Navare

(14.03.14 - 22.03.14) Noise & Vibration

8 SE Mr. Nanaji Kairika (02.04.14 - 12.04.14)

Socio economic

9 RH, SHW Mr. Ramdas Atmaram Wani

(16.03.14 - 28.03.14) Risk & Hazards, waste

Management

10 NV Mr. Battina Bhaskara Rao

(24.03.14 - 05.03.14) Noise & Vibration

INDOMER


Mundra, Gujarat.

11 SHW Mr. Anil Lalchand Choumal

(12.03.14 - 21.03.14) Soil & Hazardous

waste Management

12 SC Dr. B.K. Patel (29.03.14 - 11.04.14)

Soil conservation

13 SE Mrs. Sarmistha Mohanthy

(26.03.16 - 05.04.16) Socio economic

Functional Area Associate

SI.

No.

Functional


Involvement

(Period & Task)

Signature &

Date

1 HG Ms. V. Vaigaiarasi

(05.02.14 - 11.02.14)

Hydrology &

Groundwater

2 WP Mr. N. Manikandan (14.02.14 - 28.02.2014)

Water pollution

3 LU A.P. Anu (27.03.15 - 09.03.15)

Land use

4 EB Dr. A. Kanathasan (05.02.14 - 12.03.14)

Ecology & Biodiversity

Team members

SI.

No.

Functional


Involvement

(Period & Task)

Signature &

Date

1 LU & HG Mr. G. Yogaraj

(05.03.14 - 15.03.14)

Land use and

Hydrology ,

Groundwater

INDOMER


Mundra, Gujarat.

Declaration by the Head of the Accredited Consultant Organization/authorized person

I, Dr. P. Chandramohan, hereby, confirm that the above mentioned experts prepared the EIA report

entitled “Marine EIA study for shore based Wind power project at Mundra, Gujarat”. I also confirm

that the consultant organization shall be fully accountable for any misleading information mentioned

in this statement.

Signature:

Name: Dr. P. Chandramohan

Designation: Managing Director

Name of the EIA consultant Organization: Indomer Coastal Hydraulics (P) Ltd

NABET Certificate No.& Issue Date: S.I.No. 81 & 24.10.14

INDOMER

Marine EIA study for shore based Exe. Summary

Wind power project at Mundra, Gujarat. March 2016

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

E.1. Background

Adani Group, is a business hub with multiple business activities across the globe. It

entered into power sector and commissioned the first supercritical technology based

660 MW thermal power generating unit at Mundra, Gujarat. Along with the thermal

power unit, Adani Group has made a paradigm shift by venturing into solar power

project at Gujarat. As a part of Adani Group’s endeavor to empower with clean,

green power that is accessible and affordable for a faster and higher socio-economic

development, it is now in the process of venturing into another renewable energy

source i.e. wind energy by constructing wind mills along the periphery of harbor

boundary of Adani South and West Ports in Mundra, Gulf of Kachchh, Gujarat.

For this purpose, a technical feasibility was made by MITCON Consultancy &

Engineering Services Ltd and recommended installation of 74 numbers of wind mills

along the shoreline behind HTL (High Tide Line) along the coastal stretchof around

20 km within the harbor boundary.

The studies relating to Marine Environmental Impact Assessment and preparation of

Marine Environmental Management Plan (MEMP) were assigned to Indomer

Coastal Hydraulics (P) Ltd., Chennai, and the findings are summarized in this report.

E.2. Site Investigations

The marine environment of the project region at open sea and in the creek has been

studied for the evaluation of baseline information as per the norms stipulated by the

Ministry of Environment and Forests, Govt. of India. The baseline data were

collected in January 2014. The samples were collected at 10 locations covering five

locations at creek (stns. S1 to S5) and five locations at open sea (stns.S6 to S10).The

INDOMER



study area covered around 200 km2. The details of the studies carried out in the

coastal region on physical, chemical and biological aspects are explained below.

From the samples collected, detailed analysis was made on the present status of i)

physical parameters such as wind, waves, tides, currents etc, ii) water quality

parameters comprising temperature, salinity, pH, DO, turbidity ammonia, nitrate

etc. iii) sediment quality parameters consisting of total nitrogen, phosphate, metals

etc,(iv) biological parameters such as plankton groups, fisheries, flora, fauna,

mangroves etc. The baseline was thus established and the details are attached in

figures and tables.

The main objective of the study is to assess the extent to which the new

development by way of construction of the proposed wind mills would get impacted

and if so how these can be mitigated keeping in view the guidelines established by

MOEF and other statutory authorities. These are discussed below;

E.3. Impact assessment

The activities analyzed for the prediction of impacts are: i) Impact on marine life, ii)

Impact on intertidal benthos, iii) Sediment dispersal during construction, iv) Acoustic

disturbances during the installation, v ) Impact due to turbine noise, vi) Introduction

of a new habitat, vii) Magnetic and Electro-magnetic field, vii) Impact of power

cables, viii) Dumping of construction debris in sea, ix) Accidental fall of wind

mill/blades, x) Obstruction to fishing, xi) Exclusion of birds, xii) Impact due to

Tsunami and storms, xiii) Other Positive impacts.

The detailed analysis shows that the adverse impacts are quite insignificant and very

marginal by virtue of the location being along the coast that too within the port

boundary. Even the usual impacts associated with windmills such as noise, sediment

dispersion, power cables etc are quite marginal and will get merged with the port

INDOMER



operational impacts for which a full-fledged system is already put in place and

operating efficiently. In fact the positive impacts will outweigh the even the minor

impacts discussed in the reports. Some of the positive impacts are also highlighted.

Positive impacts: Wind energy foundations, including the boulders that often

encircle wind turbines for scour protection, are artificial reefs that may locally

enhance the biomass of a number of sessile and motile organisms. The boulder

structures attract benthic animals which usually prefer rocky soils, and as such the

wind turbines provide habitats for a range of new species. Wind energy is one of the

cleanest and most environmentally neutral energy sources in the world today.

Compared to conventional fossil fuel energy sources, wind energy generation does

not degrade the quality of air and water and can make important contributions to

reducing climate-change effects and meeting national energy security goals.A

primary benefit of using wind-generated electricity is that it can play an important

role introducing the levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted into the atmosphere. The

proposed development is planned within the port premises on the periphery of the

harbor installations. This will avoid fresh acquisition of land and other associated

land development issues and will facilitate evolving a common integrated

Environment Management Plan and Post Monitoring system as elaborately

discussed in the next chapter.

E.4. Mitigation

In real terms, the installation of wind farms particularly on the shoreline beyond the

HTL does not need major mitigation measures either during the construction stage

or during the operation. The potential impacts during construction stage such as

noise, air pollution, change of ground conditions etc are purely temporary and need

not necessarily be a matter of serious concern, more so in a situation where the

wind farms are proposed to be sited in a port environment. Since the wind form are

INDOMER



proposed along the periphery of the port beyond the HTL- which is already

operating, acquisition of large land masses will not be a necessity. Furthermore, the

area around the proposed site is sparsely populated, with the nearest residential

property lying 1.5 km from the wind farm areas.

Impact mitigation system in the Port

A well established system for monitoring all the vital parameters pertaining to both

terrestrial and marine environment is already functioning at the port. Baseline

status of the marine and terrestrial environment will be further updated just before

commencement of the construction activities and these are done exclusively for this

project.

E.5. Summary

The port has well planned road and rail connectivity besides sea-which is the

main core facility. This will facilitate transportation of turbines, masts,

blades etc. without the need for exclusive transportation facility.

The entire development is planned within the port boundary for which CRZ

clearance is already available. Creation of wind farms within the port will

not therefore bring about adverse impact in terms of accretion or erosion

due to absence of breakwater or groynes.

In view of the above, land development or acquisition and resulting ground

preparation will not be necessary thereby doing away with the associated

impact such as need for degradation of soil, erosion, surface run-off etc.

Heavy duty will be available with the port which can be hired and there will

be there no need for mobilizing such equipment passing through inhabited

areas.

INDOMER



The impact of bird/bat hit within the port area will be quite minimal and in

fact, this is not considered a serious setback for the installation of wind

farms.

The noise and air pollution are purely temporary and will be confined to only

to deep foundation and will remain below the ground level.

The question of aesthetics, tourism etc will not arise in view of the facilities

being proposed within the port premises.

Shadow flicker effect may not be felt inside the port as much as it is felt in

exposed onshore open areas.

It is possible to develop an integrated environment Management Plan (EMP),

and Environment Monitoring system without the need for an exclusive

system for the wind farms.

In case of fire accident due to failure of electrical system, the port’s fire

service will come to the rescue without delay.

The existing Environment Management Plan will be updated taking into account the

proposed development of wind mills.

INDOMER

Marine EIA study for shore based Page i


CONTENT

Page

Contents i

List of Tables iii

List of Figures v

1. INTRODUCTION 1

2. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT REGION 3

2.1. Project region 3

2.2. Marine environment 4

2.3. Physical processes 5

2.4. Coastal Land form 6

2.5. Metrological conditions 6

2.6. Neighboring Developments

7

3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

8

4.

SCREENING 10

5. SCOPING 11

6. ALTERNATIVES 12

7. ZERO ALTERNATIVES 13

8. BASELINE DATA 14

8.1. Plan of work 16

8.2. Method of collection / analysis

16

8.2.1. Physical 16

8.2.2. Water quality 18

8.2.3. Sediment characteristics 22

8.2.4. Biological parameters 24

8.3. Results 26

8.3.1. Physical 26

8.3.2. Water quality 29

8.3.3. Sediment characteristics 39

INDOMER

Marine EIA study for shore based Page ii


8.3.4. Biological parameters 41

9. DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENT 68

10. IMPACT ASSESSMENT 70

10.1. Identification of impacts 70

10.2. Prediction of impacts 70

11. POSITIVE IMPACTS 79

12. MITIGATION

81

13. MARINE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 83

13.1. Introduction 83

13.2. Delineation of Impacts 84

13.3. Identified Mitigation and compensation measures 84

14. POST PROJECT MONITORING 86

14.1. Marine water and sediment quality monitoring 86

14.2. Habitat and ecosystem integrity 86

14.3. Monitoring of Marine Benthic fauna

86

REFERENCES 88

TABLES

FIGURES

INDOMER

Marine EIA study for shore based Page iii


LIST OF TABLES

Table

1. Measurement locations and details

2. Monthwise distribution of wind speed and direction

3. Tracks of cyclones passed near project region - 1877 to 1990

4. Variation of Deep water monthly wave characteristics off Mundra

5. Monthly distribution of salinity and sea surface temperature (Open sea)

6. Volume and direction of Littoral drift (Open sea)

7. Water quality parameters

8. Dissolved oxygen saturation

9. Comparisons of pH, salinity, DO and nutrient levels with COMAPS data along West Coast of India

10. Biochemical Oxygen Demand in seawater

11. Chemical Oxygen Demand in seawater

12. Concentration of Heavy metals, phenol and total petroleum hydrocarbons in seawater

13. Sediment size distribution

14. Seabed sediment quality parameters

15. Concentration of Heavy metals, phenol and total petroleum hydrocarbons in seabed sediments

16. Primary productivity in coastal waters

17. Comparative Statement of Primary Production along the West Coast of India

18. Station wise composition of Phytoplankton

19. Station wise numerical abundance of Phytoplankton (nos./l)

20. Phytoplankton biomass and population in different sampling station

21. Station wise numerical abundance of Zooplankton (nos./100 m3)

22. Zooplankton biomass and population in different sampling station

23. Sub tidal and Inter tidal benthic population

24. Bacterial population in coastal waters (nosx103/ml)

25. Bacterial population in seabed sediments (x104 nos./g)

26. Marine fish Production of Gujarat coast from 2008 to 2013 (in M.T)

27. District-wise marine fish production in Gujarat coast during 2009-12 in MT

28. Type and number of Craft operation in Gujarat coast

29. Marine fish production from Kuchchh district (MT)

INDOMER

Marine EIA study for shore based Page iv


30. Center wise and species wise marine fish production for the year 2012 – 2013 (in kg)

31. Fisherfolk population from Gujarat coast(As per census, 2007)

32. Type and number of Craft operation in Kuchchh district during 2012

INDOMER

Marine EIA study for shore based Page v


LIST OF FIGURES

Figure

1. Location map of wind farms

2. Satellite imagery showing sampling locations

3. Variation of tides at Mundra

4. Variation of current speed and direction off Mundra

INDOMER

Marine EIA study for shore based Page 1


1. INTRODUCTION

Wind energy has attracted a vast amount of attention in recent years. It is going to

be one of the main focal points in future amongst the other renewable energy

sources such as solar energy, biomass energy and hydro power. The present power

deficit situation is the driving force to venture into harnessing wind energy and

above all the environmental concerns associated with fossil fuel, coal and nuclear

energy.

India is the fifth largest producer of wind energy in the world after the US,

Germany, China and Spain. Indian Government has provided several incentives to

the project developers in the form of tax breaks, tax reductions, and tax holidays

among others. In one of the studies made by Global World Energy Council, it has

been concluded that India has the capability to construct wind power stations and

plants that can generate about 5 times more in comparison with the estimates

made by the government for the year 2030.

Adani Group, is a business hub with multiple business activities across the globe,

has entered into power sector and commissioned first supercritical technology

based 660 MW thermal power generating unit at Mundra, Gujarat. Along with the

thermal power unit, Adani Group has made a paradigm shift by venturing into solar

power project at Gujarat. As a part of Adani Group’s endeavor to empower with

clean, green power that is accessible and affordable for a faster and higher socio-

economic development, it ventures into another renewable energy source on wind

energy.

It has proposed to construct 74 numbers of wind mills along the shoreline, behind

HTL (High Tide Line) along the coastal stretch of around 20 km.

INDOMER



Prior to the development of these wind mills along the shorefront, AGEL intends to

take up a Marine Environmental Impact Assessment (MEIA) and devise a Marine

Environmental Management Plan (MEMP) in order to ensure sustainable

development and preservation of marine ecology. The relevant marine EIA studies

were undertaken by Indomer Coastal Hydraulics (P) Ltd., Chennai, which is an ISO

9001:2008 and QCI (NABET) accredited organization vide S.I.No.81.

All calendar dates are referred in Indian style as dd.mm.yy (eg. 05.03.16 for

05thMarch 2016). The WGS84 spheroid is followed for the surveys and for the

presentation in this report.

INDOMER



2. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT REGION

2.1. Project region

Adani project site is located in the district of Kachchh, bordered by the northern

coastline of the Gulf of Kachchh. It has two ports located one on the south and

another on the west near Navinal. Mundra was a small town with agriculture,

Saltpan and minor commerce dominating its socio-economic character about a

decade back. Mundra was devastated like other towns and villages in the

earthquake that struck Kachchh on January 26, 2001. With the reconstructive spirit

of the people and economic incentive packages given by the Government for the

Kachchh district, Mundra is now witnessing a spate of industrial activity

.

Mundra lies on the north shores of the Gulf of Kutch about 48 km south of Bhuj

town in Gujarat State. The nearest villages are Vandh, Navinal, Jarpara and Dhrab.

The nearest bus stop is at Mundra. Some of the nearby ports around Mundra are i)

Mandvi Port around 25 km west, ii) Kandla port around 75 km east, and iii) Navlakhi

port around 95 km southeast of Mundra. The nearest railway station is at Bhuj and

the nearest airport is at Mundra. The Port is connected to the hinterland in

Northern and Western parts of India through the National Highway (NH8A Extn.) &

State Highways (GSH 6 & 48) with good internal connectivity inside the plant.

The coastal region in this area is almost flat with ground level varying around 2 to 7

m above MSL.The surroundings of the project site is dry and barren and remain as

most under developed rural belt. The general terrain can be described as plain. The

coastal region comprises of large tidal flats exceeding 2 km width, without the

presence of any significant sandy shore. The project site does not contain any

environmentally sensitive areas like corals. The oceanography of this region is

predominantly influenced by southwest monsoon (June - September) and the sea

remains calm for the rest of the year. Unlike the open coast in Arabian sea, the

INDOMER



stability of the coastal segment is more influenced by the large variation of tides

and the strong tidal currents prevail in the Gulf region. The nearshore remains

relatively shallow with scattered offshore sand banks.

2.2. Marine environment

The nearshore of the proposed windmills and the surrounding region form an

integral part of the Gulf of Kachchh. The Gulf spreads an area of 7300 km2. The high

tidal influx covers the low-lying areas of about 1500 km2 comprising a network of

creeks and alluvial marshy tidal flats in the interior region. The creek system

consists of 3 main creeks Nakti, Kandla and Hansthal, and the Little Gulf of Kachchh

interconnecting through many others big and small creeks, all along the coast. Very

few rivers drain into the gulf and they carry only a small quantity of freshwater

except during the brief monsoon. The soil type around the site is mainly coarse

loamy soil. The Gulf of Kutch is dominantly costal alluvial plain lined by mudflats on

its south where Mandvi and Mundra are located. The climate is generally

categorized by frequent draught and extreme temperature. The Gulf is

characterized by numerous hydrographic irregularities like pinnacles, as much as 10

m high. The southern shore has numerous islands and inlets covered with

mangroves and surrounded by coral reefs. The northern shore is predominantly

sandy or muddy confronted by numerous shoals. The depth in the Gulf varies from

60 m near Okha to 20 m at end near Navlakhi. The fairway is obstructed due to the

presence of several shoals and it needs periodic dredging at some patches to

facilitate the navigation to the Kandla Port. The tidal channel that follows the axis of

the Gulf has steep slopes and rugged surfaces.

INDOMER



2.3. Physical processes

Tides in the Gulf are predominantly mixed semidiurnal type with a large diurnal

inequality. The tidal front enters the Gulf from the west and due to shallow inner

regions and narrowing cross-section, the tidal amplitude increases considerably

over the upstream of Vadinar. The tidal elevations (m) along the Gulf are as follows:

Location MHWS MHWN MLWN MLWS MSL

Okha 3.47 2.96 1.20 0.41 2.0

Sikka 5.38 4.35 1.74 0.71 3.0

Rozi 5.87 5.40 1.89 1.0 3.6

Kandla 6.66 5.17 1.81 0.78 3.9

Navlakhi 7.21 6.16 2.14 0.78 4.2

Navinal Pt 6.09 5.65 1.81 0.37 3.4

The phase lag between Okha and Kandla is 2 hours to 2 hour 25 min while between

Okha and Navlakhi, it is 3 hour to 3 hour 20 min. Due to large variation of tides,

considerable areas get exposed during lowest low tide.

Circulation in the Gulf is mainly controlled by tidal flows and bathymetry, though

wind effect also prevails to some extent. The maximum surface currents are

moderate (0.7-1.2 m/s). The spring currents are 60 to 65 % stronger than the neap

currents. The bottom currents are periodic with a velocity normally 60- 70 % of the

surface currents.

With high tidal range and negligible land run-off, the coastal waters are vertically

homogeneous in terms of salinity and temperature.

INDOMER



2.4. Coastal Land form

The general vegetation in the area is sparse and scattered and of tropical dry mixed

deciduous scrub and desert thorn type belonging to the xerophytic group. Due to

extreme unreliability of rainfall in the region, ground water is the main source of

water for domestic as well as agricultural needs. However, uncontrolled and

indiscriminate withdrawal of ground water has resulted in a sharp decline in water

table in the coastal belt causing ingress of salinity. The coastal region of the Gulf is

industrially less developed and the majority of large – scale industries including the

RIL refinery are located in the Jamnagar District. Kachchh District is industrially

backward and expected developments are the lignite mining, thermal power plants,

fertilizer plant; existing Mundra and Kandla Ports. There are no other major

industries in the district.

2.5. Meteorological conditions

The Gulf is a semi-arid region with weak and erratic rainfall confined largely to the

June-October period. With a few rainfall days, the climate is hot and humid from

April till October and pleasant during brief winter from December to February.

Rainfall alone forms the ultimate sources of freshwater sources to the region. The

average rainfall at Mundra is 414 mm/year. Cyclones strike North-Gujarat,

particularly the Kachchh and Saurashtra regions, periodically. These disturbances

generally originate over the Arabian Sea and sometimes from the Bay of Bengal.

The relative humidity is generally high during June-September (60-85%) and

marginally decreases during rest of the year (30-80%).The sky is generally clear or

lightly clouded expect during monsoon period. Visibility is being expected for a few

days during the winter months.

INDOMER



2.6. Neighbouring Developments

Kachchh District is industrially backward and expected developments are the lignite

mining, thermal power plants, fertilizer plant etc. There are no other major

industries in the district. Fishing and Salt production are the main activities around

the project site. The vast stretch of tidal flats and saltpans spread over on the east

and west of the project locations are the feeding grounds for the variety of resident

as well as migrant birds. The 4 x 650 MW Tata’s Ultra Mega Thermal power plant is

located on the western boundary of the project site. The 2 x 330 MW AdaniPower

Plant is located within the project region. The Mandvi Port lies around 25 km west,

Kandla port lies around 75 km east and Navlakhi port is located around 95 km

southeast of Mundra. Adani’s ports, i.e., Mundra South Port and Mundra West

Port are located in the vicinity of the proposed project region.

INDOMER



3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The site selection for the installation of wind mills is based on wind monitoring,

wind resource mapping, optimization and micro-siting. The locations for the

proposed windmills are shore-based sitting along the periphery of harbour

boundary of Adani South and West Ports in Mundra, Gulf of Kachchh, Gujarat. The

wind mills will be located beyond the High Tide Line (HTL) but within the classified

CRZ II zone. The proposed wind farm elevation ranges from 2m to 7 m above MSL.

The locations of the wind farms are shown in Fig.1.

It is proposed to make Mundra more environmental friendly and install a 150 MW

(approximately) wind park in the vicinity of the port and the thermal power station.

This will make Mundra the first Green Port in the World. With state-of-the art

forecasting technology for wind generation, the wind park can, during high wind

period, replace thermal generation of up to 200 MW thermal generation effectively

for a definitive period of time.

This would be one of the world’s first “combo“ generation power plants, combining

wind with thermal generation and would be a trail-blazer to a new business model

of power generation – wind power combined with super critical technology to

benefit the environment like never before.

74 locations have been approved by APSEZ to install wind turbines. Thus, depending

on the choice of turbine model, the total capacity of the wind park can vary

between 125.8-155.4MW. This wind park will be installed in and around West Port

and South Port Area of the APSEZ. Size of the project will be governed by the

capacity of the turbine.

INDOMER



Adani Group has appointed MITCON Consultancy & Engineering Services Ltd. to

carry out feasibility study of proposed wind power project. MITCON has carried out

detailed site survey and submitted a report. Wind assessment was carried out using

the wind data collected from met mast installed at Mundra for a period of one year.

It is seen that the average annual wind speed approximately 80 m mast height is

6.56 m/s, which is found to be suitable for wind power development.

Based on CERC tariff order dated Oct 25, 2012 for financial year 2013-14, proposed

site will fall in Zone I category wind class, i.e. low wind speed regime and suitable

for installation of class 3 wind turbines generators. A 220 KV/33 KV or any suitable

voltage level, 2 x 50 MVA pooling substation need to be constructed near proposed

P21 WTG location, which will be connected by GETCO 220KV Vondh Sub-station, at

a distance of approximately 90 km from the proposed Wind Farm site.

All proposed wind turbine locations will be approachable. Road needs to be

constructed for tower / material / machinery movement from nearest highway

point. Road layout will be provided after micro-siting finalization.

INDOMER



4. SCREENING

The proposed region for wind power generation falls far away from the inhabited

areas. It was chosen on the basis of suitability of wind resources compatible for

setting up of wind farms. The shore based system will be more energy efficient

facing the unobstructed wind directly reaching from the sea into the land. Further,

proximity to port site is yet another added advantage in terms of handling a sizeable

volume of cargo by ocean transportation such as wind turbines, masts etc to the

extent feasible, besides conventional road transport system a s appropriate.

INDOMER



5. SCOPING

The proposed shore based wind farm in the Gulf will have a bearing bear on the key

issues like land use, industrialization and human welfare. The baseline data

generation and the marine EIA must focus on deciphering these issues. The latest

tools will be used to study the environment and thus the associated impacts with

relevant mitigation measures.

INDOMER



6. ALTERNATIVES

The wind farms provide the clean source of energy and environmentally the most

acceptable source as compared with fossil fuel based power plants and nuclear

power plants. The government’s plan is to encourage wind farms and in this

context several incentive measures encouraging private sector investments have

been implemented and this will contribute substantially to reduce the gap between

supply and demand in power sector. The particular site is more suitable sitting wind

farm along the shoreline with unobstructed wind and the required port facilities.

INDOMER



7. ZERO ALTERNATIVES

The question of alternative is not therefore applicable in the present day context

where the government is keen to encourage this sector.

INDOMER



8. BASELINE DATA

The marine environment of the project region at open sea and in the creek has

been studied for the evaluation of baseline information as per the norms stipulated

by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Govt. of India. The baseline data were

collected in January 2014 representing Post Monsoon period. The samples were

collected at 10 locations covering five locations at creek (stns. S1 to S5) and five

locations at open sea (stns.S6 to S10). The study area covered around 200 km2. The

details of the sampling locations are presented in Table 1 and also shown in Fig. 2.

The details of the studies carried out in the coastal region on physical, chemical and

biological aspects are explained below.

Physical parameters

Wind, Storm, Waves, Tides, Currents, Salinity and Temperature, Tsunami, and Littoral Drift.

Water quality parameters

Temperature, pH, Salinity, Dissolved Oxygen, Bio-Chemical Oxygen Demand, Turbidity, Ammonia-N, Nitrite-N, Nitrate-N, Inorganic phosphate, Total suspended solids, Phenolic Compounds, Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Cadmium,

INDOMER



Lead, Mercury, and Chromium.

Sediment quality parameters

Sediment structure, Total Nitrogen, Total Phosphorous, Total organic carbon, Calcium carbonate, Cadmium, Lead, Mercury, and Chromium.

Biological parameters

Primary Productivity, its biomass and diversity, Phytoplankton, its biomass and diversity, Zooplankton, its biomass and diversity, Macro benthos, its biomass and diversity, Microbial population in water and sediments, Mangroves and sea weeds, Biological status of floral and faunal communities and Fisheries.

Environmental study

Assessment of fishery resources in the area, Assessment of coastal and marine ecosystem, Assessment of impact due to the installation of wind mill, Assessment of impact due to the operation of wind mill, Recommendation on mitigation measures and Preparation of Environment Management Plan.

INDOMER



8.1. Plan of work

The data collection was carried in January 2014 in order to prepare the Marine EIA

report.

8.2. Method of collection / analysis

8.2.1. Physical

Wind: The daily variation of wind speed and direction was measured by Mitcon for

a period of one year from September 2009 to August 2010. The clients have

provided this data to include in this report. These data are provided by the client.

Storm: The information on cyclonic storm is essential for the environmental

assessment. Occasional occurrence of severe cyclonic storm is found to occur in this

region. Based on the IMD data on the Tracks of Storms and Depressions in the Bay

of Bengal and the Arabian Sea, (1979), and the Addendum (1996) published by IMD,

the details on the storms occurred between 1877 and 1990 were compiled.

Waves: The ship reported visual observations documented in Indian Daily Weather

Reports (IDWR) published by the India Meteorological Department, Pune, compiled

over the period from 1968 to 1986 were used for the base line data. The data

reported for the region between the latitude 20° N - 25° N, and longitude 65° E - 75°

E were considered for the present project (Chandramohan, et. al., 1990).

Tides: The tide data for the project region were predicted using KMS tide in MIKE

21model.

Currents: Current measurements were carried out at one location i.e. open sea

(stn. C1). Aanderaa Seaguard RCM SW Current Meterwere used for measurements

INDOMER



and the variation in current speed and direction was recorded at 15 minute interval

for a period of 7 days at each location. The measurements were carried from

29.01.14 to 05.01.14.

Aanderaa Seaguard RCM SW Current Meter: The SEAGUARD RCM manufactured

by Aanderaa Data Instruments (AADI), Norway, comes standard with

the ZPulse™ multi frequency Doppler current sensor. The new current

sensor comprises acoustic pulses of several frequency components to

lower the statistical variance in the Doppler shift estimate. The

advantage of this is reduced statistical error with fewer pings,

providing increased sampling speed and lower power consumption.

The new Doppler Current Sensor also incorporates a robust fully electronic compass

and a tilt sensor. The Seaguard architecture is based on a general data logger unit

and a set of autonomous smart sensors. The data logger and the smart sensors are

interfaced by means of a reliable CAN bus interface (AiCaP), using XML for plug and

play capabilities. The autonomous sensor topology also gives the sensor designer

flexibility and opportunities where each sensor type may be optimized with regard

to its operation; each sensor may now provide several parameters without

increasing the total system load. Data storage takes place on a Secure Digital (SD)

card. The current capacity for this card type is up to 4GB, which is more than

adequate for most applications.

Littoral Drift:Based on the ship reported wave data, the longshore sediment

transport rate for the open coast at the study region was estimated using the

following equation (Shore Protection Manual, CERC, US Army, 1975).

b2

r0

2

s in2α)K)T(H64π

ρg1290(Q

Where, Q = longshore sediment transport rate in m3/year, = mass density of the

seawater in kg/m3, g = acceleration due to gravity, Ho = deepwater wave height in

INDOMER



m, T = wave period in seconds, kr= refraction coefficient, and b = wave breaking

angle.

8.2.2. Water quality

Water samples were collected at 10 locations covering five locations at creek (stns.

S1 to S5) and fivelocations at open sea (stns. S6 to S10) as indicated in Table 1 and

Fig. 2. The water samples were collected at surface, mid depth and bottom. Van

Dorn water samplers were used for sample collection. Samples for Dissolved

Oxygen was collected in DO bottles (125 ml capacity) soon after the sampler was

recovered. The bottles were rinsed with the water sample. The end of the nozzle

tube was inserted into the sample bottom and filled till 100 ml and the water was

allowed to overflow from the bottle to ensure that no bubble is trapped in the

bottle. To the brimful DO bottles 1 ml of Winkler A (manganese chloride) and 1 ml

Winkler B (alkaline KI) were added. The stopper is then inserted and the bottle

shaken vigorously for about 1 minute to bring each molecule of dissolved oxygen in

contact with manganese (II) hydroxide. After fixation of oxygen, the precipitate was

allowed to settle. The DO bottles were kept in dark and transported to the

laboratory for analysis. Samples for Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) was also

collected in the similar fashion as described for DO in 300 ml glass BOD bottles.

Winkler A and Winkler B were added after 5 days of incubation at 20° C in a BOD

incubator.

Water samples for salinity, total suspended solids, nutrients, trace metals and

phenolic compounds were stored in PVC bottles directly from the water sampler,

after rinsing the same with the water sample. The samples were then transported

to the laboratory in an ice box. Water samples for Petroleum hydrocarbons were

collected separately in 5 litre glass bottles. The sample for Phenol was collected in a

pre cleaned 1 litre plastic container.

INDOMER



Method of analysis

Temperature:Temperature was noted immediately after the water sampler was

retrieved using a graduated centigrade thermometer, which was graduated from 0

to 50° C with 0.1° C accuracy.

pH:pH was measured immediately after collection of water samples using a

portable digital pH meter (Hanna Instruments, model RI 02895) having an accuracy

of 0.2 pH. The instrument was calibrated using standard pH buffer.

Salinity:Salinity values were determined by Mohr-Knudsen titration method,

wherein the chlorosity was first obtained by titration of sample with silver nitrate

solution. From chlorosity value, salinity was determined from the Knudsen

hydrographic table (Strickland and Parson, 1968).

Dissolved Oxygen (DO): Dissolved Oxygen content of the water samples was

analyzed by Winkler’s method. The precipitate of manganese (II) hydroxide was

dissolved by acidification (50% HCl), liberating the manganese (III) ions, which reacts

with iodide ions previously added to water sample together with potassium

hydroxide. The iodine ions liberated by oxidation of iodine ions was titrated against

sodium thiosulphate. The end point of the titration (bluecolourless) was

measured using starch as an indicator.

Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD):BOD was determined by the same procedure

(Winkler method) as that for DO, after 5 days of incubation at 20°C in a BOD

incubator. The difference in the amount of oxygen on the 1st and 5th day gave the

measure of Biochemical Oxygen Demand.

INDOMER



Turbidity:Turbidity was measured by the Nephelometric method after calibrating

the Nephelometer using known dilutions of standard prepared from hydrazine

sulfate and hexamethylene tetra mine in distilled water.

Ammonia-Nitrogen (NH3-N): This nutrient was estimated by following the method

suggested by Grasshoffet. al. (1983). Ammonia from the seawater sample reacts in

moderately alkaline solution with hypochlorite to monochloramine, which in the

presence of phenol, trisodium citrate buffer and excess hypochlorite and gives

indophenol blue. The reaction temperature of 37 - 40°C was used for the estimation

of ammonia-nitrogen. The concentration was measured spectrophotometrically at

630 nm to obtain NH3-N.

Nitrite-Nitrogen (NO2-N): The nitrite was estimated by following method of

Parsons et al. (1984). The nitrite from known volume of seawater (25 ml) was

allowed to react with sulfanilamide in an acid solution. The resulting diazo

compound was allowed to react with N-(1-naphthyl)-ethylenediamine to form a

coloured azo dye which was measured spectrophotometrically at 543 NM.

Nitrate-Nitrogen (NO3-N): It was determined using the method given by Parson et

al. (1984). Nitrate in the seawater was quantitatively reduced to nitrite by running

the sample through a column containing cadmium filings coated with metallic

copper. The nitrite produced was diazotised with sulfanilamide and coupled with N-

(1-naphthyl)-ethylenediamine to form a pink coloured azo dye, which was

measured spectrophotometrically at 543 NM. Nitrate values were corrected for

nitrite in the sample.

Inorganic Phosphate (PO4-P): It was determined by following the procedure of

Parsons et al. (1984). In this method the seawater sample was allowed to react

with a composite reagent containing molybdic acid, ascorbic acid and trivalent

INDOMER



antimony. The resulting phosphomolybdate complex was reduced to give a blue

colour solution, which was measured in a spectrophotometer at 880 nm.

Total Suspended Solids (TSS): The TSS of seawater samples was determined by

filtering a known volume (500 ml) of seawater sample through pre-weighed 4.5 cm

Whitman GF/C glass microfibre filter paper. Filtration was carried out under

controlled vacuum. The filter papers were then dried (40°C) till a constant weight

was obtained. The difference between the final and initial weight of the filter paper

resulted in the estimation of TSS in the water samples.

Phenols:Phenols in seawater (500 ml) was converted to yellow colouredantipyrine

complex by adding 4 –amino antipyrine. The complex was extracted in chloroform

(25 ml) and the absorption was measured at 460 nm using phenol as a standard.

The method followed was according to EPA 8041.

Petroleum Hydrocarbons (PHC): The fraction of the PHC was estimated using a Gas

chromatography with Flame Ionization Detector (GC/FID) following the method of

NWTPH-HCID. The various fractions analyzed were: Octane, Nonane, Decane,

Undecane, Dodecane, Tridecane, Tetradecane, Pentadecane, Hexadecane,

Heptadecane, Octadecane, Nonadecane and Eicosane.

Cadmium, Chromium, Lead and Mercury:The water samples collected at stns. S1,

S4, S8, S10 have been analyzed for the concentration of Cadmium, Chromium, Lead

and Mercury.Known volume of sample was acidified to pH 2.0 using HCl. The

sample was shaken well for complete mixing. The instrument - Inductive Coupled

Plasma-Mass Spectrometry (ICP-MS [Model: Agilent 7700x]) was used for analysis.

The standard procedure as per APHA 3120 was followed.

Phenols: The water samples collected at stns. S1, S4, S8, S10 have been analyzed for

the concentration of Phenols. A phenol in seawater (500 ml) was converted to

INDOMER



yellow colouredantipyrine complex by adding 4 –amino antipyrine. The complex

was extracted in chloroform (25 ml) and the absorption was measured at 460 nm

using phenol as a standard. The method followed was according to EPA 8041.

Petroleum Hydrocarbons (PHC):The water samples collected at stns. S1, S4, S8, S10

have been analyzed for the concentration Petroleum Hydrocarbons. The fractions of

Petroleum Hydrocarbons were estimated using a Gas Chromatography with Flame

Ionization Detector (GC/FID). This method is used to identify petroleum products

containing components from C7 to C30 range. The extraction procedure as per EPA

method 3510 has been adapted.

8.2.3. Sediment characteristics

Method of collection

Seabed sediment samples were collected at 10 covering five locations at creek

(stns. S1 to S5) and five locations at the open sea (stns.S6 to S10). The sediment

sampling locations are shown in Fig. 2. Seabed sediments were collected using van

Veen grab. After collection, the scooped sample was transferred to polythene bags,

labeled and stored under refrigerated conditions. On reaching the laboratory the

sediment samples were dried and sieved.

Method of analysis

Size distribution:The sediment samples were dried and sieved for fractions: 63µ,

125µ, 212µ, 300µ, 425µ, 500µ, 600µ, 1000µ and 2000µ. The fractions retained in

each mesh size were weighed and analyzed.

Total nitrogen:Total nitrogen from the sediment sample was estimated by

extracting (15 min) the sediment with an extracting reagent (CuSO4 and silver

sulfate) in a conical flask under continuous shaking. Later Ca(OH)2 and MgCl2 were

INDOMER



added and the contents were filtered through Whatman filter paper. A known

volume (5 ml) of the filtrate was used for total nitrate estimation similar to the

process used for water samples (reduction by passing through a cadmium column).

Total Phosphorus:Total Phosphorus of the sediments was estimated by digesting

the sediment samples in sulfuric acid for 30 minutes to oxidize phosphorus to

phosphate. After filtration, a known volume of the filtrate was allowed to react with

ammonium molybdate and reduced using ascorbic acid to form a blue coloured

complex which was measured in a spectrometer at 880 nm.

Total Organic Carbon (TOC): TOC was estimated by wet oxidation method. The

sample was added with potassium dichromate followed by sulfuric acid and after

cooling by adding distilled water a drop of diphenylamine indicator and pellets of

sodium fluoride were added, and the sample was titrated against ferrous

ammonium sulfate.

Calcium Carbonate:Calcium Carbonatecontent of the sediment sample was

estimated by treating a sample of known dry weight (5 g) with dilute hydrochloric

acid until all visible reactions are complete. Then the sediment was washed with

distilled water and dried in an oven at 40°C and weighed again. The difference

between initial dry weight and final dry weight gave the carbonate content.

Cadmium, Chromium, Lead and Mercury:The sediment samples collected at stns.

S1, S4, S8, S10 have been analyzed for the concentration of Cadmium, Lead and

Chromium. The sediment samples were dried in an oven at 40 oC. The dried

sediment was then finely ground and digested in a microwave digester using Nitric

and perchloric acid to destroy the organic matter in a closed Teflon vessel under

high pressure. The residue left were then dissolved in diluted Nitric acid. APHA 3120

was followed to determine the concentration of various trace elements using

Inductive Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometry (ICP-MS[Model : Agilent 7700x]).

INDOMER



Phenols:The sediment samples collected at stns. S1, S4, S8, S10 have been analyzed

for the concentration of Phenols.Phenols in sediment sample was extracted with a

suitable solvent and the concentration of phenols was estimated in a Gas

Chromatography system (GC) with Mass Spectrophotometric (MS) (Model : Agilent

7000 MS with 7890 GC). The method followed was as per EPA 3540 C and APHA

6420.

Petroleum Hydrocarbons (PHC): The sediment samples collected at stns. S1, S4, S8,

S10 have been analyzed for the concentration of Petroleum Hydrocarbons.The

fractions of Petroleum Hydrocarbons were estimated using a Gas Chromatography

with Flame Ionization Detector (GC/FID). This method is used to identify petroleum

products containing components from C7 to C30 range. EPA method 3510 has been

adapted for the extraction procedure.

8.2.4. Biological parameters

Primary Productivity:Primary Production was estimated at 10 locations covering

five locations at creek (stns. S1 to S5) and five locations at the open sea (stns.S6 to

S10).(Fig. 2). From the water sampler, the samples were immediately transferred to

125 ml Dissolved Oxygen (DO) bottles (two light bottles and one dark bottle). One

light bottle containing sample was fixed with Winkler A and Winkler B for analysis of

initial oxygen content. The other light bottle and dark bottle with sample were kept

in a bucket containing same water sample for 6 hours to allow photosynthesis and

respiration. After 6 hours the samples were fixed with Winkler A and Winkler B, and

later the DO was analyzed in the laboratory. The increase in dissolved oxygen of

water as a result of photosynthesis was measured in the light bottle; simultaneously

the decrease in oxygen content in the dark bottle was measured to estimate the

respiration alone in the same sample of water. From the DO values the amount of

organic carbon synthesized during photosynthesis was calculated.

INDOMER



Phytoplankton:Phytoplankton samples were collected at 10 locations covering five

locations at creek (stns. S1 to S5) and five locations at the open sea (stns.S6 to S10)

(Fig. 2). Phytoplankton net (60 micron) was towed 0.5 m below the water surface

for 10 minutes and the collected samples were immediately preserved in 5%

formalin.The preserved phytoplankton samples were transferred into

sedimentation chamber for settlement. After settlement, 1 ml aliquot of sample

was taken for quantitative population analysis. Depending upon the biomass

concentration, sub samples were taken to study the whole species diversity.

Organisms were counted and identified upto genus level(species level wherever

possible) under a microscope using standard identification keys and a Sedgwick

rafter counting chamber.

Zooplankton:Zooplankton samples were collected at at 10 locations covering five

locations at creek (stns. S1 to S5) and five locations at the open sea (stns.S6 to

S10).(Fig. 2). Zooplankton net (300 micron) was towed 0.5 m below water surface

for 10 minutes and the collected samples were immediately preserved in 5%

formalin. The biomass values of zooplankton were calculated from the

displacement volume of water. The preserved zooplankton samples were

transferred into sedimentation chamber for settlement. After settlement, 1 ml

aliquot of sample was taken for quantitative population analysis. Depending upon

the biomass concentration, sub samples were taken to study the whole species

diversity. Organisms were counted and identified upto genus level (species level

wherever possible) under a microscope using standard identification keys and

counting chamber.

Macro Benthos:Seabed sediment samples for macro benthos were collected using

Van Veen grab sampler at 10 locations covering five locations at creek (stns. S1 to

S5) and five locations at the open sea (stns.S6 to S10).(Fig. 2). The intertidal benthos

samples were collected at 5 locations along the beach (stns. IB1, IB2, IB3, IB4 and

IB5) as shown in Fig. 2. The benthic organisms were separated by sieving through

500 micron mesh and preserved using formaldehyde and Rose Bengal stain. The

INDOMER



samples were sorted and identified upto groups/genera level using stereo zoom

microscope. The wet weight was taken to calculate the biomass of benthic

organisms.

Microbiology:The microbiological samples were collected at 10 locations covering

five locations at creek (stns. S1 to S5) and five locations at the open sea (stns.S6 to

S10).(Fig. 2). Samples were collected in sterilized bottles and transported for

analysis. Pour plate method was used to culture the microorganisms. The agar

media used for analysis were: Nutrient agar, MacConkey agar, M.FC agar,

Thiosulphate Citrate Bile Sucrose agar, Xylose Lysine Deoxycholate agar, M.

Enterococcus agar and Cetrimide agar. Plates were incubated at 37° C except for

total viable bacterial count, for which the plates were incubated at room

temperature (28°C). After 3 days, the colonies were counted and identified based on

their colour characteristics.

Fisheries:The information on fisheries and their potential were collected from local

fishing villages, Department of Fisheries, Government of Gujarat and Fishery Survey

of India (FSI), Government of India.

Coastal vegetation and Seaweeds:The nearshore plants like sand dune plants and

seaweeds, if available were collected and herbaria were prepared for further

identification in the laboratory. The site was also surveyed for the presence of

mangrove vegetation.

8.3. Results

8.3.1. Physical

Wind: The month wise distribution of wind speed and direction are shown in Table

2. The wind speed at 80 m elevation existed around 10 knots in November;11 knots

INDOMER



in January, February and October; 12 knots in September, August and December; 13

knots in March, 14 knots in April and July; 16 knots in June; 17 knots in May. The

average wind speed is 13 knots during the September 2009 to August 2010.

Storm: The tracks of cyclones which have crossed the coast near Mundra (within

150 km on either side) during 1877 to 1990 are presented in Table 3. It indicates

that totally 23 storms had occurred within 300 km off the project region. The

occurrence of storms in this region are more frequent in June (7) followed by

October (4).

Currents:The variation of current speed and direction measured at stn. C1 (2500 m

offshore) is shown in Fig. 3. The maximum current speed reached upto 1.2 m/s. The

current direction varied with tides showing 70° to 80° during flood tide and 250° to

260° during the ebb tide.

Tides:The tides in this region are characterized by predominantly semi-diurnal. The

various design tide levels with respect to chart datum for Mundra region as

presented in Naval Hydrographic Chart (No. 203) are given below:

Mean Higher high water Spring : 5.5 m

Mean High Water Neap : 5.0 m

Mean Sea Level : 3.4 m

Mean Low Water Neap : 2.0 m

Mean Low Water Spring : 1.2 m

The predicated tides for the project region from 22.01.14 to 12.02.14 are shown in

Fig.4.

Waves:The monthly wave characteristics off the project region in Gulf of Kachchh

are presented in Table 4. The significant wave heights observed is 0.5 m from

January to May and December, 0.75 m from September to November, 1.0 m in June

and 1.5 m in July and August. The zero crossing wave periods varied mostly

INDOMER



between 5 and 11 s. Waves mostly arrive from the sector between 180° - 270°

during southwest monsoon from June to September. It arrives from the sector

between 280° - 300° during northeast monsoon particularly from October to

December. The wave direction prevails around 270° during the rest of the year.

As the project region is situated inside the Gulf and is protected by shallow banks,

the waves get attenuated to a great extent before approaching the coast. The

seasonal wind in the Gulf can locally generate waves and keep the nearshore region

disturbed particularly during southwest monsoon period.

Tsunami: The occurrence of Tsunami along the Indian coast is an extremely

rare event with periodicity of 50 to 500 years. No reliable historical records of

occurrence of Tsunami events and their impact along the Indian coast are

available because of its exceedingly rare nature. One worst tsunami event was

witnessed on 26th December 2004 along the east coast of India, and the water

level rise (run up) on the shore at Tamilnadu was around 2.5 m. The east coast

has the threat due to the fault plane intersected by the Andaman plate and the

Indonesian plate.

Similarly the west coast of India has the threat of the fault plane intersected by

African Plate and Eurasian Plate. It always carries a risk of strong earth quake at

more than 3000 m water depth and an associated Tsunami like the one experienced

in the east coast of India. In such cases, one can expect the influence of tsunami

along the project region with a run up upto 2.0 to 3.0 m height on the coastline

inundating about 1 to 2 km width into the coastal land.

Salinity and temperature

Salinity: The available studies in this region show that the salinity values will remain

around 38 ppt to 40 ppt inside the Gulf. On the otherhand at open sea, based on

the available literature (Wyrtki, 1971), the monthly variation of salinity prevails

INDOMER



between 35.5-36.0 ppt in January and February, 36-36.5 ppt during March to

August, 35.5-36 ppt in September to December (Table 5).

Temperature: Based on the available literature (Rao, 1995), the monthly variation

of sea surface temperature at open sea is presented in Table 5. It shows that the

temperature at nearshore remains around 28.0°C during southwest monsoon, 27.0°

C during northeast monsoon and varies from 27.0°C to 29.0°C during the rest of the

year.

Littoral Drift:The monthly volume of littoral drift at open sea is shown in Table 6.

The sediment transport rates were high (3.36 x 105 m3/month) in June and followed

by July and August (2.88 x 105 m3/month), (2.00 x 105 m3/month) in May and (1.76 x

105 m3/month) in September. It was lowest (< 0.05 x 105 m3/month) in December.

The transport was consistently towards east throughout the year except in October,

during which it was towards west. The annual gross transport was 1.238 x 106

m3/year and the net transport was 1.206 x 106 m3/year towards east.

On the otherhand, the volume of littoral drift at project region is very less when

compared with the open sea because of the Gulf region is protected from waves

due to the formation of large tidal flats.

8.3.2. Water quality

The estimated water quality parameters on temperature, pH, salinity, dissolved

oxygen, turbidity, ammonia-nitrogen, nitrite-nitrogen, nitrate-nitrogen, Inorganic

phosphate, Total phosphorus and total suspended solids are presented in Table 7.

The dissolved oxygen saturation and a comparison of values with COMAPS data are

also given in Tables 8 and 9 respectively. The biochemical oxygen demand and

chemical oxygen demand are given in Tables 10 and 11. The results of cadmium,

INDOMER



lead, chromium, mercury, phenols and petroleum hydrocarbons analyses are

presented in Table 12.

Temperature: Steep gradients of sea water temperature across the depths bear

direct impact on the productivity and animal colony of the region. The temperature

varied from 21.5° C to 22.0°C at creek (stns. S1 to S5) and from 21.0° C to 22.5°C at

open sea (stns.S6 to S10). Due to shallow nature of the stations inside the creek, the

values did not vary much. However, at open sea stations, the minimum of 21.0° C

was recorded at stn. S6 bottom water and maximum of 22.5° C at surface stn. S7. In

general, no thermal stratification was noticed in the area.

pH:Variations in pH due to chemical and other industrial discharges render a water

column unsuitable for the normal well being of the aquatic life. pH is a very

sensitive and most important parameter of an environmental study. Primary

production, respiration and mineralization are able to alter the redox and pH of

aqueous system due to the changes in oxygen and carbonate concentration.

Identifying pH for acidic or alkaline disturbances enables one to locate zones of

pollution and other quality conditions for the use of seawater. During the present

study, water pH remained almost constant at 8.2 at the creek expect at stn. S2

surface water.The values varied from 8.1 to 8.3 at open sea (stns. S6 to S10). The

minimum value (8.1) was recorded at stns. S6 (surface and mid depth) and S8

(surface), while the maximum (8.3) was noticed at stn.S8 (bottom water). Here

again, the pH values were almost constant at 8.2 at most of the stations. The result

shows that the pH values lie within the range of normal seawater.

Salinity:The estimated salinity of the collected water samples ranged between 34.0

to 35.0 ppt at all the 10 locations in creek and open sea. The results indicate that

the salinity range was ok normal seawater in the study area.

INDOMER



Dissolved Oxygen (DO):Of all the dissolved gases in water, oxygen is the most

important one for the survival of aquatic biota. The amount of oxygen dissolved in

the water column at a given time is the balance between consumption and

replenishment. In an ideal ecosystem, these two processes should be at equilibrium

to keep the water column saturated with DO. Generally, the coastal waters are

always found to be saturated and this is so in the present study area also.

Dissolved oxygen content varied from 4.80 to 5.28 mg/l at creek (stns. S1 to S5)

with the minimum (4.80 mg/l) at stn.S1 (bottom water) and the maximum (5.28

mg/l) at stn.S4 (surface water). The values ranged between 4.64 to 5.44 mg/l at

open sea (stns. S6 to S10). The minimum (4.64 mg/l) was noticed at stn. S10

(bottom water) and the maximum (5.44 mg/l) was observed at stn. S7 (surface

water).

DO concentrations decrease with increasing temperature and salinity. So it is

possible to calculate the theoretical saturation of dissolved oxygen for a given

combination of temperature and salinity. Then the observed values can be

compared to see whether the system can sustain the biological demand. The

dissolved oxygen saturation and a comparison of values with COMAPS data are

given in Tables 8 and 9 respectively. The dissolved oxygen saturation (after applying

95% correction), was found to vary between 74.1 and 86.8 % with an average value

of 80.83 %. These values indicate a normal condition which shows normal

productivity in the project region. Review of literature indicates that the levels

below 2 mg/l are only known to cause respiratory impacts on marine fauna.

Turbidity:Turbidity is another measure to understand the suspended particulate

matter which controls the photosynthesis in the water column. The turbidity varied

between 1.2 to 3.4 NTU at creek (stns. S1 to S5) with the minimum (1.2 NTU)

recorded at stn. S1 (surface water) while the maximum (3.4 NTU) was noticed at

stn. S2 (bottom water). The values varied from 2.5 to 7.5 NTU at open sea (stns. S6

INDOMER



to S10) with the minimum (2.5 NTU) recorded at stn. S9 (surface water) while the

maximum (7.5 NTU) at stn. S10 (bottom water).In general, low values were

recorded in surface waters compared to bottom waters. It also observed that the

values shows less turbidity at creek compared to open sea stations.

Nutrients:Nutrients determine the potential fertility of an ecosystem and hence it is

important to know their distribution and behavior in different geographical

locations and seasons. The fishery potential of an area is in turn, dependent on the

availability of primary nutrients like nitrogen and phosphorus. Enrichment of these

nutrients by anthropogenic inputs in the coastal waters, having limited ventilation,

may result in water becoming eutrophicated.

The major inorganic species of nitrogen in water are ammonia, nitrite and nitrate of

which nitrite is very unstable and ammonia is bio-chemically oxidized to nitrate.

Hence, the concentrations of nitrite and ammonia are often very low in natural

waters. The utilization of nutrients such as nitrates and phosphates can be taken as

a measure of the productivity of the area.

Inorganic phosphate and nitrogen compounds in the sea play a decisive role in the

biological production. Normally they occur in low concentrations. Their distribution

in the coastal waters is mostly influenced by land run off. Since nutrients form an

important index to the primary productivity of an ecosystem, the study of its

distribution is important from the point of view of its role in the biological

productivity and also as an indicator of pollutant. Values of various nutrient

parameters analyzed at different stations are presented in Table 7.

Ammonia-Nitrogen (NH3-N):Unpolluted waters are generally devoid of ammonia

and nitrite. However, coastal input by sewage and other nitrogenous organic matter

and fertilizers can increase these nutrients to higher levels. In addition, ammonia in

INDOMER



seawater can also come from various organisms as an excretory product due to the

metabolic activity and the decomposition of organic matter by micro-organisms.

The concentration of Ammonia ranged from 0.17 to 0.29 µmol/l at creek (stns. S1 to

S5) and the minimum (0.17 µmol/l) was recorded at stns. S1. S2 and S4 (surface

water) while the maximum (0.29 µmol/l) was at stn. S1 (bottom water). It varied

from 0.16 to 0.38 µmol/l at open sea (stns.S6 to S10). The minimum (0.16 µmol/l)

was recorded at stn. S8 (surface water) and the maximum (0.38 µmol/l) was

observed at stn. S8 (bottom water).The values are within normal range. The water

quality parameters observed at the creek do not show much variation and remains

turbid on account of organic load.

Nitrite-Nitrogen (NO2-N):Nitrite is an important element, which occurs in seawater

as an intermediate compound in the microbial reduction of nitrate or in the

oxidation of ammonia. In addition, nitrite is excreted by phytoplankton especially,

during plankton bloom. In the present study, Nitrite concentration ranged from 0.51

to 0.68 µmol/l at creek (stns.S1 to S5). The minimum value (0.51 µmol/l) was

recorded at stn. S1 (surface water) while maximum (0.68 µmol/l) was observed at

stns. S3 and S4 (surface water). The values varied from 0.37 to 0.77 µmol/l at open

sea (stns.S6 to S10). The minimum (0.37 µmol/l) was recorded at stn. S7 (surface

water) and maximum (0.77 µmol/l) was noticed at stn. S9 (bottom water).The

distribution in spatial and vertical direction shows more randomness, and also did

not vary much between the creek and open sea stations.

Nitrate-Nitrogen (NO3-N):Nitrate values are in general higher as compared to

nitrite values. Nitrate is the final oxidation product of nitrogen compounds in

seawater and is considered to be the only thermodynamically stable oxidation level

of nitrogen in seawater. Nitrate is considered to be the micronutrient, which

controls primary production in the euphotic surface layer. The concentration of

INDOMER



nitrate is governed by several factors of which microbial oxidation of NH3 and

uptake by primary producers may be important in the present study area.

Nitrate concentration ranged from 1.12 to 3.59 µmol/l at creek (stns.S1 to S5). The

minimum (1.12 µmol/l) was recorded at stn. S1 (surface water) and the maximum

(3.59 µmol/l) was noticed at stn. S1 (bottom water).The values varied from 1.21 to

3.59 µmol/l at open sea (stn. S6 to S10). The minimum (1.21 µmol/l) was noticed at

stn. S8 (surface water) while maximum (3.59 µmol/l) was observed at stn. S6

(bottom water). As in the case of nitrite the distribution is random.

Total nitrogen:The total nitrogen concentration ranged from 8.45 to 13.18 µmol/l

at creek (stns.S1 to S5). The minimum (8.45 µmol/l) was recorded at stn. S5 (surface

water) and the maximum (13.18 µmol/l) was also noticed at stn. S3 (surface water).

The values varied from 7.96 to 10.94 µmol/l at open sea (stns.S6 to S10). The

minimum (7.96 µmol/l) was observed at stn. S10 (surface water) and maximum

(10.94 µmol/l) was noticed at stn. S6 (bottom water).

Inorganic Phosphate (PO4-P): Inorganic phosphate is also an important nutrient like

nitrogen compound in the primary production of the sea. The concentration of

phosphate especially in the coastal waters is influenced by the land run off and

domestic sewage.

In the creek region, stns. S1 to S5, the phosphate concentration ranged from 0.22 to

0.81 µmol/l. The minimum (0.22 µmol/l) was recorded at stn. S1 (surface water)

and the maximum (0.81 µmol/l) was noticed at stn. S2 (bottom water). The values

varied from 0.22 to 0.73 µmol/l at open sea (stns.S6 to S10) with the minimum

(0.22 µmol/l) at stn. S10 (surface water) the maximum (0.73 µmol/l) at stn. S7

(bottom water).

Total phosphorous: Total phosphorous ranged from 2.93 to 5.05 µmol/l at creek

(stns.S1 to S5). The minimum (2.93 µmol/l) was recorded at stn. S1 (surface water)

INDOMER



while maximum (5.05 µmol/l) was noticed at stn. S2 (bottom water). The values

varied from 3.45 to 4.81 µmol/l at open sea (stns.S6 to S10). The minimum (3.45

µmol/l) was recorded at stn. S7 (surface water) while the maximum (4.81 µmol/l)

was observed at stn. S6 (bottom water).

Total Suspended Solids (TSS): Total Suspended Solids in seawater originate either

from autochthonous (biological life) or allochthonus (derived from terrestrial

matter) sources. The TSS values varied from 10 to 38 mg/l at creek (stns. S1 to S5)

with the minimum (10 mg/l) was noticed at stn. S1 (surface water) while maximum

(38 mg/l) was recorded at stn.S2 (bottom water). The values varied from 32 to 84

mg/l at open sea (stns. S6 to S10), and the minimum (32 mg/l) and the maximum

(84 mg/l) was recorded at stn. S10 at the surface and bottom waters respectively. In

general, the minimum value was noticed in surface waters and the maximum value

was recorded in bottom waters. Open sea waters recorded higher TSS values

compare to the creek stations.

Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD):Rate of aerobic utilization of oxygen is an

useful tool to evaluate the intensity of deterioration in an aquatic medium. The

oxygen taken up for the breakup of organic matter leads to a reducing environment

or in the event of release of excess nutrients, it may cause eutrophication.

In the present study, the BOD values varied from 2.40 to 3.04 mg/l at creek (stns. S1

to S5). The minimum (2.40 mg/l) was recorded at stn. S3 (surface water) while the

maximum (3.04 mg/l) at stn. S5 (surface water). The values varied from 1.92 to

3.36mg/l at open sea (stns. S6 to S10). The minimum (1.92 mg/l) was observed at

stn. S10 (bottom water) while the maximum (3.36 mg/l) was noticed at stn.S6

(surface water). The low BOD values indicate that oxidisable organic matter brought

to the nearshore waters is effectively assimilated in coastal water. The range of

variation in BOD values indicate that the water column is well mixed in the project

area.

INDOMER



Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD):Chemical oxygen demand (COD) determines the

oxygen required for chemical oxidation of organic matter with the help of strong

chemical oxidant. The organic matter gets oxidized completely by potassium

dichromate (K2Cr2O7) in the presence of H2SO4 to produce CO2 plus H2O. The excess

K2Cr2O7 remaining after the reaction was titrated with ferrous ammonium sulphate

[Fe(NH4)2(SO4)2.6H2O] using ferroin as indicator. The volume of dichromate

consumed gives the oxygen required for oxidation of the organic matter.

In the present study the COD values varied from 33.5 to 41.1 mg/l at creek (stns. S1

to S5) and the minimum (33.5 mg/l) was recorded at stn. S1 (surface water) while

the maximum (41.1 mg/l) was noticed at stn.S3 (surface water). The values varied

from 29.7 to 38.6 mg/l at open sea (stns. S6 to S10). The minimum (29.7 mg/l) was

observed at stn. S8 (surface water) and the maximum (38.6 mg/l) was noticed at

stn. S7 (mid depth water).

Trace metal concentration:Concentrations of trace metals in water are often close

to the background level due to their efficient removal from the water column

through hydrolysis and adsorption by suspended particulate matter. Hence,

sediments serve as an ultimate sink for several trace metals and their analyses can

serve as an useful indicator of metal pollution.

Knowledge of the trace metal concentration in seawater is very important from the

point of view of their possible adverse effects on marine biota. Oysters by their

ability to concentrate some trace metals from the environment are considered to

be useful indicators of metal pollution. Many of the trace metals are adsorbed to

the particulate matter and are ultimately deposited at the bottom. Bottom

sediments are considered to provide a reliable estimate of metal pollution status.

The relationship between gross concentration of heavy metal in solution and its

ability to cause toxic effects in an organism is a complex one, and is mostly decided

by the speciation of metal and the condition of the organism. Whether or not a

INDOMER



trace metal can interact with the biota depends on its "bio-availability" in the

medium. Presence of other toxicants or metals can reduce or increase the additive

toxicity of each element. In addition to these factors, temperature, pH, salinity,

turbidity and dissolved oxygen concentration also significantly affect metal-

organism interactions. The results of cadmium, lead, mercury, total chromium,

phenols and total petroleum hydrocarbons are presented in Table 12.

Cadmium (Cd): The bioavailability and toxicity of trace metals such as Cd, Cu, and Zn

are related to the activity of the free metal ion rather than the total metal

concentration. For Cd it is the CdCl2 complex that predominates in seawater.

Therefore, salinity is the overriding factor which can alter free Cd ion activity {Cd2+},

and hence, bioavailability and toxicity in marine systems. The cadmium

concentration in the study region was found to be < 0.5 µg/l at stns. S1, S4, S8 and

S10.

Total Chromium (Cr): In dissolved form, chromium is present as either anionic

trivalent Cr(OH)3 or as hexavalent CrO42-. The amount of dissolved Cr3+ ions is

relatively low, because these form stable complexes. Oxidation ranks from Cr(II) to

Cr(VI). In natural waters trivalent chromium is most abundant. Chromium is a

dietary requirement for a number of organisms. This however only applies to

trivalent chromium. Hexavalent chromium is very toxic to flora and fauna.

Chromium water pollution is not regarded as one of the main and most severe

environmental problems, although discharging chromium polluted untreated

wastewater in creeks has caused environmental disasters in the past. Chromium (III)

oxides are only slightly water soluble, therefore concentrations in natural waters

are limited. Cr3+ ions are rarely present at pH values over 5, because hydrated

chromium oxide (Cr(OH)3) is hardly water soluble.

Chromium (VI) compounds are stable under aerobic conditions, but are reduced to

chromium (III) compounds under anaerobic conditions. The reverse process is

INDOMER



another possibility in an oxidizing environment. Chromium is largely bound to

floating particles in water. The LC50 value for chromium in sea fish lies between 7

and 400 ppm, and for algae at 0.032-6.4 ppm. The total chromium concentration in

the study region was found to be < 0.5 µg/l at stns. S1, S4, S8 and S10.

Lead (Pb): Lead has been used by man for centuries and is amongst the most widely

dispersed environmental contaminant. The considerably greater toxicity of organo-

lead compounds compared to inorganic forms has led to studies whether; such

compounds may be formed by natural process. Available literature suggests that

alkylation of lead is purely a chemical process which may occur in organic-rich

anoxic sediment.

The lead concentration for the sea water samples was estimated as lead strongly

gets accumulated in fishes especially with shell fish. The lead concentration in the

study region was found to be < 0.5 µg/l at stns. S1, S4, S8 and S10.

Mercury (Hg): Mercury is considered as a non-essential and toxic element for living

organisms. Mercury, amongst other heavy metals has attracted global concern due

to its extensive use, toxicity, widespread distribution and the biomagnifications. A

chemical whose concentration increases along a food chain is said to be

biomagnified. The bio-concentrate of mercury in aquatic organisms such as oysters

and mussels has been reported to be much greater than those contained in the

environment in which they live. Mercury is considered as a non-essential and toxic

element for living organisms. During this period, the concentration of the study

region was found to be < 0.5 µg/l at stns. S1, S4, S8 and S10.

Phenol: The main source of phenolic compounds in seawater is through plants.

Additionally, they can also be released during humification processes occurring in

soil. Higher concentrations occur in industrial wastewaters. Phenols can be toxic to

marine organisms and can accumulate in certain cellular components. Chlorination

of phenol-containing waters can lead to formation of chlorophenols with

INDOMER



unpleasant odour and taste. The concentration of phenol in the study area was

found was found to be < 0.5 µg/l at stns. S1, S4, S8 and S10.

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons:The coastal waters are susceptible to oil pollution

due to various maritime activities like fishing operation, spillage from oil tankers,

port activities etc. In the study area, the dissolved and dispersed Petroleum

hydrocarbons were found to be below detectable level (i.e. < 0.01 µg /l) atstns. S1,

S4, S8 and S10.

8.3.3. Sediment characteristics

Sediment size distribution: The sediments were collected in January 2014 at 10

locations covering five locations at creek (stns. S1 to S5), and five locations at open

sea (stns.S6 to S10). The sediment sizes are shown in Table 13. The sediment is

predominantly composed of fine sand with silt and clay.

The concentration of total organic carbon, total nitrogen, and total phosphorus in

sediment samples are given in Table 14.

Total Organic Carbon:Total organic carbon content varied from 0.86 to 1.50 % at

creek (stns. S1 to S5) and the minimum (0.86 %) was observed at stn. S2 while the

maximum (1.50 %) was noticed at stn. S4. It varied from 0.90 to 1.29 % at open sea

(stns. S6 to S10). The minimum (0.90 %) was observed at stn. S9 while the maximum

(1.29 %) was recorded at stn. S6.

Total Nitrogen: Total nitrogenconcentration ranged from 0.64 to 0.88 mg/g at

creek (stns. S1 to S5) and the minimum (0.64 mg/g) was recorded at stn. S1 while

the maximum (0.88 mg/g) was noticed at stn. S5. The values varied from 0.67 to

0.84 mg/g at open sea (stns. S6 to S10) and the minimum (0.67 mg/g) was observed

at stn. S8 while the maximum (0.84 mg/g) was noticed at stn. S10.

INDOMER



Total Phosphorus:Total phosphorus concentration ranged 0.14 to 0.25 mg/g at

creek (stns. S1 to S5) and the minimum (0.14 mg/g) was recorded at stn. S1 while

the maximum (0.25 mg/g) was noticed at stn. S5. It varied from 0.15 to 0.22 mg/g at

open sea (stns. S6 to S10). The minimum (0.15 % mg/g) was observed at stn. S6

while the maximum (0.22 mg/g) was recorded at stn. S7.

Calcium Carbonate:The calcium carbonate content in the sediments varied from

5.52 % to 8.20 % at creek (stns. S1 to S5) and the minimum (5.52 %) was observed

at stn. S1 while the maximum (8.20 %) was noticed at stn. S5. It varied from 4.04 to

8.14 % at open sea (stns. S6 to S10). The minimum (4.04 %) was observed at stn. S7

while the maximum (8.14 %) was recorded at stn. S6.

The concentration of lead, cadmium, and mercury in bottom sediments are

presented in Table 15.

Lead (Pb): The concentrations of lead in the study area varied from 2211.23to

2692.13µg/kgat creek (stns. S1 to S5). It varied from 744.23 to 1788.52µg/kgat

open sea (stns. S6 to S10).

Cadmium (Cd):The concentrations of cadmium in the study area varied from 36.93

to 39.31 µg/kg at creek (stns.S1 to S5). It varied from 23.70 to 43.10 µg/kg at open

sea (stns.S6 to S10).

Chromium (Cr): The concentrations of chromium in the study area varied from

19892.23 to 22651.66 µg/kgat creek (stns.S1 to S5). It varied from 5142.23 to

9775.20 µg/kgat open sea (stns.S6 to S10).

Mercury (Hg): The concentrations of mercury in the study area varied from 119.23

to 315.26µg/kgat creek (stns. S1 to S5). It varied from 36.9 to 105.72 µg/kgat open

sea (stns.S6 to S10).

INDOMER



Phenols: The concentration of Phenol in the study region was found to be <5.0

µg/kg at stns. S1, S4, S8 and S10.

Total Petroleum hydrocarbons: Total petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations was

found to be <0.01 µg/kg at stns. S1, S4, S8 and S10.

The heavy metal concentration in the sediment samples showed extremely low

values in the open sea. It indicates that there is no accumulation of pollutants and

there is no contamination.

8.3.4. Biological Parameters

Biological status of an area is an essential prerequisite for environmental impact

assessment and can be evolved by selecting a few reliable parameters from a

complex ecosystem. Whenever we consider assessment of the implications of

environmental pollution, we must be aware of the fact that despite many changes it

may cause in the physio-chemical properties of water body and seabed sediment,

the ultimate consequences are inevitably of biological nature. The biological

parameters considered in the present study are primary production, phytoplankton

biomass, diversity and population, zooplankton biomass, diversity and population,

macro benthic diversity and population, and fishery of the region. Phytoplankton

and zooplankton reflect the productivity of a water column at primary and

secondary levels. Benthic organisms being sedentary animals associated with the

seabed, provide information regarding the integrated effects of stress due to

disturbances, if any, and hence are good indicators of early warning of potential

damage.

Phytoplankton and primary productivity: Phytoplankton is the primary source of

food in the marine environment. The concentration and numerical abundance of

the phytoplankton indicate the fertility of a region. The plankton population

INDOMER



depends primarily upon the nutrients present in the sea water and the sunlight for

photosynthesis. This primary production is an importance source of food for the

higher organisms in the marine environment. The measured primary productivity

results are shown in Table 16. The primary productivity from 240 to

480 mgC/m3/day at creek (stns. S1 to S5),and from 360 to 600 mgC/m3/day at open

sea (stns. S6 to S10) Totally, the average value is 420 mgC/m3/day at all sampling

station. A comparative statement of primary production along the West coast of

India is also given in Table 17.Various phytoplankton groups and their percentage

composition observed at various stations shown in Table 18. The floral diversity

fluctuated from 16 to 28 species at creek region (stns.S1 to S5) with

Bacilleriophyceae (Diatoms consisting of Centrales and Pennales) formed the major

group followed by Dinophyceae (Dianoflagellates), Cyanophyceae (blue green algae)

and Chlorophyceae. It varied from 25 to 30 species at open sea (stn.S6 to S10) with

Bacilleriophyceae (Diatoms consisting of Centrales and Pennales) formed the major

group followed by Dinophyceae (Dianoflagellates), Cyanophyceae (blue green algae)

and Chlorophyceae. Phytoplankton population analyzed at various stations showed

that their numerical abundance varied from 765 to 2566nos/l at creek region (stns.

S1 to S5) and varied from 2868 and 3801 nos/l at open sea (stns.S6 to S10).(Table

19).

The phytoplankton biomass at various stations varied from 6.77 to 9.25 ml/100 m3

at creek region (stns. S1 to S5) and from 10.55 to 11.29 ml/100 m3 at open sea

(stns.S6 to S10).(Table 20).

Phytoplankton population mostly consists of Pennales (47.11%), Centrales (46.53%)

Dinoflagellates (4.91%), Cyanophyceans (1.01%) and Chlorophyceae (0.43%). In

general,Thallassiothrixfrauenfeldii,Thalassiosira subtilis, Odontellamobiliensis and

Coscinodiscusmarginatus were found at all stations (stns.S1 to S10) with (18.79%),

(14.17)%, (12.15) and (5.78%) respectively. Bacillariaparadoxa (6.37%),Fragilaria sp.

(4.62%),Amphorasp. (3.32%),Coscinodiscusexcentricus(3.32%),Naviculasp. (2.75%)

INDOMER



andCeratiumfurca (2.46%) were recorded in moderate numbers at different stations

at creek and open sea.

Based on the Primer software, the Shannon-Wiener (H‘) diversity clearly showed

the diverse nature of project area (3.095 – 4.163). The similarity in species

composition and abundance among stations varied from 39.96 to 80.80% with an

average similarity percentage of 59.18%. The dominance plot for all the stations

showed sigma shaped curves indicating normal condition of the environment.

Zooplankton:The zooplankton diversity fluctuated from 17 to 26 species at creek

region (stns.S1 to S5) and from 23 to 28 species at the open sea (stns. S6 to S10).

The zooplankton data indicated a moderate standing stock in the area of

observation. Zooplankton population analysis at various stations showed that their

numerical abundance varied from 5962 to34430 nos./100 m3 at creek region

(stns.S1 to S5) and the highest population was recorded at stns.S1 while the

minimum was recorded at stns.S3. At open sea (stns. S6 to S10) population varied

from 27364 to 47915 nos./100m3 (Table 21). Highest Zooplankton population was

observed at stn. S7 and the minimum was observed at stn. S8. The percentage

occurrence of various groups fluctuated from place to place.

The zooplankton biomass at various stations varied from 9.80 to 19.7 ml/100 m3 at

creek and from 17.0 to 24.2 ml/100 m3 at open sea. It is observed that the

zooplankton diversity was more in the open sea (stns.S6 to S10) compared to that

of creek (stns.S1 to S5).(Table 22).

Zooplankton population mostly consists of Paracalanusparvus (15.69 to

22.67%),Euterpinasp. (6.78 to 15.36%), Brachuranzoea (1.96 to 11.43%),

Corycaeuscatus (1.43 to 9.80%) and Copepod nauplii (5.08 to 12.14%) at creek

region, while at the open sea, population of Paracalanusparvus (5.07 to

20.07%),Euterpinasp. (7.11 to 24.48%), Brachuranzoea (10.09 to 24.89%),

INDOMER



Corycaeuscatus (1.19 to 8.06%) and Copepod nauplii (6.01 to 12.46%) were

dominant (Table ).

The Shannon-Wiener (H’) diversity clearly showed the rich diversity of the project

area (3.640 – 4.108). The similarity in species composition and abundance among

stations varied from 46.02 – 86.36% with an average similarity percentage of

66.88%. The dominance plot for all the stations showed sigma shaped curves

indicating normal condition of the environment.

Benthos:Benthic faunal population in an environment depends on the nature of the

substratum and its organic matter content.

Subtidal benthos: The sediment characteristics analysis showed that the study area

essentially contained fine sand with clay. The numerical abundance of the benthic

fauna was low and varied from 70 to 130 nos./m2 at creek region and from 70 to

120 nos./m2 in the open sea (Table 23). The faunal population mainly consisted of

Polychaete worms,Amphipods, Nematodes, Bivalves and Gastropods.

Intertidal benthos: The intertidal faunal population is shown in Table 23. The

numerical abundance of the inter tidal benthic fauna varied from 45 to 90 nos./m2.

At the intertidal region, the total numbers of organisms from all the 5 stations were

315 nos./m2. The intertidal faunal population mainly consisted of Polychaete

worms,Amphipods and Nematodes.

In general, subtidal and intertidal benthic faunal population in this study area was

low in number at all the station. This may be due to high tidal amplitude, strong

bottom currents and some anthropogenic activities. However, Polychaete worms

were dominant from all the stations in the subtidal (stn. S1 to S6) and intertidal

region (IB1 – IB5). Amphipods and Nematods were also present to some extent in

this region. Among the molluscan group, gastropod species were found to be more

in numbers compared to the bivalves.

INDOMER



Inference: The Shannon-Wiener diversity was low in the project area *(0.244 –

1.044). Similarly the Margalef richness (d) values were also low (0.918 – 2.522).

However, the evenness was similar in all stations. Generally in a healthy

environment, Shannon diversity and Margalef richness indices are higher and in the

range of 2.5 – 3.5. Values less than these are normally attributed to some sort of

stress or disturbance. The similarity in species composition and abundance among

stations widely varied from 25.64 to 92.10% with an average similarity percentage

of 54.10%. The dominance plot for all the stations showed steep rise curves possibly

because of low number of organisms. The MDS plot and dendrogram also showed

that there is no clear cut differentiation between biodiversity of subtidal and

intertidal populations.

Phytoplankton diversity indices calculated for stations S1-S10

Stations S N D J' H'(log2) 1-Lambda'

S1 21 2566 2.548 0.854 3.752 0.893

S2 18 1399 2.347 0.904 3.770 0.907

S3 14 898 1.912 0.926 3.525 0.898

S4 11 933 1.462 0.895 3.095 0.856

S5 12 765 1.657 0.937 3.358 0.889

S6 25 2966 3.002 0.864 4.012 0.912

S7 25 3233 2.970 0.882 4.097 0.920

S8 23 3800 2.669 0.847 3.833 0.901

S9 27 3633 3.172 0.876 4.163 0.922

S10 21 2868 2.512 0.859 3.774 0.898

Zooplankton diversity indices calculated for stations S1- S10


S1 26 34430 2.393 0.780 3.664 0.883

S2 22 8260 2.328 0.921 4.108 0.925

S3 17 5962 1.841 0.942 3.849 0.921

S4 20 6352 2.170 0.926 4.001 0.924

S5 19 8461 1.990 0.911 3.869 0.908

S6 26 43138 2.343 0.785 3.690 0.889

S7 28 47915 2.505 0.788 3.787 0.897

S8 24 27364 2.251 0.832 3.815 0.890

S9 23 30944 2.128 0.809 3.661 0.878

S10 25 35598 2.290 0.784 3.640 0.877

INDOMER



Benthic community diversity indices calculated for stations S1 to S10 & IB1 – IB5


S1 5 120 0.836 0.844 1.959 0.686

S2 3 80 0.456 0.946 1.500 0.633

S3 5 90 0.889 0.946 2.197 0.774

S4 4 70 0.706 0.832 1.664 0.621

S5 5 130 0.822 0.825 1.914 0.692

S6 5 100 0.869 0.881 2.046 0.727

S7 4 80 0.685 0.875 1.750 0.665

S8 3 90 0.445 0.773 1.224 0.499

S9 4 70 0.706 0.832 1.664 0.621

S10 6 120 1.044 0.976 2.522 0.826

IB1 4 90 0.667 0.896 1.792 0.674

IB2 2 60 0.244 1.000 1.000 0.509

IB3 2 45 0.263 0.918 0.918 0.455

IB4 3 75 0.463 0.960 1.522 0.649

IB5 2 45 0.263 0.918 0.918 0.455

S - Total number species (richness); N- total number of individuals; d- Margalef’s richness index; J'- Pielou’s evenness index; H'- Shannon-Wiener diversity index; 1- Lambda'- Simpons’s diversity index.

Dominance curve for Pytoplankton

Dominance curve for zooplankton

Dominance curve for Benthos

MDS plot for Benthic animals recorded in various stations

Dendrogram of Benthic species recorded in various stations

Phytoplankton

1 10 100

Species rank

0

20

40

60

80

100

Cu

mu

lative

Do

min

an

ce

%

S1

S2

S3

S4

S5

S6

S7

S8

S9

S10

Zooplankton

1 10 100

Species rank

0

20

40

60

80

100

Cu

mu

lative

Do

min

an

ce

%

S1

S2

S3

S4

S5

S6

S7

S8

S9

S10

Benthos

1 10

Species rank

20

40

60

80

100

Cu

mu

lative

Do

min

an

ce

%

S1

S2

S3

S4

S5

S6

S7

S8

S9

S10

IB1

IB2

IB3

IB4

IB5

BenthosTransform: Square root

Resemblance: S17 Bray Curtis similarity

S1

S2

S3 S4

S5

S6S7

S8

S9

S10

IB1

IB2

IB3

IB4IB5

2D Stress: 0.17

BenthosComplete linkage

S8

S10

IB1

IB3

S2

IB2

IB5

S6

S9

S4

S7

S1

IB4

S3

S5

Samples

100

80

60

40

20

Sim

ilarity

Transform: Square root

Resemblance: S17 Bray Curtis similarity

INDOMER



Bray – Curtis similarity for Phytoplankton collection from different stations

Stns. S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10

S1

S2 65.66

S3 60.53 66.91

S4 51.95 53.37 48.55

S5 54.27 63.03 63.05 52.77

S6 67.41 57.42 49.59 52.63 48.40

S7 70.76 61.10 49.03 49.17 47.87 69.91

S8 66.33 55.89 51.71 45.50 42.79 74.45 66.70

S9 65.85 59.67 51.91 39.96 41.73 71.74 72.53 66.00

S10 80.80 57.19 54.70 56.61 53.66 77.27 73.92 71.64 61.08

Bray – Curtis similarity for Zooplankton collection from different stations

Stns. S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10

S1

S2 61.61

S3 51.97 79.55

S4 57.76 77.44 73.72

S5 60.62 82.53 77.50 80.45

S6 82.59 58.45 48.38 49.98 60.13

S7 85.29 55.38 46.02 48.43 55.18 86.36

S8 76.57 61.36 57.36 57.07 59.30 74.97 72.38

S9 78.22 60.37 51.38 55.71 63.32 81.30 78.14 76.70

S10 80.78 62.87 50.74 54.96 62.37 80.50 79.49 78.04 76.21

Bray - Curtis similarity for Benthos collection from different stations

Stns. S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 IB1 IB2 IB3 IB4 IB5

S1

S2 56.40

S3 45.47 47.98

S4 65.16 61.05 47.27

S5 43.88 48.78 53.19 64.14

S6 77.29 59.07 41.11 68.19 42.24

S7 69.56 66.67 45.63 76.82 46.56 72.68

S8 40.35 41.27 30.32 40.55 36.25 51.74 58.38

S9 65.16 61.05 47.27 80.00 48.11 85.24 76.82 60.83

S10 52.93 41.34 42.09 55.75 34.45 62.59 68.56 62.57 70.69

IB1 51.19 37.65 64.05 55.58 47.05 47.89 53.52 39.80 55.58 41.69

IB2 58.58 75.88 34.56 64.56 49.96 67.95 70.88 41.60 64.56 46.10 37.41

IB3 33.85 44.50 36.40 43.54 33.22 35.75 41.38 44.30 43.54 30.53 67.57 53.95

IB4 67.74 55.46 46.92 66.57 36.59 69.29 72.04 25.64 66.57 55.65 46.73 72.53 32.04

IB5 57.78 75.96 36.40 68.67 52.39 61.04 70.64 44.30 68.67 48.16 39.58 92.10 58.58 64.08

INDOMER



Microbiology: Microorganism distribution in the marine and brackish environment

plays an important role in the decomposition of organic matter and mineralization.

Since the last two decades, water quality analysis was given more importance in

marine pollution monitoring programmes. These pathogenic bacteria invade into

marine environment through human and animal excreta, river runoff, and land

runoff, sewage with organic and inorganic contents, agricultural waste and

industrial waste. Hence, the spatial and temporal distribution of the Total fecal coli

forms as well as pathogenic bacteria in water and sediment is essential to assess the

sanitary. The regular monitoring in the coastal environment is an integral and

essential part in predicting the microbial population of coastal waters.

Bacterial counts in the surface water and in sediment samples at all stations were

analyzed, and are presented in Tables 24 and 25 respectively. In the water samples,

population density varied from 0.04 to 5.76 nos. ×103/ml at creek (stns. S1 to S5)

and open sea (stns. S6 to S10), the population varied between 0.01 and 5.40 nos.

×103 /ml. In the sediment samples, population density varied from 0.05 to 5.82 nos.

×104 /g in creek (stns. S1 to S5) and from 0.01 to 5.58 nos. ×104 /g at open sea

(stns.S6 to S10).

The bacterial colonies were identified up to generic level. Organisms isolated were

normally expected in all coastal waters, under moderate human influence. The total

count in the water sample at the surface closer to the coastal areas was found to be

higher due to terrestrial run off and towards the open sea the count was found to

be lesser. Shigella and Vibrio like organisms were found to be present in very low

numbers. Other counts indicated lesser populations. This result implies that in this

region there is no indication of any major microbiological pollution.

Bacterial densities were higher in the sediment samples than the water samples.

This is normally expected and can be ascribed to the fact that the coastal and shelf

sediments play a significant role in the demineralization of organic matter which

INDOMER



supports the growth of microbes. Higher bacterial population in sediments than

water is generally due to the rich organic content of the former and the lesser

residence time of microorganism in the water than the sediments. The pathogenic

organism such as (TVC) Escherichia coli, Vibrio like organisms, Shigella, Vibrio

cholera, Vibrio parahaemolyticus, Total coli formshave been recorded in the study

area. The counts indicated lesser population which shows that the environment is

fairly healthy and free from any major pollution.

In general the coastal waters are influenced by Escherichia coli, Salmonellasp.,

Klebsielasp., Enterobacter sp., Bacillussp., andStaphyloccoussp.,andVibrio like

organisms. Estuaries and creeks are influenced by E.coli,Shigellasp., Vibrio cholera,

Vibrio parahaemolyticus, Pseudomonassp.,and other pathogens like Total Coli forms

and Total Viable Counts.

Coastal sand dune Vegetation: The survey conducted in the project region

indicates presence of some vegetation plants comprising Salicornia brachiata,

Suaeda sp., Ipomoea pes-caprae and Prosopis juliflora whichare shown in given

below.

Salicornia brachiata Suaeda sp.

Prosopis juliflora Ipomoea pes-caprae

INDOMER



Marine National Park & Sanctuary

The GoK is quite diverse in their

ecological systems, especially the

coral reefs and mangroves, and thus

form critical habitats for rich diversity

in flora and fauna. Realizing the

ecological and geomorphological

importance of the area and the

conservation significance of coral reefs and mangroves, the state government

declared quite a large area of the southern part of the Gulf as Protected Area (PA).

In 1980 an area of 220.71 km2 was notified as Marine Sanctuary. Superseding 1980

notification in 1982, another 237.21 km2 area was added into the sanctuary.

However, in order to provide higher protection level, in 1982, out of total 457.92

km2 area of the Marine Sanctuary, an area of 162.89 km2 was notified as Marine

National Park (MNP), which happened to be the first Marine National Park of the

country. Interestingly, the 162.89 km2area of MNP is actually distributed amongst

37 islands and their coasts. The 295.03 km2 area of Marine Sanctuary covers sub-

tidal areas around 5 islands and inter-tidal zone from Navlakhi to Okha. Out of total

42 islands in MNPS, 20 islands have mangroves and 33 support coral reefs. Thus,

GoK Marine National Park and Sanctuary (MNPS) include 148.92 sq. km. of islands

and 309 sq. km. of intertidal zone along the coast.

Importantly, the open water between the islands is not included in either MNP or

Marine Sanctuary. However, the management plan of MNPS suggested that about

1450 km2 area up to 10 fathom depth need to be considered as part of the PA

system, to manage various anthropogenic activities and thus strengthen the

function of MNPS. Interpretation of satellite imageries of 1998 identified various

land use/ land cover types in the MNPS. MNPS included three major categories of

areas: reserved forest (11.82 sq. km.), unclassified forests (347.90 sq. km.) and

INDOMER



Indian territorial waters (98.20 sq. km.). While, the overall responsibility of

management of MNPS lies with State Forest Department, in effect there is serious

overlapping of jurisdiction. Actually, there are quite a few agencies that had

jurisdictional authority e.g. the Gujarat Maritime Board, Indian Coast Guard, Custom

and Fisheries Departments.

Category Hectare Fauna/Flora Diversity

Mud flats 36479 Algae 108

Sandy/Beach area 794 Corals 56

Reef flat 14316 Sponges 70

Mud over reef 10091 Fishes 200

Mangrove dense 7865 Prawns 27

Mangrove sparse 6279 Crabs 30

Marsh Vegetation 1066 Molluscs 400

Mud flat with vegetation 3340 Turtles 3

Vegetation on Sand & Rocks 335 Sea snakes 3

Forest 56 Birds 175

Reef Vegetation 16000 Mammals 3

Salt affected area 2292

Salt works 6809

Water body/Creeks 9626

Scrub/Wasteland 738

Total 116086

Source: Singh et. al., 2006

Besides Mangroves, the major flora include sea grass and sea weeds, Saag, Sesam,

Kheru, Limda etc. and the major fauna are coral lichen, coral sponge, green sponge,

puffer fish, turtles, dolphins, crabs, prawns, sea anemones, jelly fishes, starfishes,

octopus etc. In all, the area supports 56 species of hard and soft corals, 70 species

of sponges, 150-200 species of fishes, 27 species of prawns, 30 species of crabs,

more than 400 species of molluscs, 3 species of endangered sea turtles, 3 species of

sea snakes, 3 species of sea mammal, 94 species of water birds, 78 species of

terrestrial birds and 108 species of brown, green and red algae. Sea grass also offers

an ideal habitat to the diverse biota and act as buffers between mangroves and

INDOMER



coral. It is important to note that a part of the project region comes under MNPS.

Hence adequate safety measures have been followed during sampling process.

However, the project site comes on the northern side of the GoK and there is no

connection to the Marine National Park Sanctuary (MNPS) which is declared as

Protected Area (PA). The width of the water body in the project site is

approximately 40 km (between the MNPS and project site). There is no effluent

discharge from the wind mill plant to disturb the water quality. Hence, there will

not be any impact on the marine ecosystem due to operation of the plant.

Mangroves: Mangroves are salt-tolerant forest ecosystems found mainly in tropical

and sub-tropical inter-tidal regions of the world. They are trees or shrubs that have

the common trait of growing in shallow and muddy salt water or brackish waters,

especially along quiet shorelines and in estuaries. Mangroves are not common on

sandy beaches and rocky shores. A muddy substratum of varying depth and

consistency is necessary for their normal growth. They are rarely found near the

open sea or mouth of an estuary, but abundantly found in sheltered places like

creeks and estuaries.

The mangrove area of the Gujarat coast is the second largest (next to the

Sunderbans) along the Indian coast (Untawale and Wafar, 1988) and Gulf of

Kachchh account to 93% of Gujarat mangroves. Several locations along the coastline

in the Gulf of Kachchh are fringed with the growth of mangroves. At present, the

mangrove coverage is in the form of a discontinuous and patchy vegetation. All the

islands of Southern coast are intersected by creeks fringed with mangroves. They

are found mostly in the GoK region, specifically in parts of Kachchh, Jamnagar and

Rajkot Districts. Accordingly, in these districts, total notified mangrove forest areas

include 665.93, 581.8 and 77.7 km2 area, respectively.

INDOMER



Although Kachchh region has the maximum forest cover, it displays the least

mangrove diversity with Avicennia marina var. acutissima as the dominant species

forming almost pure stand at many places due to its adaptability to higher salinities.

The other mangrove species found commonly are A. officinalis and A. alba while

Rhizophoramucronata, Ceriopstagal and Bruguieragymnorhiza are vulnerable

species.

Avicenniasp. along the creek

The survey conducted in the project area indicates the presence of scanty

mangrove (Avicenniasp.). However, afforestation of mangrove plants are in full

swing to restore the mangrove area. Construction of wind mill tower would destroy

some localized area along with certain amount of impact on the fauna in the

specific area, which may be only temporary.

Sea weeds:Seaweeds are marine macro algae and primitive type of plants, growing

abundantly in the shallow waters of sea, estuaries and backwaters. They flourish

wherever rocky, coral or suitable substrata are available for their attachment. They

belong to three groups namely green, brown and red based on their pigmentation,

morphological and anatomical characters.

The sea algae or sea-weeds are widely distributed along the Gujarat coast of India

and are mostly found attached to substratum of coral or rock. The Gulf contributes

to the maximum species and biomass of seaweeds for the west coast of India.

Between the two coasts of GoK- the northern and the southern- the later supports

INDOMER



luxuriant growth of marine algae due to gradual slope of shoreline with high tidal

amplitude, moderate wave action and low turbidity. The presence of hard

substratum both due to coral reefs and other rocks, provide suitable habitat for

most of the algal species. The northern shore of the Gulf has very poor algal growth,

as the sandy/muddy substratum is associated with relatively high turbidity which

does not support the species.

Enteromorphasp. Enteromorphasp.along the creek

During the survey in the study area, scanty distribution of the

seaweed(Enteromorpha sp.) was observed.

Salt pans: Gujarat is the largest salt producing state, accounting for about 70% of

the total salt production in the country. The hinterland of Gulf of Kachchh spanning

over the coast of Jamnagar, Rajkot, Surendranagar, Patan and Kachchh districts has

excellent conditions. While these salt manufacturing units had many environmental

concerns, they also serve as feeding grounds for a variety of resident as well as

migrant birds. The abandoned salt pans occupy significantly large area with poor

diversity. A few halophytes such as Suaedafruticosa, S. maritima,

Sesuviumportulacastrumwere abundant. The salt industries located in this region

are approximately 10km from project site.

Inter-tidal/Mud flat region: The Gulf has huge area of mud flats due to high tidal

range. Along the southern coast, the intertidal zone extends to around 1 km in the

outer Gulf, 2 to 3.5 km in the central Gulf and 3.5 to 5 km in the inner Gulf. Along

INDOMER



northern coast, the intertidal zone varied from 2 to 5 km between Mundra and

Kandla creek, while the coast between Jakhau and Mundra exhibited very narrow or

even absence of thin to no mudflats. Overall, the Gulf occupies low tidal mudflats of

1590km2 and high tidal mudflats of 586 km2. This zone though looks devoid of any

vegetation, it is actually inhabited by a few algal species namely,

Cladophoraglomerata, Enteromorpha intestinalis and Ulva sp. Enteromorpha

intestinalis forms enormous blooms in this zone changing the physiognomy of the

area drastically. This zone however is rich in faunal diversity with molluscs,

flatworms, crabs and is visited by several migrant bird species. The survey

conducted in the project region indicated the presence of some common mollusc

such as, Trochusniloticus, Cerithiumscabridum, Cerithideacingulata, Telescopium

telescopium, Naticapicta, Murex brunneus, Thais rugosa, Thais lacera,

Croniasubnodulosa, Cantharusundosus, Nassariusdistortus, Pugilina(Hemifusus)

cochlidiumandTurbo brunneus.

Mud flat region

Turtle nesting:Gujarat has the long coastline which runs in to 1600 kms. Olive

Ridely has been reported in Kachchh andBhavnagar districts. The endangered green

sea turtle, which is found mainly on the coast of Gujarat, is facing major threat due

to different factors and needs immediate conservation steps, according to the

Gujarat Ecological Education and Research (GEER) foundation. The threat to green

sea turtle population comes from accidental catch by fishermen which result in

their death, egg lifting and predation by humans and animals, sand mining at

INDOMER



important nesting beaches, developmental activities along the coast and industrial

effluents. The coast of Gujarat has been one of the most important nesting grounds

for the endangered green sea turtle which is believed to be endemic to the Gulf of

Kutch waters.

The Gulf of Kutch is a shallow arm of the eastern Arabian Sea and separates the

peninsula of Saurashtra from Kutch in western India. Situated in the Gulf are about

15 islands, 1-20 kms off the northern coast of Saurashtra. The well known turtle

nesting area at Hawke's Bay in Pakistan lies about 250 kms to the north-west.

During the survey in the project area at Mundra region, no nesting area was

observed. This may be due to the fact that the inter-tidal area is highly muddy

bottom in nature and also presence of mangrove forest.

Birds:Avifauna of the area was classified in to two major groups i) Terrestrial and ii)

Shorebirds. In all, the counts terrestrial birds does not show much variation in the

species richness, whereas the shorebirds showed a characteristic trend with the

seasonal variations. Most of the species of shorebirds use existing mangroves for

roosting and mudflats and the intertidal areas for the feeding. Black-necked Stork

has been found nesting (July 2008 and August 2009) on the mangrove (Coastal

Biodiversity Assessment and Benchmarking at coastal Gujarat Power Ltd., Mandvi-

Mundra coast, Gujarat, India, July 2008- March 2010, BNHS India).

In the project region some important migratory birds were found such as, Eurasian

Curlew, Black-tailed Godwit, Black-headed Ibis, Black-necked Stork, Painted Stork,

Crow Pheasant, Blue Rock Pigeon, Crab Plover, Great Stone Plover, Kentish Plover,

Lesser Sand Plover, Little Ringed Plover, Common Quail and Indian Roller. The main

threat to the avian population is due to possible hit by wind mill blades while flying

there resulting in their mortality.

INDOMER



Sea weeds and Sea grass:The sea algae or sea-weeds are widely distributed along

the Gujarat coast of India and are mostly found attached to substratum of coral or

rock. The Gulf contributes to the maximum species and biomass of seaweeds for

the west coast of India. Between the two coasts of GoK- the northern and the

southern- the later supports luxuriant growth of marine algae due to gradual slope

of shoreline with high tidal amplitude, moderate wave action and low turbidity. The

presence of hard substratum both due to coral reefs and other rocks, provide

suitable habitat for most of the algal species. The northern shore of the Gulf has

very poor algal growth, as the sandy/muddy substratum is associated with relatively

high turbidity which does not support the species.

Coral Reef:Several types of coral formations are found in the Gulf of Kutch like

fringing reefs, platform reefs, patch reefs and coral pinnacles. There is dispute,

however, about the numbers. Pillai and Patel (1988) recorded 37 species of hard

corals and 12 species of soft corals; the Gujarat Environment and Education

Research Foundation (GEER Foundation) reports 42 hard and 10 soft corals; and the

Gujarat’s State of Environment Report mentions 44 species of hard corals and 12

species of soft corals. However, solitary and soft corals are also reported near

Mundra, Mandvi and Kandla in Kachchh (Deshmukhet. al. 2000) and in the Arabian

Sea along the Saurashtra coast (Raghunathanet. al. 2004). According to satellite

imagery based assessment, coral reefs in GoK occupies an area of about 460 km2.

Fishery: Gujarat has got a coastline of 1600 km and the continental shelf area

covers 184, 000 sq.km extending up to 30-43 km. This coastline is the longest in

India after Andaman & Nicobar. The coast line of Gujarat covers 12 out of 25

districts and starts from the Kachchh (north) and ends in Valsad (south). According

to the survey conducted by the Gujarat Fisheries Department, there are 260 marine

fishing villages along the coast. The fishery of the region is assessed based on the

data obtained from the Department of Fisheries, Govt. of Gujarat. The data

presented in this report is taken from the Gujarat Government publication, “Gujarat

INDOMER



Fisheries Statistics” (2012) which is the latest official release of the office of the

Commissioner of Fisheries, Gandhinagar, Gujarat. The statistics cover the period of

2011-2012. The data collected by us directly from the State Fisheries and Fisheries

Survey of India (FSI) for other periods are also included. The estimated annual

landings in Gujarat was 6,87,445 MT in 2009-10, 6,88,930 MT in 2010-11 and

6,92,488 MT during 2011-12 showing gradual increase in fish production over the

years (Table 26). The surveys conducted by the FSI, Government of India and State

Fisheries, Gujarat State have indicated that Dwarka, Kachchh, Porbandar, Khambhat

and Veraval are all highly productive grounds. The highest landing was recorded

from Junagadh district. The annual potential yield of marine fishery resources of

Gujarat State estimated by Fishery Survey of India is 7.03 lakh tonnes, comprising of

demersal catch showing 4.55 lakh tonnes and pelagic catch showing 2.48 lakh

tonnes. The current production for overall Gujarat State is 6.9 lakh tonnes. Ghol,

Karkara, Eel, Sciaenids, Perches, Catfish, Prawns and Elasmobranchs are abundant in

Kachchh, Porbandar and Dwarka regions. Other important resources of this coast

are Bombay duck, Ribbon fishes, Seer fishes, Perches, Polynemids, Clupeids, Sharks,

Yellow Fin tuna, Marlins, Swordfish, Sailfish, Lobsters, Squid &Cuttle fishes.

INDOMER



A recent estimate on the marine fish potential along Gujarat coast by FSI shows a

total biomass of 4.55 lakh tonnes of demersal stocks in 0 to 300 m depth of which

about 67% is in the inshore waters up to 50 m depth, 26% in 50 to 100 m depth and

6.5% in 100 to 200 m depth. Different district –wise marine fish production in

Gujarat state are given in Table 27.

Mechanized fishing boats of different types form two thirds of the total marine

fishing fleet (36,090) during 2011-12. The dominant fishing crafts are FRP boats

(11,857) followed by Total non mechanised (12,163), Trawlers (7,470), Others

Dollneter (2408), Gill neters (2,109) and Wooden canoes OBM (83) are shown in the

figure given below (Table 28).

otal marine fish production in Gujarat coast for 2008-09, 2009-10 2010-11 and

2011-12 are shown in the figure given below.

INDOMER



The contribution of Gujarat state in the total marine fish production of the country

is estimated to be around 21% and stand first among other states. The last three

years marine fish production of Gujarat compared to the total Indian coast

production is given below.

The details of total marine fish landing in Kuchchh district for the year 2010- 2013

are given in Table 29. The total landing in Kuchchh district was 72,977 MT in 2010-

2011. However, it has declined to 72,897 MT in 2011-2012 and 72,781 MT during

2012-2013.

INDOMER



According to Fisheries Statistics of Gujarat (2011-2012), the total marine fish

production for the state was reported to be 6,92,488 MT. The annual marine fish

production for the year 2012-13 for Kuchchh district was estimated to be 72,781

MT.

Centre wise marine fish production in Kuchchh district during 2012-13 are given in

Table 30. The available data indicate that the yearly fish landings are not constant

and fluctuate widely.

The various fishing crafts and gears operating from Kuchchh district are also

presented in the following section. Gill net, Bag nets and Cast net are primarily used

for fishing by these communities. In general, the dominant species of Kuchchh

region are fishes such as, Bombay duck, Ribbon fish, Sharks, Skates, Catfish, Black

Pomfret (Parastromateusniger), White Pomfret (Pampus argenteus), Eels, Seer fish,

Leather Jacket, Silver Bar, Carangies, Mackerel, Tunas, Whitebaits Penaeid and Non

Penaeid Prawns, Clupeoids, Scianeids, Trichiuridaeand Upenoids. The dominant

species of shrimp and prawn are Acetes sp., Penaeus monodon, P. indicus,

Metapenaeusmonoceros, M. dobsoniand M. brevicorins. In addition Crabs and

Cephalopods were also found to be common.

INDOMER



Kuchchh district is the first and the longest coastline among the coastal districts of

Gujarat with 406 km of length. Sixteen coastal villages and nine marine fish landing

centers are located in this district with a total population of 21,642 (male 11,257;

female 10,385)(Table 31). Out of the total marine fishermen population of 21,642

active fishermen population is 7,581 as per 2007census. During 2012, the estimated

total fishing boats in this district are 1,537 (FRB IBM-931; Trawler- 12; Gillneter –

231; FRP OBM – 2; Wooden OBM – 25; Dolneters/Others – 173; Non-mechanised-

163) (Table 32).

INDOMER



Apart from the data obtained from the boats and also visit to the local Mundra fish market

gave an idea about the fish resource available from this region as per photographs given.

The fishes found in the market were mostly from creek, near shore and offshore fishing

region comprising species such as Thryssa sp., Coiliasp., Harpadonnehereus, Otolithoides

sp., Lepturacanthus sp., Ophisthopterus sp., Drepane sp., Sepiella sp., Charybdis sp.,

Metapenaeus sp. and Acetes sp.

Thryssa sp. Coiliasp. Harpadonnehereus

Otolithoides sp.1 Lepturacanthus sp. Ophisthopterus sp.

Otolithoides sp.2 Thryssa sp. Drepane sp.

INDOMER



Crab Charybdis sp. Sepiella sp.

Metapenaeus sp. Acetes sp. Bombay duck

General conclusions on ecological status

It is always advantageous to assess the “Ecological Status” of a region before any

major project is initiated so that the baseline status that was recorded can be used

as a reference for future assessments. This will help us to monitor the environment

systematically and would enable us to take any mitigation measures, whenever

necessary. The biodiversity or community structures of flora and fauna of the region

react to changes in the environment which ultimately affect the productivity of that

region. There are several statistical methods and indices to explain these changes

and based on the values people classify the ecological status. One such general

method is the classification of Shannon -Weiner diversity Index as given below.

Productivity Status

Species Diversity (Shannon - H' )

Explanation

Bad 0.0 – 1.5 Very highly polluted

Poor 1.6 – 3.0 Highly polluted

Moderate 3.1 – 4.0 Moderately polluted

Good 4.1 - 4. 9 Transitional zone ( i.e. pristine to polluted)

High 5.0 and above Normal/Pristine (i.e. can be a reference site)

INDOMER



In the present study, the diversity values (H') for phytoplankton and zooplankton

were found to be between 3.1 and 4.0 indicating that the region may be classified

as “moderately polluted”. Continuous post monitoring of the environment would

be necessary to indicate the possible changes in the ecological status. As pointed

out earlier, the diversity values for sediment is low in this region because of the

muddy nature of the bottom.

Fisheries

The major fisheries in this region are Hilsa sp., clupeids, mullets, small sciaenids,

shrimps, crabs and miscellaneous groups. As there is no fishing hamlet or intensive

fishing activity in the vicinity of the proposed site, livelihoods of fishers are not under

threat. The low intensity of fishing operation using stake net, cast and gill nets in the

area harvest insignificant fish catch. Negligible quantity of fish catches were reported

around the neighboring villages. Hence, the impact in the area earmarked for the

installation of wind mill towers will be nominal and the qualitative change may occur

in the fishery, leading to insignificant economic loss to the fishermen.

Turtles

Four species of sea turtles - olive ridley, green, leatherback and hawksbill turtles -

were found in the waters off the coast of Gujarat, but only olive ridleys and greens

are known to nest along its coast. Key nesting sites are found along the Kachchh,

Jamnagar and Junagadh coastline. Only a few studies have reported possible

nesting sites and status of turtles in these regions.

The studies have also examined threats such as egg depredation and sand mining,

and killing of turtles for oil and flippers, although no detailed or recent information

is available. Collection of eggs for consumption by coastal communities does occur

but is not believed to be a major threat. The spread of oil particles, pollution due to

INDOMER



domestic sewage and sea debris also pose threat to turtles both in offshore waters

and on nesting beaches.

One of the chief factors responsible for sea turtle mortality is incidental catch in

fishing gear. Barring a few stretches along the south Gujarat coast - where human

habitation and coastal plantations have left no place for nesting - other coastal

development activities like resorts, coastal highways or beach armouring is

relatively limited. Gujarat also has the highest number of ports in the country (one

major port, 11 intermediate and 29 minor ports). The increase in shipping traffic has

brought with it the associated problems of oil spills, garbage and ballast water

disposal, and spillage of transport materials like coal, fertilizers, soda ash and

cement-which increase pollution in and around the ports.

No turtle nesting was observed along coastal stretches of the project region during

the survey. Hence there will not be any impacts on turtles due to construction

activities.

Endangered species –Whale shark

Whale shark (Rhincodon typus Smith 1828 belonging to Order: Lamniformes; Sub-

Order: Lamnoidei; Family: Rhiniodontidae) is the largest fish in the world. The head

is flattened with a wide mouth, positioned at the tip of the snout, stretches almost

as wide as the body. The whale shark is particularly large and its tail has a half moon

shape.

INDOMER



The species is distributed throughout the world's tropical and warm temperate

seas. India is said to have the largest congregation of this species.

Whale Sharks are grayish, bluish or brownish above, with an upper surface pattern

of creamy white spots between pale, vertical and horizontal stripes. The belly is

white. Average size of the fish is 9-14m (up to 20 m) and weighs approximately 12-

15 tons. The largest specimen recorded was caught on November 11, 1997, near

the island of Baba, not far from Karachi, Pakistan. It was 12.65m (41.5ft.) long,

weighed more than 21.5 tons, and had a girth of 7 m (23 ft.). During the

WWF/TRAFFIC study the largest specimen caught was of 12m and the smallest was

of 2m.

Habitat and biology: An epipelagic, oceanic as well as coastal species, observed

well offshore but also close inshore and some times, entering lagoons. They are

found individually or in schools. It seems to prefer areas with upwelling waters,

because of the more favourable conditions for the production of plankton. They are

filter feeders, feeds essentially on a wide variety of planktonic and nektonic

organisms (crustaceans, schooling fishes, anchovies, sardines and squids).

INDOMER



9. DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENT

This coastal region adjoining the project region comprises of large tidal flats with

the presence of creek. The land elevation of the wind mill installation corridor

variesfrom 5 m to 7 m approx. above MSL. The area is generally dry and barren with

the accumulation of sand and silt. There is no other ecologically sensitive area (ESA)

in the project region. The inland region is dry and no existence of human activities.

The coastal villages are engaged in fishing. The morphology of this region is

influenced by the 3 climatic conditions, viz., southwest monsoon (June –

September), northeast monsoon (mid October to February) and fair weather period

from March to May. The nearshore remains more turbid due to strong tidal currents

and the presence of silty clay. The seabed is flat close to the shore and thereafter

falls steep.

Wave activity is relatively low due to protected Gulf compared to open sea off

Okha. The coastal currents are stronger upto 1 to 1.5 m/s speed and the spring tide

level risesupto 5.5 m. The nearshore remains more dynamic and turbulent due to

persistent action of seasonal wind, waves, tides and coastal currents. The

distribution of temperature and salinity indicates that the nearshore water is well

mixed without stratification. There is no significant littoral drift in this coastal

segment. The coastline remains stable with large inter-tidal flats and without any

erosion.

Examination of water quality of this region indicates that it does not differ

substantially both in vertical and spatial directions. Absence of marked vertical

gradients of the physical parameters indicates that the coastal waters are well

mixed. Various results on the chemical and biological parameters indicate that the

water is well oxygenated and nutrient rich. The water is biologically productive at

primary and secondary levels. The sub-tidal benthic fauna is moderately rich in

diversity and numbers compare to the Inter tidal benthic fauna. The marine flora

INDOMER



and fauna also indicate the existence of diverse population in the sea of the study

region. The area is rich in fishery both pelagic and demersal.

The studies on various oceanographic parameters and the information on adjacent

region indicate that the coastal water is clean and productive.

INDOMER



10. IMPACT ASSESSMENT

10.1. Identification of impacts

The construction of wind mills beyond the HTL, its related activities and the

operation will have a minimal impact on: Seawater, Marine ecology and Land use.

The magnitude of adverse impact appears to be very low as the wind mills will be

installed on the shore away from coastal waters. Nevertheless, the proposed

project would bring positive impact on land use, people, their living and the

economical development of the state. The impacts due to different activities are

analyzed.

10.2. Prediction of impacts

While the identification of the impacts provides the status of anticipated impact on

the environment, the prediction of impact will give the extent to which these

conditions can alter or improve the environment. Based on the prediction,

mitigation measures can be evaluated to minimize the impact on the environment.

The activities which need the prediction of impacts are:

i) Impact on marine life

ii) Impact on intertidal benthos

iii) Sediment dispersal during construction

iv) Acoustic disturbances during the installation

v) Impact due to turbine noise

vi) Introduction of a new habitat

vii) Magnetic and Electro-magnetic field

viii) Impact of power cables

ix) Dumping of construction debris in sea

INDOMER



x) Accidental fall of wind mill/blades

xi) Obstruction to fishing

xii) Exclusion of birds

xiii) Impact due to Tsunami and storms

xiv) Other Positive impacts

Impact on marine life

The research suggests that nearshore wind farms could bring positive impact to the

marine environment. Moreover, the new hard substratum and the scouring

protection led to the establishment of new species and new fauna. It is indicated

that the wind farm acts as a new type of habitat with a higher biodiversity of

benthic organisms. The study speculates that there may be an increased use of the

area by fish, marine mammals and certain bird species. Overall the wind farm

provided ‘an oasis of calm in a busy coastal area’ and acted as a new natural habitat

with more species of benthic organisms.

Nearshore wind farms have a positive impact on the marine environment in several

ways. First of all, they contribute to reduce CO2 emission, the major threat to bio

diversity. Secondly, provided that nearshore wind farms do not dramatically affect

the initial environment conditions, they provide regeneration areas for benthic

populations. This can be explained because nearshore wind farms foundations

function as an artificial reef encouraging the creation of new habitats. The structure

of the erosion protection can mean local positive effects for crustaceans such as

lobster and crab, by functioning as shelter as well as increasing their foraging area.

One example of species that seems to increase locally around foundation structures

is the blue mussel.

INDOMER



Impact on Intertidal benthos

During excavation for foundations, the extraction of bottom sediments

simultaneously leads to the removal the benthic animals living on the intertidal

areas. With the exception of some deep burrowing animals or mobile surface

animals that may survive through avoidance, excavation may initially result in the

removal of animals from the excavation site. The recovery of disturbed habitats

following the dredging activity ultimately depends upon the nature of the

sediments at excavation site, sources and types of recolonizing animals and the

extent of disturbance. In soft sediment environment, the recovery of animal

communities generally occurs relatively quick.

A cursory examination of the literature indicates that the rates of recovery of

benthic communities following excavation in various habitats varied greatly from

few weeks to several years. Recovery rates are generally more rapid in highly

disturbed sediments that are dominated by opportunistic species compared to

stable sand habitats that are dominated by long-lived components with complex

biological interactions controlling community structure. In general, the studies

conducted elsewhere indicate that the dredging impacts are relatively short term in

areas of high sediment mobility.

Sediment dispersal during construction

Trenching work during the construction of gravity-based foundations, and wiring

between the turbines and land, can cause sediment to lift up and disperse in the

water mass. The amount of sediment dispersed depends on the type of sediment,

water currents and which excavation method is being used. Increased

concentrations of sediment flowing into water affect mainly fish fry and larval

stages negatively. Invertebrates are often adapted to re-suspension of sediment,

since it naturally occurs in their environment. The sediment dispersal at the

INDOMER



construction of a wind farm is often confined to a short period. The effects are also

relatively small due to the fact that the bottom sediment is usually coarse-grained.

The overall assessment is therefore that sediment dispersal is a limited problem for

most animal and plant communities.

Increased turbidity can affect the filter feeding organisms, such as shellfish, through

clogging and damaging feeding and breathing equipment (gills). Similarly, young fish

can be damaged if suspended sediments become trapped in their gills and

increased fatalities of young fish have been observed in heavily turbid water. Adult

fish are likely to move away from or avoid areas of high suspended solids, such as

dredging sites, unless food supplies are increased as a result of increases in organic

material. Increase in turbidity results in decrease of light penetration in water

column which may eventually affect the mass of phytoplankton which are the major

primary producers in the coastal waters.

Acoustic disturbances during the installation

The pile foundations are driven into the nearshore, and the noise generated will be

spread in the water. Cod and herring can potentially perceive noise from pile

driving at a distance of 80 kilometers, experiencing physical damage and death at

just a few meters from the place of installation. For all types of work involving

noise, flight reactions in fish are expected within a distance of about one kilometre

from the source. The greatest risk of significant harm to marine life exists if the

installation overlaps with important recruitment areas for threatened or weak

populations. They get impaired hearing and behavioural disturbances from noise

associated with pile driving. Oysters are relatively sensitive, whilst mussles are not

affected at all. The effects of high noise levels can be reduced by, for example,

successively increasing the power and thus the noise at piling, so that larger animals

such as fish, seal and porpoises are intimidated at an early stage and leave the

construction area well before high noise levels are reached.

INDOMER



Impact due to turbine noise

Different parts of the turbines generate noise that spreads through the water. The

reactions of fish on noise from turbines and boat engines vary, but study results

indicate that the effect on most species from noise in a wind farm is low. There are

however, no studies on the long term effects of stress due to an increased noise

level an effects of noise disturbance on fish spawning behavior. Today there are no

studies showing negative effects of the on-going sounds in a wind farm on

populations of marine mammals. The noise of both storms and engines from ships

often exceeds the noise generated by wind farms in operation.

Magnetic and Electromagnetic fields

A magnetic field is characterized by magnetic flux density (B) measured in Tesla (T).

The magnetic field is induced by electric currents (charges in motion) and

characterized as either alternating (AC) or static (DC). In the DC case the magnetic

field exists without an accompanying electrical field, while for the AC case both

fields coexist simultaneously. For the DC case the magnetic fields are only

influenced by magnetic materials, such as magnetic ore, cast iron, or the armoring

of a cable. The Earth’s magnetic field is an example of the DC variety. This field has a

flux of about 60 lT at the poles where the field is vertical and 30 lT at the equator

where the field lines are horizontal. There is also a naturally occurring low

frequency AC magnetic field generated by ocean motion and disturbances of the

ionosphere.

The DC and AC magnetic fields interact with matter in different ways. The latter

induces electric currents in conductive matter, whereas both interact with magnetic

material, such as magnetite-based compasses in organisms. The ocean is electrically

characterized as a conductive medium. The ability of AC magnetic fields to

penetrate or propagate in saline water is characterized by the skin depth. A 50 Hz

INDOMER



magnetic field has a penetration depth of about 35 m, while 1 MHz has a

penetration depth of only 0.25 m. The calculation of the magnetic field can be

analytically solved for a magnetic line source placed in an infinite conductive

medium. In reality a cable is either buried or laid on the sea bottom, i.e., on the

interface between two layers of different conductivities. This fact makes the

calculation of the fields more cumbersome which complicates environmental

assessments. For an accurate estimation of the fields, numerical models are

employed where realistically described environments and cables are part of the

analysis. To assess the environmental effect of the magnetic fields, it is essential to

have detailed information on the characteristics of the cable and the geological

properties of the stratum, as well as the conductivity of the water column.

The cables leading from a wind turbine generates a magnetic field that decreases

with distance from the cable. The expected effect on benthic animals and fish

species is low, but since the effect is on-going throughout the entire operational

stage, the risk should be considered in areas that are important to migrating fish

species. No studies have been found showing how electromagnetic fields affect

marine mammals. The few studies that have been found on invertebrates indicate

that the electromagnetic fields around common transmission cables have no effect

on either reproduction or survival.

Impact of Power cables

Anthropogenic magnetic fields in oceans are the result of electronic structures. In

near-coast environments the sources are found both on land and in the sea. Even

though land-based devices, such as power lines structures, emit magnetic fields, it is

still the submarine cables that potentially give rise to the largest impact in the

oceans as the cables traverses long distances. This could influence migratory fish;

with no way around such fishes has to pass over the cable. Moreover, the number

INDOMER



of cables is increasing and in some areas fishes are more or less constantly exposed

to human-induced magnetic fields.

Thestudies indicate that human-induced magnetic fluxes are an environmental issue

that should be considered; various fish species sense magnetic fields and

consequently fish migration could be altered, and there are physiological aspects to

consider especially for nonmigratory species. Russian studies have demonstrated a

reaction of fish passing under overhead power lines in a river which they assumed

to be an effect of magnetism. Using ultrasonic transmitters the movements of the

eels were tracked by boat and a fixed array of hydrophone buoys. The results were

consistent with the hypothesis that the eels followed a constant magnetic compass

course, with a deviation from a straight course of the same magnitude as was

expected from the magnetic anomaly caused by the cable. The spatial resolution of

the tracking was too low to draw a firm conclusion about the effect. It was also

noticed that depth and ambient water currents need to be considered.

Dumping of construction debris in sea

Excavated earth, construction materials, scaffolding and other construction related

objects are at times thrown close to the sea. Such kind of dumping the

constructionwaste along the shoreline will pose risk for the people using coastline

and also the fishermen sailing nearshore. All construction materials should be

stacked on the landward side and should be removed from the site once the

erection is completed.

Obstruction to fishing

Any type of interference on the sea side for the erection of wind mills would affect

the nearshore fishing along this long coastal stretch. But it is seen that there are no

INDOMER



fishing villages and also the proposed farm will be installed away from HTL and

hence there will not be any obstruction for existing fishing.

Exclusion of birds

Most birds do not avoid wind farm areas. An exception is several common diving

ducks that avoid flying or swimming within wind farms and keep a safe distance of

at least 500 m to a turbine tower. The most common food for these species is blue

mussels and other benthic species. The level of impact will depend on the total area

of the park, and the distance between the turbine towers. Large-scale studies are

needed in order to assess if the effect might lead to substantial changes for the

benthic community.

Bird mortality at wind energy facilities can vary greatly depending on the facility's

location, with some facilities reporting nearly zero bird fatalities, and others as high

as four birds per turbine per year. An article in the journal Nature stated that each

wind turbine in the U.S. kills an average of 0.03 birds per year, and recommends

that more research needs to be done.

Available evidence suggests that appropriately positioned wind farms do not pose a

significant hazard for birds. Migrating birds also usually fly at heights of 150m above

the ocean or land, which is higher than most wind turbines. As regard the risk to

birdlife generally, the British Society for the Protection of Birds has stated that "The

available evidence suggests that appropriately positioned wind farms do not pose a

significant hazard for birds."

Bats

Bats may be injured by direct impact with turbine blades, towers, or transmission

lines. Recent research shows that bats may also be killed when suddenly passing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_(journal)

INDOMER



through a low air pressure region surrounding the turbine blade tips. The numbers

of bats killed by existing onshore and near-shore facilities have troubled bat

enthusiasts.

In April 2009 the Bats and Wind Energy Cooperative released initial study results

showing a 73% drop in bat fatalities when wind farm operations are stopped during

low wind conditions, when bats are most active. Bats avoid radar transmitters, and

placing microwave transmitters on wind turbine towers may reduce the number of

bat collisions.

Impact due to storms and Tsunami

The occurrence of depressions and cyclones are not frequent in the project location.

Wave climate is relatively lower throughout the year. The coastal currents are

greatly influenced by tides followed wind. The occurrence of storm is rare in this

region but severe cyclonic storm had occurred in this region causing considerable

devastation along the coastline. The storm surge of 2.4 m height has been

predicted for a cyclonic wind speed of 252 kmph. During the surge, the seawater

enters into low lying land causing stagnation and inundation.

Among the natural disaster in the coastal region, tsunami causes the extensive

damage to the life and property and natural resources along the coast. Occurrence

of Tsunami is an extremely rare phenomenon along the west coast of India

particularly near Gulf of Kachchh. The past history shows that the periodicity of

occurrence may vary from 300 to 500 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat

INDOMER



11. POSITIVE IMPACTS

Artificial reef effects: Wind energy foundations, including the boulders that often

encircle wind turbines for scour protection, are artificial reefs that may locally

enhance the biomass of a number of sessile and motile organisms. The onshore

project had no negative effects on the fish life and that boulder structures

functioned as artificial reefs, providing good breeding conditions with a wide

selection of food and shelter tidal currents. The boulder structuresattracts benthic

animals which usually prefer rocky soils, and as such the wind turbines provide

habitats for a range of new species.

The benthic biomass increase resulting from the construction of new foundations is

a positive impact of nearshore wind deployment. The results on environmental

studies undertaken other countries shows that the foundation structure of the wind

turbine are colonized by blue mussels, oysters etc. over a short period of time. First

‘reef’ species such as edible and velvet crabs have been observed on the fine sands

surrounding the installations.

Clean energy: Wind energy is one of the cleanest and most environmentally neutral

energy sources in the world today. Compared to conventional fossil fuel energy

sources, wind energy generation does not degrade the quality of air and water and

can make important contributions to reducing climate-change effects and meeting

national energy security goals. In addition, it avoids environmental effects from the

mining, drilling, and hazardous waste storage associated with using fossil fuels.

Wind energy offers many ecosystem benefits, especially as compared to other

forms of electricity production. As with all responsible industrial development,

wind power facilities need to adhere to high standards for environmental

protection. Wind energy generally enjoys broad public support, but siting wind

plants can raise concerns inlocal communities. Successful project developers

INDOMER



typically work closely with communities toaddress these concerns and avoid or

reduce risks to the extent possible.

No emission of gases: A primary benefit of using wind-generated electricity is that it

can play an important role introducing the levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted

into the atmosphere. Wind-generatedelectricity is produced without emitting CO2,

that is the major cause of global climate change. Thus, wind power has a negligible

effect on global mean surface temperature, and it would deliver "enormous global

benefits by reducing emissions of CO2 and air pollutants".

Locational advantage-A major advantage: The proposed development is planned

within the port premises on the periphery of the harbor installations. This will avoid

fresh acquisition of land and other associated land development issues and will

facilitate evolving a common integrated Environment Management Plan and Post

Monitoring system as elaborately discussed in the next chapter.

INDOMER



12. MITIGATION

In real terms, the installation of wind farms particularly on the shoreline beyond the

HTL does not need major mitigation measures either during the construction stage

or during the operation. The potential impacts during construction stage such as

noise, air pollution, change of ground conditions etc are purely temporary and need

not necessarily be a matter of serious concern, more so in a situation where the

wind farms are proposed to be sited in a port environment. In fact, the positive

impacts will outweigh the even the insignificant negative ones. It is the cleanest

energy source devoid of any adverse impacts arising out of noise, air pollution,

coastal processes such as accretion/erosion etc. It is becoming more and more

acceptable in view of aesthetics, tourism potential etc.

Since the wind form are proposed along the periphery of the port beyond the HTL-

which is already operating, acquisition of large land masses will not be a necessity.

Furthermore, the area around the proposed site is sparsely populated, with the

nearest residential property lying 1.5km from the wind farm areas.

Impact mitigation system in the Port

A well established system for monitoring all the vital parameters pertaining to both

terrestrial and marine environment is already functioning at the port. Baseline

status of the marine and terrestrial environment will be further updated just before

commencement of the construction activities and these are done exclusively for this

project.

In summary,

The port has well planned road and rail connectivity besides sea-which is the

main core facility. This will facilitate transportation of turbines, masts,

blades etc. without the need for exclusive transportation facility.

INDOMER



The entire development is planned within the port boundary for which CRZ

clearance is already available. Creation of wind farms within the port will

not therefore bring about adverse impact in terms of accretion or erosion

due to absence of breakwater or groynes.

In view of the above, land development or acquisition and resulting ground

preparation will not be necessary thereby doing away with the associated

impact such as need for degradation of soil, erosion, surface run-off etc.

Heavy duty cranes will be available with the port which can be hired and

there will be there no need for mobilizing such equipment passing through

inhabited areas.

The impact of bird/bat hit within the port area will be quite minimal and in

fact, this is not considered a serious setback for the installation of wind

farms.

The noise and air pollution are purely temporary and will be confined to only

to deep foundation and will remain below the ground level.

The question of aesthetics, tourism etc will not arise in view of the facilities

being proposed within the port premises.

Shadow flicker effect may not be felt inside the port as much as it is felt in

exposed onshore open areas.

It is possible to develop an integrated environment Management Plan

(EMP), and Environment Monitoring system without the need for an

exclusive system for the wind farms.

In case of fire accident due to failure of electrical system, the port’s fire

service will come to the rescue without delay.

INDOMER



13. MARINE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN

13.1. Introduction

Adani Group is venturing into solar power to empower with clean, green power that

is accessible and affordable for a faster and higher socio-economic development, it

ventures into another renewable energy source on wind energy. It has proposed to

construct 74 numbers of wind mills along the shoreline, behind HTL (High Tide Line)

along the coastal stretch of around 20 km.

Overall, the marine environment will remain free from any major adverse impact

and even in the likely event, the port’s environmental monitoring and mitigation

system will come into play to prevent any untoward incident. In view of the location

being well within the port premises, there will be no need for an exclusive EMP, and

monitoring system and if so necessary, it can be suitably strengthened by adding

additional wind farm-specific mitigation measures as appropriate.

Context and Scope

This Environmental Management Plan specific to this project should address the

environmental issues associated with potential effects to if any on tidal flats, marine

water quality, sediment quality, pelagic and benthic producer habitats and the

ecosystem integrity. The Environmental Management Plan has to be focused with

the guidelines on proper locations of the wind mill and the adjacent sea and the

spread of tidal flats.

INDOMER



Objectives

The MoEF objectives relevant to Marine Management Plan include:

To maintain or improve marine water and sediment quality in compliance with sediment and water quality guidelines documented.

To maintain the integrity, ecological functions and environmental values associated with marine environmentat nearshore.

To maintain the abundance, species diversity, geographic distribution and

productivity of marine flora and fauna.

To ensure that any impacts on locally significant marine communities are avoided, minimized and/or mitigated.

To ensure that appropriate consideration is given to cumulative impacts so

that the proposed activity does not cause considerable damage to the sustainability of the ecosystem.

To protect Specially Protected (Threatened) Fauna in accordance with the

provisions of the Wildlife Conservation Act.

To monitor the impact of the proposed activity on the productivity of the region.

13.2. Delineation of Impacts

The various impacts in any project development can be categorized as mitigable

and non-mitigable and it is essential to list the impacts accordingly. The proposed

activities in marine environment under this project will have impacts on: i)

seawater, ii) marine ecology, iii) land use and iv) community.

13.3. Identified Mitigation and compensation measures

The marine environment will remain free from any major adverse impact and it is

further protected with port’s environmental monitoring programme. The mitigation

INDOMER



measures can easily be applied from the Port’s facility. In view of the location being

well close to the port premises, there will be no need for an exclusive EMP and

dedicated monitoring system.

INDOMER



14. POST PROJECT MONITORING

The post project monitoring is an equally important aspect in Environmental

Management Plan. Although, the adverse impact due the present project on

erection of wind mill is negligible, the Environmental Management Plan can also be

organized in conjunction with the existing Adani Port EMP plan. The following

aspects can be taken care.

14.1. Marine water and sediment quality monitoring

Water and sediment samples may be collected at additional locations along the

stretch of 20 km wherein the forty seven wind mills are planned. The sea water

quality, seabed sediment quality, and biological parameters on benthic animals and

fisheries can be studied twine an year during monsoon and non-monsoon periods.

14.2. Habitat and ecosystem integrity

Habitat and ecosystem integrity can be ensured on a continual basis. This can be

monitored by periodical surveys by assessing the changes in the distribution of

coastal vegetation, seaweed/sea grass beds and rocky ecosystem, if any, in the

nearby areas.

14.3. Monitoring of Marine Benthic fauna

The benthic population and community structure in front of the wind mills can be

monitored periodically to assess any change. Special attention has to be paid to

monitor invasion of any non-indigenous marine species (NIMS) in the area. The

collected data have to be statistically analyzed so that the diversity indices can be

recorded. This will enable us to improve the management plans if required.

INDOMER



The results of monitoring can be reported to the relevant authority annually or as

required which could include:

Ministry of Environment and Forests, New Delhi

State Department of Environment

State Department of Fisheries

State Pollution Control Board

National Biodiversity Authority for NIMS

Monitoring program can be continued during the construction and operational

phases of the project. It may be repeated at twice an year after the commencement

of the project, when the project is fully operational. The monitoring has to be

organized with qualified and experienced environmental team. Wherever the

automation is possible it can be implemented. Standard procedure shall be

followed in sample collection and analysis.

Region to be monitored

The region of about 20 kmlong coastal stretch and the sea between the HTL and 1

km offshore can be planned for monitoring. The monitoring locations can be

planned in conjunction with the existing monitoring locations of the port and power

plant.

INDOMER



REFERENCES

i) Bay of Bengal Pilot, 1978, The Hydrographer of the Navy.

ii) Wyrtki, K, 1971, Oceanographic Atlas of The International Indian Ocean

Expedition, National Science Foundation, Washington, D.D.

iii) Rao, R.R., 1995, Atlas of Near-surface Thermohaline Fields of the tropical

Indian Ocean from Levitus Climatology, NPOL, Cochin.

iv) Chandramohan, et.al. 1990, Wave Atlas for the Indian Coast, NIO, Goa.

v) Shore Protection Manual, 1975, CERC, US Army, Washington, D.C.

vi) Website of Ministry of Environment and Forest - www.enfor.nic.in

vii) Website of Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board - www.appcb.gov.in

Biology & Chemistry

i) AbijithMitra, Kakoli Banerjee and AvijitGangopadhyay, 2004. Introduction to

Marine Plankton. Daya Publishing House, Delhi-110035.

ii) Altaff, K. 2004. A Manual of zooplankton. University Grant Commission, New

Delhi.

iii) Fernando, S Antony and Fernando, J. Oliva2002. A field guide to the common

invertebrates of the east coast of India, CAS in Marine Biology, Annamalai

University, Parangipettai.

iv) APHA, AWWA, and WEF, 2005. Standard methods for the examination of

water and wastewater, 21st ed. American Public Health Association,

Washington, D.C.

v) Bianchi, G., 1985. FAO species identification sheets for fishery purposes. Field

guide to the commercial marine and brackish-water species of Pakistan.

Prepared with the support of PAK/77/033 and FAO (FIRM) Regular

Programme. Rome, FAO, 200 p.

vi) Bougis, P, 1976. Marine Plankton Ecology. Elsevier, New York.

vii) Buchanan, R.E. and N.E. Gibbons, 1974. Bergery’s manual of determinative

bacteriology, (8th edition). The Williams and Wilkins Co., Baltimore, 1146 pp.

http://www.enfor.nic.in/

http://www.appcb.gov.in/

INDOMER



viii) Cupp and Ester Ellen, 1943. Marine plankton diatoms of the west coast of

North America.

ix) Day, J.H. 1967. A monograph on the polychaeta of southern Africa, Trustees

of the british museum (Natural history), London, Part 1. Errantia, pp: 1 – 458.

x) De Boyd and Smith, 1977. Marine Coastal Plankton and Marine Invertebrate

Larvae. Kendal and Hunt Publishing Company, lowa.

xi) Fred Pinn 1990. Sea snails of Pondicherry, Nehru Science Centre, Pondicherry.

xii) Gosner, K.L, 1971. Guide to indentification of Marine and Estuarine

invertebrates. John Wiley & Sons, New York.

xiii) Grasshoff, K., M. Ehrhardt, K. Kremling, 1999. Methods of Sea water analysis,

3rd edition, Verlagchemie, Weinheim, Germany.

xiv) Lyla, P.S. 1998. Brackishwater amphipods of Parangipettai coast, CAS in

Marine Biology, Annamalai University, Parangipettai.

xv) Naylor, E. 1972. British Marine Isopods. The Linnean Society of London,

London and New York, pp: 1 – 67.

xvi) Newell, G.E. and R.C Newell, 1973. Marine plankton, a Practical Guide.

Hutchinson Education Co. Ltd., London.

xvii) Parsons, T. R., Y. Maita, and C. M. Lalli. 1984. A manual of chemical and

biological methods for seawater analysis. Pergamon Press.

xviii) Pauly, D. and J.L. Munro, 1982. On the development and dissemination of new

methodologies for tropical stock assessment, p. 79-87 (Annex 3). In: Indo-

pacific fishery commission. Report of the third session of the standing

committee on resources research and development, Sydney, Australia, 18

April to 4 May 1982. FAO Fisheries Report No. 275.

xix) Ramaiyan, V., R. Senthilkumar and M. Rajasegar, 2002. Finfish resources of

Pichavaram Mangrove ecosystem.

xx) Raymont, J.E.G. 1983. Plankton and productivity in the Ocean. Vol.2.

Zooplankton, Pergamon Press, London.

INDOMER



xxi) Roger, J. Lincoln 1979. British marine amphipoda: Gammaridea, Trustees of

the british museum (Natural History), London, pp: 165 – 457.

xxii) Sparre, P., E. Ursin and S.C. Venema, 1989. Introduction to tropical fish stock

assessment. Part I. Manual. FAO Fish. Tech. Pap. 306, 337p.

xxiii) Strickland, J.D.H. and T.R. Parsons, 1972. A practical handbook of seawater

analysis. Bull. Fish. Res. Bd. Can., 167:310.

xxiv) Talwar, P.K. and R.K. Kacker 1984. Commercial sea fishes of India. Zoological

Survey of India, Calcutta. 997 p.

xxv) Wickstead, J.H. 1965. An introduction to the Study of Tropical Plankton.

Hutchinson and Co., London.

xxvi) Wimpenny, R.S. 1966. The plankton of the sea. Elsevier, New York.

INDOMER

Marine EIA study for shore based March 2016 Wind power project at Mundra, Gujarat.

Table 1 Measurement locations and details

Stn. No

UTM Coordinates (WGS 84)

Water depth (m)

Measurement depth from surface

(m) X (m) Y (m)

WATER SAMPLING

S1 557004 2518919 4.5 S, M, B

S2 557754 2520718 2.0 S, B

S3 559678 2522039 1.0 S

S4 565000 2521185 1.0 S

S5 568885 2519406 1.0 S

S6 553048 2518418 4.5 S, M, B

S7 555120 2515669 6.0 S, M, B

S8 564453 2515317 6.0 S, M, B

S9 564664 2512346 10.0 S, M, B

S10 574415 2513598 25.0 S, M, B

INTERTIDAL BENTHOS

IB1 559182 2517793 -

IB2 557709 2520475 -

IB3 559419 2522074 -

IB4 564727 2521297 -

IB5 568755 2519270 -

S = Surface, M = Mid depth, B = Bottom S2, S3, S4 and S5 middle and bottom water samples were not collected as water depth <3.0 m

Table 2 Monthwise distribution of wind speed and direction

Month Temp.

(Deg. C)

80 m 70 m 60 m

WS WPD WS WPD WS WPD

m/s W/m2 m/s W/m

2 m/s W/m

2

Sep - 2009 28.31 6.37 178 6.15 162 5.95 150

Oct - 2009 27.84 5.71 146 5.62 136 5.42 123

Nov- 2009 25.35 5.40 159 5.24 134 5.07 116

Dec - 2009 24.87 6.37 231 6.07 188 5.78 161

Jan - 2010 20.53 5.68 166 5.51 148 5.13 116

Feb - 2010 21.79 5.76 172 5.56 153 5.24 127

Mar -2010 26.48 6.49 214 6.27 197 5.95 172

Apr - 2010 29.35 7.00 238 6.74 218 6.53 203

May -2010 32.21 8.69 467 8.54 452 8.34 430

Jun - 2010 31.95 8.11 383 7.92 362 7.73 339

Jul - 2010 30.16 6.87 304 6.65 283 6.48 264

Aug - 2010 29.10 6.33 198 6.17 185 5.86 163

Average 27.33 6.56 238 6.37 218 6.12 197 Source: Mitcon 2014

INDOMER


Table 3 Tracks of cyclones passed near project region - 1877 to 1990

Month Occurred in the

vicinity Crossed in the

vicinity

January - -

February - -

March - -

April 2 -

May 3 -

June 7 -

July 2 -

August 1 -

September 2 -

October 4 -

November 2 -

December - -

TOTAL 23 -

Table 4 Variation of Deep water monthly wave characteristics off Mundra

Month Hs

(m) Tz

(s) θ

(deg.)

January 0.5 5 – 6 280

February 0.5 5 – 6 290

March 0.5 5 – 6 260 – 290

April 0.5 5 – 7 260 – 270

May 0.5 5 – 8 220 – 290

June 1.0 5 – 11 200 – 270

July 1.5 5 – 10 180 – 270

August 1.5 5 – 8 180 - 270

September 0.75 5 – 8 180 – 270

October 0.75 5 – 7 200 – 300

November 0.75 5 – 6 280 – 300

December 0.5 5 – 6 280 – 300

Hs = Significant wave height Tz = Zero crossing wave period

INDOMER


Table 5 Monthly distribution of salinity and sea surface temperature (Open sea)

Month Temperature

(oC)

Salinity (ppt)

January 24 35.5 – 36

February 24 - 25 36

March 25 – 26 36 – 36.5

April 26 – 27 36

May 28 36 – 36.5

June 29 36.5

July 28 36.5

August 27 – 28 36

September 27 – 28 35.5 - 36

October 27 – 28 36

November < 27 36 – 36.5

December 25 - 26 36

Table 6 Volume and direction of Littoral drift (Open sea)

Month Volume

(X105 m

3 / month)

January - 0.12

February - 0.25

March - 0.42

April - 0.72

May - 2.00

June - 3.36

July - 2.88

August - 2.88

September - 1.76

October + 0.32

November - 0.50

December - 0.05

(-) Transport towards east (+) Transport towards west

INDOMER


Table 7 Water quality parameters

S = Surface, M=Middle, B = Bottom

Station Temp.

(°C) Salinity

(ppt) DO

(mg/l) pH

NH3-N

(mol/l)

NO2-N

(mol/l)

NO3-N

(mol/l)

Total Nitrogen

(mol/l)

PO4-P

(mol/l)

Total Phosphorus

(mol/l)

Total suspended

solid (mg/l)

Turbidity (NTU)

S1

S 22.0 34.0 5.12 8.2 0.17 0.51 1.12 8.70 0.22 2.93 10 1.2

M 21.5 35.0 4.96 8.2 0.20 0.54 2.03 9.40 0.38 3.15 22 1.9

B 21.5 35.0 4.80 8.2 0.29 0.63 3.59 11.75 0.68 4.62 24 2.5

S2 S 22.0 34.0 5.12 8.1 0.17 0.54 1.34 9.82 0.43 4.55 28 2.6

B 21.5 35.0 4.96 8.2 0.26 0.65 2.03 11.12 0.81 5.05 38 3.4

S3 S 22.0 35.0 4.96 8.2 0.22 0.68 2.29 13.18 0.43 4.13 32 2.9

S4 S 21.5 35.0 5.28 8.2 0.17 0.68 2.03 12.68 0.50 3.66 30 2.7

S5 S 21.5 35.0 5.12 8.2 0.19 0.54 1.34 8.45 0.25 3.40 34 3.2

S6

S 22.0 34.0 5.28 8.1 0.18 0.57 2.55 8.58 0.47 3.92 34 3.6

M 21.5 34.0 5.12 8.1 0.23 0.60 3.24 10.40 0.58 4.10 36 4.0

B 21.0 35.0 5.12 8.2 0.32 0.68 3.59 10.94 0.65 4.81 46 4.3

S7

S 22.5 35.0 5.44 8.2 0.18 0.37 1.94 8.70 0.33 3.45 60 5.3

M 22.0 35.0 5.28 8.2 0.20 0.54 2.33 8.95 0.63 3.61 62 5.5

B 21.5 35.0 5.12 8.2 0.29 0.65 2.85 10.82 0.73 3.87 78 6.8

S8

S 22.0 34.0 5.12 8.1 0.16 0.51 1.21 8.45 0.63 3.50 64 5.8

M 22.0 35.0 4.96 8.2 0.34 0.65 1.51 9.02 0.70 3.63 72 6.4

B 21.5 35.0 4.80 8.3 0.38 0.68 1.73 10.44 0.71 4.08 78 6.9

S9

S 22.0 35.0 5.28 8.2 0.17 0.63 2.29 9.45 0.38 3.66 28 2.5

M 22.0 35.0 5.12 8.2 0.18 0.68 2.59 10.07 0.41 3.82 36 3.4

B 21.5 35.0 4.96 8.2 0.23 0.77 2.81 10.57 0.51 4.18 36 3.7

S 22.0 34.0 5.12 8.2 0.23 0.40 2.51 7.96 0.22 3.87 32 2.8

S10 M 21.5 34.0 4.80 8.2 0.34 0.57 3.20 9.82 0.27 4.34 52 4.8

B 21.5 35.0 4.64 8.2 0.36 0.68 3.54 10.19 0.54 4.45 84 7.5

INDOMER


Table 8 Dissolved oxygen saturation

Station Depth

(m) Temp (°C)

Salinity (ppt)

Observed DO (mg/l)

DO Saturation

(%)

Remarks

S1

S 0.5 22.0 34.0 5.12 81.7

Normal range M 2.5 21.5 35.0 4.96 79.2

B 4.5 21.5 35.0 4.80 76.6

S2 S 0.5 22.0 34.0 5.12 81.7

Normal range B 2.0 21.5 35.0 4.96 79.2

S3 S 0.5 22.0 35.0 4.96 79.2 Normal range

S4 S 0.5 21.5 35.0 5.28 84.3 Normal range

S5 S 0.5 21.5 35.0 5.12 81.7 Normal range

S6

S 0.5 22.0 34.0 5.28 84.3

Normal range M 2.0 21.5 34.0 5.12 81.7

B 4.5 21.0 35.0 5.12 81.7

S7

S 0.5 22.5 35.0 5.44 86.8

Normal range M 3.0 22.0 35.0 5.28 84.3

B 6.0 21.5 35.0 5.12 81.7

S8

S 0.5 22.0 34.0 5.12 81.7 Normal range

M 3.0 22.0 35.0 4.96 79.2

B 6.0 21.5 35.0 4.80 76.6

S9

S 0.5 22.0 35.0 5.28 84.3

Normal range M 5.0 22.0 35.0 5.12 81.7

B 10.0 21.5 35.0 4.96 79.2

S10

S 0.5 22.0 34.0 5.12 81.7

Normal range M 12.5 21.5 34.0 4.80 76.6

B 25 21.5 35.0 4.64 74.1 S = Surface, M=Middle, B=Bottom

Table 9 Comparisons of pH, salinity, DO and nutrient levels with COMAPS data along

West Coast of India

Sl. No.

Parameters

COMAPS DATA (2006-2009)

Hazira (Gujarat

Mar 2006)

Hazira (Gujarat

Aug 2009)

Hazira (Gujarat

Nov 2009)

CPCB

Standard

Present Study Status

1 pH 7.7 7.6 7.7 6.5-8.5† 8.1 - 8.3 (8.2)* Normal

2 Salinity (ppt) - 8.5 28.8 - 34.0 – 35.0 (34.7) Normal

3 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l)

2.9 6.1 4.6 4.0 4.64 – 5.44 (5.06) Normal

4 Nitrite (µmol/l) 13.6 2.0 1.8 - 0.37 – 0.77 (0.60) Normal

5 Nitrate (µmol/l) 21.3 26.0 22.2 - 1.12 – 3.59 (2.33) Normal

6 Ammonia (µmol/l) 14.3 3.1 2.6 - 0.16 – 0.38 (0.24) Normal

7 Phosphate (µmol/l) - 3.0 2.3 - 0.22 – 0.81 (0.50) Normal †

Range * Average COMAPS – Coastal ocean monitoring and prediction system

INDOMER


Table 10 Biochemical Oxygen Demand in seawater

Station Surface (mg/l)

Middle (mg/l)

Bottom (mg/l)

S1 2.72 2.56 2.40

S2 2.56 - 2.24

S3 2.40 - -

S4 2.88 - -

S5 3.04 - -

S6 3.36 3.04 2.88

S7 3.04 2.88 2.56

S8 2.88 2.56 2.40

S9 2.88 2.72 2.24

S10 2.40 2.24 1.92

Table 11 Chemical Oxygen Demand in seawater

Station Surface (mg/l)

Middle (mg/l)

Bottom (mg/l)

S1 33.5 34.8 36.7

S2 36.7 - 37.9

S3 41.1 - -

S4 37.3 - -

S5 40.4 - -

S6 32.9 32.2 33.5

S7 37.3 38.6 36.7

S8 29.7 31.0 32.9

S9 36.7 34.8 36.0

S10 32.2 32.9 34.1

Table 12 Concentration of Heavy Metals, Phenol and Petroleum Hydrocarbons in sea water

Stat

ion

Heavy metals (µg/l) Phenols

(µg/l)

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (µg/l)

Cad

miu

m a

s

Cd

Ch

rom

ium

as

Cr

Lead

as

Pb

Mer

cury

as

Hg

C6H

5OH

Inside the creek

S1 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <5.0 <0.01

S4 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <5.0 <0.01

S8 <0.5 0.55 <0.5 <0.5 <5.0 <0.01

S10 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <5.0 <0.01

INDOMER


Table 13 Sediment size distribution

Table 14 Seabed sediment quality parameters

Station Total Organic

Carbon (%)

Total Nitrogen (mg/g)

Total Phosphorus

(mg/g)

Calcium Carbonate

(%)

S1 0.94 0.64 0.14 5.52

S2 0.86 0.71 0.15 5.94

S3 1.33 0.79 0.22 6.92

S4 1.50 0.81 0.21 5.66

S5 1.07 0.88 0.25 8.20

S6 1.29 0.69 0.15 8.14

S7 0.99 0.79 0.22 4.04

S8 1.03 0.67 0.17 4.48

S9 0.90 0.74 0.17 7.98

S10 1.03 0.84 0.20 7.28

Table 15 Concentration of Heavy Metals, Phenol and Petroleum Hydrocarbons in seabed sediments

Stat

ion

Heavy metals (µg/l) Phenols

(µg/l)

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (µg /l)

Cad

miu

m a

s

Cd

Ch

rom

ium

as

Cr

Lead

as

Pb

Mer

cury

as

Hg

C6H

5O

H

Inside the creek

S1 39.31 19892.33 2692.13 315.26 <5.0 <0.01

S4 36.93 22651.66 2211.23 119.23 <5.0 <0.01

S8 23.70 9775.20 1788.52 105.72 <5.0 <0.01

S10 43.10 5142.23 744.23 36.9 <5.0 <0.01

Sample Classification of Soil

D50

mm

Co

arse

San

d %

Med

ium

San

d

%

Fin

e Sa

nd

%

Silt

&C

lay

%

S1 Fine sand 0.15 - 1.23 93.35 5.42

S2 Fine sand 0.16 1.33 3.30 89.18 6.19

S3 Silty clay 0.05 - 0.17 38.83 61.00

S4 Fine sand 0.18 9.88 11.26 73.87 4.99

S5 Silty clay 0.05 - 0.32 33.23 66.45

S6 Coarse sand with medium sand 0.45 39.72 32.92 22.79 4.56

S7 Fine sand 0.24 8.60 9.26 79.63 2.52

S8 Fine sand 0.17 - 1.38 93.37 5.25

S9 Fine sand 0.24 - 5.03 94.04 0.93

S10 Coarse sand with medium sand 0.47 38.57 34.13 27.14 0.16

INDOMER


Table 16 Primary productivity in coastal waters

Station Gross

Photosynthetic activity

Net Photosynthetic activity

Photosynthetic quotient

(PQ)

Primary production mgC/m

3/day

S1 1.60 0.64 1.0 480

S2 1.60 0.48 1.0 360

S3 1.28 0.32 1.0 240

S4 1.60 0.48 1.0 360

S5 1.44 0.32 1.0 240

S6 1.76 0.48 1.0 360

S7 1.76 0.64 1.0 480

S8 1.92 0.80 1.0 600

S9 1.44 0.64 1.0 480

S10 1.28 0.80 1.0 600

Average 420

Table 17 Comparative Statement of Primary Production along the West Coast of India

SL. No Location Date Average PP

mgC/m3/day

1 Aquada bay (Goa) (15

028’16”N 73

045’24”E)

13.04.2012 468

2 Chhara (Gujarat) (20

043’16”N 70

045’10”E)

23.02.2010 498

3 Binani (Gujarat) (20

047’32”N 70

034’23”E)

11.05.2011 480

4 Mithivridi (Gujarat) (21

0 28’02”N 72

014’16”E)

06.12.2011 300

5 Bhavnagar (Gujarat) (21

0 49’12”N 72

007’38”E)

21.05.2013 336

6 Mundra (Gujarat) (22

046’36”N 69

033’19”E)

30.01.2014 420

7 Bhadreswar (Gujarat) (22

051’12”N 69

053’12”E)

05.05.2009 493

8 Cargo (Gujarat) (23

012’22”N 70

043’37”E)

02.05.2011 336

INDOMER


Table 18 Station wise Composition of Phytoplankton*

Sl. No.

Species Creek Open sea

S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10

1 Chaetoceres affinis + + - + - + + - + +

2 C. coarctatus - - - - - + - + - -

3 Coscinodiscus marginatus + + + + + + + + + +

4 C. excentricus + + + + + + + + + +

5 C. concinnus - - - - + - + - + -

6 Cyclotella sp. - + - - - + - - + +

7 Dityum brightwelli + + + - + - + + - +

8 Leptocylindrus danicus - + - - - - + - + -

9 Melosira sp. + - - + - + + + + +

10 Odontella mobiliensis + + + + + + + + + +

11 O. pulchella + + + - - + + + + -

12 O. sinensis + + - + + - + - + +

13 Planktoniella sol + - - + - + - + - -

14 Rhizosolenia castracanei - - - - - + - - + -

15 R. styliformis - - - - - - - - - +

16 Thalassiosira subtilis + + + + + + + + + +

17 Triceratium sp. + - - - + + - - + +

Centrales 11 10 6 8 8 12 11 9 13 11

18 Amphora sp. + + + - + + + - + +

19 Bacillaria paradoxa + + + + + + + + + +

20 Climacosphenia sp. + - - - - + + - + -

21 Diploneis sp. + - - - - + - + - +

22 Fragilaria sp. + + + - + + + + + +

23 Grammatophora sp. - - - - - - + - + -

24 Gyrosigma sp. + - - + + + - + - +

25 Mastogloia sp. - - + + - - + - + -

26 Navicula sp. + + + - - + - + + +

27 Nitzschia sp. - + + + - + - + + -

28 Pleurosigma aestuarii + + + - - - - - - -

29 P. elongatum - - - - + + - + + +

30 P. directum + + + - - + + - - +

31 P. normanii - + - - + + + + + -

32 Surirella sp. + + - - - + + - - +

33 Synedra sp. + - - - - - + - - -

34 Thalassionema nitzschiodes + + - + + + + + + +

35 Thallassiothrix frauenfeldii + + + + + + + + + +

36 T.longissima + - - - - + + + + +

Pennales 14 11 9 6 8 15 13 11 13 12

37 Trichodesmium erythraeum + - + + - + - + + -

Cyanophyceans 1 - 1 1 - 1 - 1 1 -

38 Pediastrum sp. - - - - - - - + + -

Chlorophyceans - - - - - - - 1 1 -

39 C. furca + + + - - - + + + +

40 Protoperidinum sp. + - + + + + + + - +

41 Pronocentrum micans - + - - - + + + - -

Dinophyceae 2 2 2 1 1 2 3 3 1 2

Total 28 23 18 16 17 30 27 25 29 25 *Samples collected using standard plankton nets

INDOMER


Table 19 Station wise numerical abundance of Phytoplankton (nos/l)

Sl. No.

Species Creek Open sea

Total % S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10

1 Chaetoceres affinis 33 - - 33 - 67 33 - 100 33 299 1.30

2 Coscinodiscus marginatus 100 133 67 100 67 167 233 200 167 100 1334 5.78

3 C. excentricus 167 33 33 - 33 133 67 133 100 67 766 3.32

4 C. concinnus - - - - - - 33 - 33 - 66 0.29

5 Cyclotella sp. - 33 - - - 67 - - 33 - 133 0.58

6 Dityum brightwelli 67 33 33 - 33 - 100 67 - 133 466 2.02

7 Leptocylindrus danicus - 67 - - - - 33 - 67 - 167 0.72

8 Melosira sp. - - - 33 - 67 33 100 - 67 300 1.30

9 Odontella mobiliensis 367 167 100 67 133 333 267 433 367 567 2801 12.15

10 O. pulchella - - 33 - - 100 133 67 100 - 433 1.88

11 O. sinensis 33 67 - 33 - - 67 - 33 - 233 1.01

12 Planktoniella sol - - - - - 67 - 100 - - 167 0.72

13 Rhizosolenia castracanei - - - - - 33 - - 33 - 66 0.29

14 Thalassiosira subtilis 300 167 133 233 133 467 400 567 467 400 3267 14.17

15 Triceratium sp. 33 - - - 67 33 - - 33 67 233 1.01

Centrales 1100 700 399 499 466 1534 1399 1667 1533 1434 10731 46.53

16 Amphora sp. 67 33 33 - 33 100 167 - 233 100 766 3.32

17 Bacillaria paradoxa 133 67 100 67 - 200 167 367 200 167 1468 6.37

18 Climacosphenia sp. - - - - - - 33 - 67 - 100 0.43

19 Diploneis sp. - - - - - 33 - 67 - 33 133 0.58

20 Fragilaria sp. 100 67 33 - 33 133 200 233 100 167 1066 4.62

21 Gyrosigma sp. - - - 33 - 33 - 67 - 33 166 0.72

22 Mastogloia sp. - - - - - - 67 - 33 - 100 0.43

23 Navicula sp. 67 100 33 - - 67 - 133 167 67 634 2.75

24 Nitzschia sp. - - 33 - - 33 - - 33 - 99 0.43

25 Pleurosigma aestuarii 67 33 - - - - - - - - 100 0.43

26 P. elongatum - - - - - - - 33 67 - 100 0.43

INDOMER


27 P. directum 33 - - - - 67 67 - - 33 200 0.87

28 P. normanii - 33 - - 67 33 100 33 167 - 433 1.88

29 Surirella sp. 100 - - - - - 33 - - 33 166 0.72

30 Thalassionema nitzschiodes 33 33 - 67 33 67 133 33 67 100 566 2.45

31 Thallassiothrix frauenfeldii 600 267 167 200 100 533 600 767 633 467 4334 18.79

32 T.longissima 133 - - - - 33 67 100 33 67 433 1.88

Pennales 1333 633 399 367 266 1332 1634 1833 1800 1267 10864 47.11

33 Trichodesmium erythraeum 33 - 33 - - - - 67 100 - 233 1.01

Cyanophyceans 33 - 33 - - - - 67 100 - 233 1.01

34 Pediastrum sp. - - - - - - - 33 67 - 100 0.43

Chlorophyceans - - - - - - - 33 67 - 100 0.43

35 Ceratium furca 67 33 67 - - - 100 100 133 67 567 2.46

36 Protoperidinum sp. 33 - - 67 33 67 33 67 - 100 400 1.73

37 Pronocentrum micans - 33 - - - 33 67 33 - - 166 0.72

Dinophyceae 100 66 67 67 33 100 200 200 133 167 1133 4.91

Total 2566 1399 898 933 765 2966 3233 3801 3634 2868 23061 100.00

INDOMER


Table 20 Phytoplankton biomass and population in different sampling stations

Station No of genera or

species Population

(nos/l) Biomass

(ml/100 m3)

S1 21 2566 9.25

S2 18 1399 6.91

S3 14 898 7.13

S4 11 933 6.77

S5 12 765 6.85

S6 25 2966 11.29

S7 25 3233 10.86

S8 23 3800 11.09

S9 27 3633 8.98

S10 21 2868 10.70

INDOMER


Table 21 Station wise numerical abundance of Zooplankton (nos. /100 m3)

Sl. No.

Genus/ Species Stn.1 Stn.2 Stn.3 Stn.4 Stn.5 Stn.6 Stn.7 Stn.8 Stn.9 Stn.10

Nos. % Nos. % Nos. % Nos. % Nos. % Nos. % Nos. % Nos. % Nos. % Nos. %

PHYLUM: PROTOZOA

Order: Tintinnids (Ciliate groups)

1 Tintinnopsis sp. 615 1.79 420 5.08 234 3.92 391 6.15 338 4.00 587 1.36 711 1.48 705 2.58 1036 3.35 638 1.79

2 Favella sp. 369 1.07 280 3.39 467 7.84 293 4.62 226 2.67 440 1.02 427 0.89 352 1.29 - - 319 0.90

3 Dictyocysta sp. 492 1.43 560 6.78 - - - - - - 880 2.04 284 0.59 235 0.86 388 1.26 531 1.49

4 Eutintinnus tenuis 123 0.36 140 1.69 351 5.88 - - - - - - 142 0.30 470 1.72 - - - -

PHYLUM: CHAETOGNATHA

5 Sagitta sp. 246 0.71 280 3.39 234 3.92 195 3.08 451 5.33 587 1.36 711 1.48 1527 5.58 1683 5.44 956 2.69

PHYLUM: ANNELIDA

Class: Polychaeta

6 Polychaete larvae 861 2.50 420 5.08 351 5.88 489 7.69 564 6.67 1908 4.42 2701 5.64 705 2.58 1813 5.86 319 0.90

PHYLUM: MOLLUSCA

7 Bivalve veliger larvae

738 2.14 280 3.39 584 9.80 293 4.62 226 2.67 880 2.04 427 0.89 587 2.15 777 2.51 425 1.19

8 Gastropods veliger larvae

369 1.07 140 1.69 234 3.92 98 1.54 451 5.33 440 1.02 142 0.30 235 0.86 518 1.67 213 0.60

9 Molluscan eggs 246 0.71 - - - - 98 1.54 - - - - - - - - - - - -

PHYLUM: ATHROPODA

Class: Crustacea

Order: Copepoda

Sub- order: Calanoida

10 Acartia erythraea 984 2.86 560 6.78 351 5.88 586 9.23 564 6.67 1321 3.06 1137 2.37 822 3.00 647 2.09 1488 4.18

11 Acrocalanus sp. 492 1.43 280 3.39 - - 195 3.08 226 2.67 293 0.68 427 0.89 - - 259 0.84 744 2.09

12 Eucalanus attenuatus

3320 9.64 420 5.08 467 7.84 391 6.15 451 5.33 4842 11.22 6256 13.06 1292 4.72 4143 13.39 1806 5.07

13 Labidocera acuta - - 140 1.69 117 1.96 - - 338 4.00 1761 4.08 1706 3.56 - - 259 0.84 956 2.69

14 Paracalanus parvus 7746 22.50 1540 18.64 935 15.69 1075 16.92 1918 22.67 8657 20.07 8673 18.10 3758 13.73 3755 12.13 1806 5.07

15 Pontella sp. - - - - - - - - - - - - 284 0.59 - - - - - -

Contd…

INDOMER


16 Pseudocalanus elongatus

615 1.79 - - - - 98 1.54 - - - - 711 1.48 235 0.86 647 2.09 319 0.90

17 Temora tubinata 615 1.79 - - - - - - - - 440 1.02 427 0.89 352 1.29 259 0.84 213 0.60

18 Undinula vulgaris - - - - - - 195 3.08 - - - - - - 470 1.72 - - - -

19 Copepod nauplii 4180 12.14 420 5.08 351 5.88 489 7.69 564 6.67 3522 8.16 5972 12.46 1644 6.01 777 2.51 4038 11.34

Sub- order: Cyclopoida

20 Corycaeus danae 123 0.36 280 3.39 - - - - - - - - 142 0.30 705 2.58

425 1.19

21 Corycaeus catus 492 1.43 700 8.47 584 9.80 293 4.62 338 4.00 1174 2.72 569 1.19 1292 4.72 906 2.93 2869 8.06

22 Oithona brevicornis

984 2.86 140 1.69 117 1.96 - - 226 2.67 587 1.36 1280 2.67 939 3.43 1036 3.35 850 2.39

23 Oithona spinirostris

- - - - - - - - - - 147 0.34 - - 235 0.86

- -

24 Oncaea venusta 246 0.71 - - - - - - - - 293 0.68 569 1.19 - - 388 1.26 106 0.30

Sub- order: Harpacticoida

25 Euterpina sp. 5287 15.36 560 6.78 351 5.88 489 7.69 790 9.33 5576 12.93 6682 13.95 2936 10.73 2201 7.11 8713 24.48

26 Macrosetella sp. - - 140 1.69 - - - - - - 147 0.34 - - - - - - - -

Other Crustaceans

27 Brachyuran zoea 3934 11.43 280 3.39 117 1.96 293 4.62 338 4.00 7190 16.67 4834 10.09 6811 24.89 8287 26.78 6482 18.21

28 Crustacean nauplii

861 2.50 140 1.69 - - 195 3.08 226 2.67 293 0.68 1137 2.37 - - 518 1.67 425 1.19

29 Mysid larvae 123 0.36 - - - - 98 1.54 - - 293 0.68 284 0.59 352 1.29 259 0.84 638 1.79

PHYLUM: CHORDATA

30 Oikopleura sp. 246 0.71 - - - - - - 113 1.33 440 1.02 569 1.19 470 1.72 - - 213 0.60

31 Fish eggs 123 0.36 140 1.69 117 1.96 98 1.54 113 1.33 293 0.68 427 0.89 235 0.86 259 0.84 106 0.30

32 Fish larvae - - - - - - - - - - 147 0.34 284 0.59 - - 129 0.42 - -

Total 34430 100 8260 100 5962 100 6352 100 8461 100 43138 100 47915 100 27364 100 30944 100 35598 100

INDOMER


Table 22 Zooplankton biomass in different sampling stations

Sl. No.

No of genera or species

Population (nos/100 m

3)

Biomass (ml/100 m

3)

Most common species Percentage

(%)

S1 26 34430 19.7

Paracalanus parvus 29.07

Euterpina sp. 15.36

Copepod nauplii 12.14

Brachyuran zoea 11.43

Eucalanus attenuatus 9.64

S2 22 8260 11.2


Corycaeus catus 8.47

Euterpina sp. 6.78

Acartia erythraea 6.78

Dictyocysta sp. 6.78

S3 17 5962 10.5


Bivalve veliger larvae 9.80



Favella sp. 7.84

S4 20 6352 9.8



Euterpina sp. 7.69


Polychaete larvae 7.69

S5 19 8461 11.3


Euterpina sp. 9.33




Contd…

INDOMER


S6 26 43138 20.5



Euterpina sp. 12.93



S7 28 47915 24.2


Euterpina sp. 13.95




S8 24 27364 18.8



Euterpina sp. 10.73


Sagitta sp. 5.58

S9 23 30944 22.0



Euterpina sp. 7.11


Sagitta sp. 5.44

S10 25 35598 17.0

Euterpina sp. 24.48





INDOMER


Table 23 Sub tidal and Inter tidal benthic population

Sl. No.

Groups

Subtidal benthos (nos./m2)

Intertidal benthos (nos./m2)

Creek Open sea

S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 IB1 IB2 IB3 IB4 IB5

Phylum: Cnidaria Class: Anthozoa

1 Pennatulacea sp. 10 - - - - 10 - - - - - - - - -

Phylum: ANNELIDA Class: Polychaeta

2 Polychaetes 60 40 30 40 50 40 40 60 40 30 45 30 30 15 30

Phylum: NEMATODA Class: Nematoida

3 Nematodes 20 - 20 10 - 10 10 - 10 20 15 - - 30 -

Phylum: ARTHROPODA Class: Crustacea

4 Amphipods 20 20 - 10 10 30 20 - 10 10 - 30 - 30 15

Class: Malacostraca

5 Crab - - - 10 50 - - - - - - - - - -

Phylum: MOLLUSCA Class: Gastropoda

6 Family: Strombidae Strombus sp.

- - 10 - 10 - - - - - 15 - - - -

7 Family: Nassaridae Bullia sp.

- - 20 - 10 - - - - - - - - - -

8 Nassarius sp. - - - - - - 10 10 - 20 - - - - -

9 Family: Potamididae Terebralia sp.

10 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

10 Family: Bursidae Bursa sp.

- - - - - 10 - 20 10 20 - - - - -

11 Family: Muricidae Murex virgineus

- - - - - - - - - 20 - - - - -

12 Family: Trochidae Umbonium sp.

- - - - - - - - - - 15 - 15 - -

Class: Bivalvia

13 Family: Donacidae Donax sp.

- 20 10 - - - - - - - - - - - -

Total 120 80 90 70 130 100 80 90 70 120 90 60 45 75 45

INDOMER


Table 24 Bacterial population in coastal waters (nos. x 10

3/ml)

Media Type of Bacteria

Stations

Creek Open sea

S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10

Nut Agar TVC 5.10 5.42 5.55 5.76 5.51 5.18 5.40 5.32 5.28 5.37

Mac Agar TC 0.65 0.69 0.54 0.73 0.42 0.59 0.56 0.62 0.55 0.53

Mac Agar ECLO 0.33 0.49 0.38 0.41 0.32 0.25 0.20 0.29 0.20 0.31

XLD Agar SHLO 0.17 0.10 0.11 0.18 0.10 0.07 0.15 0.12 0.08 0.09

XLD Agar PKLO - - - - - - - - - -

TCBS Agar VLO 0.45 0.46 0.58 0.33 0.40 0.39 0.56 0.30 0.38 0.35

TCBS Agar VPLO 0.19 0.15 0.20 0.19 0.13 0.14 0.20 0.10 0.10 0.13

TCBS Agar VCLO 0.08 0.05 0.04 0.07 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.01

CET Agar PALO - - - - - - - - - -

- Not Detectable

TVC -Total Viable Counts; TC- Total Coliforms; ECLO-Escherichia coli like organisms; SHLO-Shigella like organisms; SLO-Salmonella like organisms; PKLO-Proteus klebsiella; VLO-Vibrio like organisms; VPLO- Vibrio parahaemolyticus like organisms; VCLO-Vibrio cholera like organisms; PALO- Pseudomonas aerugenosa like organism.

INDOMER


Table 25 Bacterial population in seabed sediments (x104

nos./g)

Media Type of Bacteria

Stations

Creek Open sea

S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10

Nut Agar TVC 5.52 5.56 5.48 5.68 5.82 5.40 5.45 5.52 5.58 5.36

Mac Agar TC 0.75 0.79 0.71 0.55 0.67 0.70 0.60 0.73 0.59 0.65

Mac Agar ECLO 0.43 0.40 0.35 0.39 0.44 0.35 0.45 0.47 0.30 0.34

XLD Agar SHLO 0.15 0.10 0.09 0.16 0.11 0.12 0.08 0.20 0.17 0.08

XLD Agar PKLO - - - - - - - - - -

TCBS Agar VLO 0.57 0.68 0.58 0.45 0.55 0.43 0.52 0.47 0.60 0.51

TCBS Agar VPLO 0.35 0.26 0.34 0.20 0.26 0.20 0.24 0.30 0.18 0.25

TCBS Agar VCLO 0.05 0.10 0.08 0.07 0.11 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.04

CET Agar PALO - - - - - - - - - -

- Not Detectable

TVC -Total Viable Counts; TC- Total Coliforms; ECLO-Escherichia coli like organisms; SHLO-Shigella like organisms; SLO-Salmonella like organisms; PKLO-Proteus klebsiella; VLO-Vibrio like organisms; VPLO- Vibrio parahaemolyticus like organisms; VCLO-Vibrio cholera like organisms; PALO- Pseudomonas aerugenosa like organism.

INDOMER


Table 26 Marine fish production from Gujarat coast (MT)

Sl. No.

Species 2008-09* 2009-10* 2010-11* 2011-12*

1 White Pomfret 20662 14097 10080 6687

2 Black Pomfret 4129 3239 2218 2255

3 Bombay duck 148659 100427 70455 88974

4 Thread fin 5564 5194 5727 4216

5 Jew fish 14196 10276 9819 7906

6 Hilsa 1600 3104 9355 3817

7 Clupeids 19094 16333 10254 12069

8 Coilia 9836 10234 14299 10564

9 Shark 12943 17580 13500 11576

10 Mullet 5526 4915 4966 6599

11 Cat fish 45094 41668 29889 31263

12 Eel 5562 4815 2967 4456

13 Leather jacket 6495 6558 4997 3068

14 Seer fish 10574 13124 10365 12126

15 Indian Salmon 674 2624 5432 1947

16 Ribbon fish 29231 31288 60344 59407

17 Silver Bar 6928 5894 6062 6637

18 Tuna 9487 5066 4772 5967

19 Ranifish 21918 13591 14655 11049

20 Sole 7887 9518 4582 6589

21 Perch 15914 20097 18932 16292

22 Carangids/Mackerel 8341 10389 9794 9016

23 Small Sciaenids 148699 158686 166146 169836

24 Shrimp 29111 34820 33214 38716

25 Prawns (Medium) 8771 13865 12871 7944

26 Prawns (Jumbo) 720 951 1917 1732

27 Lobster 527 379 952 709

28 Crab 2435 2433 3326 7949

29 Leva/Mudskiper 1868 2388 1761 2430

30 Squid/Cuttle fish 18016 22875 35598 30609

31 Miscellaneous 63394 101017 109681 110083

Total 683855 687445 688930 692488 (*Data source from Department of Fisheries in Gujarat)

INDOMER


Table 27 District-wise marine fish production in Gujarat coast during 2009-12 in MT

Sl. No

Districts 2009-10* 2010-11* 2011-12*

1 Valsad 81354 87497 87594

2 Navsari 11345 19428 20159

3 Surat 4488 2525 3208

4 Bharuch 6078 5804 6405

5 Anand 487 314 456

6 Rajkot 1040 1072 955

7 Kachchh 60405 72977 72897

8 Jamnagar 88293 67530 67146

9 Amreli 101906 60711 60576

10 Junagadh 265049 280229 280897

11 Porbandar 63411 88610 89555

12 Bhavnagar 3589 2233 2640

(*Data source from Department of Fisheries in Gujarat)

Table 28 Type and number of Craft operation in Gujarat coast

Sl. No

Year Trawler Gillneter FRP

Boats Wooden

canoes OBM Others

Dollneter Total Non-

Mechanized Total

1 2006-07 7189 2316 8650 56 2148 11011 31370

2 2007-08 7438 2352 9548 56 2175 10917 32486

3 2008-09 7434 2049 10381 59 2450 12109 34482

4 2009-10 7409 2053 10572 83 2447 12141 34705

5 2010-11 7419 2067 10999 83 2418 12164 35150

6 2011-12 7470 2109 11857 83 2408 12163 36090

(Data source from Department of Fisheries in Gujarat)

INDOMER


Table 29 Marine fish production from Kachchh district (MT)

Sl. No

Species 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13

1 White Pomfret 2802 970 1277

2 Black Pomfret 87 32 1103

3 Bombay duck 4879 4310 6836

4 Thread fin fish 616 409 205

5 Jaw fish 1327 1138 435

6 Hilsa 112 178 9

7 Clupeids 2516 3886 2115

8 Coilia 2969 2935 1935

9 Shark 3541 2226 731

10 Mullet 1623 1314 724

11 Cat fish 1902 1994 1627

12 Eel 109 120 153

13 Leather jacket 72 79 1

14 Seer fish 238 328 211

15 Indian Salmon 97 122 73

16 Ribbon fish 3841 3530 801

17 Silver Bar 1023 1161 701

18 Sole 503 885 7093

19 Perch 373 722 2100

20 Small Sciaenids 8177 10279 15243

21 Shrimp 10325 5704 6926

22 Prawns (Juvenile) 1854 1507 1497

23 Prawns (Adult) 543 549 246

24 Lobster 190 226 195

25 Crab 278 334 436

26 Squid/Cuttle fish 42 48 175

27 Miscellaneous 22938 27911 19933

Total 72977 72897 72781 (*Data source from Department of Fisheries in Gujarat)

INDOMER

Marine EIA study for shore based March 2016

Wind power project at Mundra, Gujarat.

Table 30 Centre wise marine fish production in Kachchh district during 2012-13 (In kg)

Sl. No

Species Narayan Sarovar

Jakhau Nanalayja Salaya Modhwa Tragdi Navinal Zarpara Mundra Shekhadiya Luni Bhadresvar Sanghadvira Kandala Kukadsar

1 White Pomfret 1860 827163 11610 - 67560 41727 20651 13543 52340 - 89541 100783 3581 32604 14415

2 Black Pomfret - 545039 - - - - - - 558173 - - - - - -

3 Bombay duck 40920 3666186 - - 205201 305892 39422 85149 326039 - 519283 411425 131883 1111228 -

4 Thread fin fish 60928 144368 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

5 Jaw fish 14112 417656 - - - - - - 2712 - - - - 643 -

6 Hilsa - 9280 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

7 Clupeids 20640 1446103 4135 104728 46919 76844 3151 10800 59822 3545 96054 100987 14469 121569 5446

8 Coilia - 788245 - -- 53605 177731 16625 46495 217846 - 306989 270749 45658 10800 -

9 Shark 27978 627639 - 11833 4831 24677 217 1856 5499 - 5561 4952 2220 13010 961

10 Mullet 31698 572635 8060 54825 14722 5570 - - 6232 - 19081 7985 - - 2883

11 Cat fish 6330 1178749 7000 131605 17303 29077 2195 4770 31164 3198 54657 118894 4709 37319 -

12 Eel - 153328 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

13 Leather jacket - 870 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

14 Sear fish 3126 187720 - 1798 2040 280 - - 543 - 7275 3978 - 3965 -

15 Indian Salmon - 2900 -

- - - - - 527 - - 69280 -

16 Ribbon fish - 485932 2190 11356 13512 42819 3124 10360 68029 - 70514 74589 8631 8525 1602

17 Silver Bar 39098 341589 - 172443 9285 3350 140 589 3836 - 16711 109542 2071 - 1922

20 Sole - 7092893 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

21 Perch 118110 1842496 930 3041 - - - - 543 - 39991 32712 - 62440 -

23 Small Sciaenids 4282 14502287 - 104156 120987 105610 9296 20254 84544 1842 180870 93023 10804 - 4805

24 Shrimp 11718 6061843 - 15845 59083 114130 12580 46680 192130 20076 157203 118960 45729 69555 -

25 Prawns (Juvenile) 3348 1341826 - - 7393 32106 - 6302 41236 - 15497 32483 4858 10322 -

26 Prawns (Adult) 1302 244597 - - - - 1426 - - - - - - 558 -

27 Lobster 4060 50289 3188 127779 2459 1080 - - 2116 - - - - 3900 -

28 Crab - 382269 - 5790 441 7116 - - 6878 - 500 7661 - 25174 -

30 Squid/Cuttle fish - 174784 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

31 Miscellaneous 46022 17257069 1275 46070 170243 119443 9411 17763 225696 2363 164865 114645 10109 534753 1213523

Total 435532 60345755 38388 791269 795584 1087452 118238 264561 1885378 31024 1745119 1603368 284722 2115645 1245557 (*Data source from Department of Fisheries in Gujarat)

INDOMER


Table 31 Fisherfolk population from Gujarat coast (As per census, 2007)

Sl. No

District Fisherman population Marine

Male Female Active Total

1 Jamnagar 21181 20160 11176 40900

2 Rajkot 5247 4852 381 870

3 S. Nagar 7013 6238 0 0

4 Bhavanagar 5042 4592 2872 6862

5 Amreli 13726 13997 19021 27158

6 Junagadh 46665 45363 39955 88274

7 Porbandar 17116 15809 7586 32639

8 Kachchh 11257 10385 7581 20282

9 Banaskanth 1843 1556 0 0

10 Shabarkanth 6388 5695 0 0

11 Mehsana 283 263 0 0

12 Patan 465 434 0 0

13 GandhiNagar 109 101 0 0

14 Ahmedabad 12473 10924 2124 9642

15 Anand 4418 4095 461 1694

16 Kheda 1639 1416 0 0

17 Panchmahal 9228 8570 0 0

18 Dahod 3760 3426 0 0

19 Vadodara 7523 6733 0 0

20 Bharuch 14045 12595 3601 6419

21 Narmada 4321 4022 0 0

22 Surat 15110 13885 5491 11863

23 Tapi 24977 23531 0 0

24 Valsad 35378 33090 26652 55851

25 Navsari 19254 17912 13426 25252

26 Dang 297 289 0 0


Table 32 Type and number of Craft operation in Kachchh district during 2012

Trawler Gillneter FRP IBM FRP OBM Wooden OBM Total Non-Mechanized Total

12 231 931 2 25 163 2781


270º

POLAR CHART OF CURRENTS

29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37

DATE

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

CURRENT SPEED (m/s)

0

90

180

270

360

CURRENT DIRECTION (deg.N)

February 2014January 2014

FIG. 3. VARIATION OF CURRENT SPEED AND DIRECTION & POLAR CHART OFF MUNDRA

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

0º

90º

180º

m/s

Mundra

1 2 3 4 5 6

Mundra X: 561863 m ; Y: 2514183 m Water depth = 10 m Measurement depth = 2 m From Surface

-3.0

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0TIDAL ELEVATION w.r.t MSL (m)

FIG . 4. VARIATION OF TIDAL ELEVATION AT MUNDRA PORT

JANUARY 2014 FEBRUARY 2014DATE

22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

PREDICTED TIDE

MARINE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT STUDY FOR … · marine environmental impact assessment...

Documents

Transcript of MARINE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT STUDY FOR … · marine environmental impact assessment...